broadcast

Subscribe to broadcast via RSS

The FCC this week released the full text of its decision on the revision of the multiple ownership rules that it adopted at its December 18 meeting.  While the text goes into great detail on the decision to relax the newspaper-television cross ownership restrictions (causing the ruling to be condemned by consolidation critics), the order is very brief in addressing the numerous other issues with the multiple ownership rules that were raised in this proceeding.  Television broadcasters sought greater opportunities to consolidate in local markets, and radio broadcasters requested reconsideration or clarification of various aspects of the Commission’s 2003 decision adopting Arbitron market definitions as the basis of the determining how many radio stations are in a particular market.  These requests were all rejected, some summarily.  Will these parties who were denied relief from the FCC protest as loudly as the critics of the decision with respect to the relaxation of the TV-newspaper cross ownership limits?

We summarized the decision with respect to the newspaper television rules here.  That summary was based on the statements made at the December 18 meeting and on the press release issued that day which provided a brief summary of the Commission’s decision.  The outline we provided in December was basically accurate, and there were few surprises about the newspaper-television cross ownership rules in the text.  The Commission was very thorough in documenting the basis for its decision that newspapers and television stations could be commonly controlled without adversely affecting the public interest, citing a legion of studies supporting their decision, while carefully refuting the studies supplied by consolidation critics.  However, the remainder of the decision, dealing with other aspects of the multiple ownership rules which the Commission refused to change, contained reasoning which was far more limited.  In some cases, particularly dealing with radio issues, the reasoning was almost absent.Continue Reading FCC Issues Text of Its Multiple Ownership Decision – New Combinations for Newspapers and TV, No Ownership Changes for Radio

We recently wrote about the Notice of Apparent Liability for violation of the FCC’s indecency rules that was issued last week by the Federal Communications Commission, proposing to fine 52 ABC network affiliates $27,500 each.  This $1.4 million fine was suggested by the FCC for alleged violations which occurred almost 5 years ago in a broadcast of the…

Last week, the FCC approved the long-pending application for the transfer of control of Clear Channel Broadcasting from its public shareholder to several private equity funds. Even though the application had been pending at the FCC for over a year, the Commission’s decision was notable for the paucity of issues that were discussed. The decision approves the transfer, conditioned on certain divestitures by the Company and by the equity funds that will control the new company, including divestitures previously ordered by the Commission in connection with the investment of one of these funds in Univision Broadcasting but not yet completed, and rejects three petitions that, from the Commission’s description, did not involve fundamental issues about the nature of the overall transaction, but were instead devoted to certain limited issues, in two cases involving actions in a single market. The divestiture conditions were approved seemingly as a matter of course, and do not provide any new insights into the law concerning the FCC’s attribution rules (unlike the recent decision approving the transfer of control of Ion Television, about which we wrote here, which contained an extensive detailed discussion of what it takes to make an ownership interest “nonattributable” for purposes of the FCC multiple ownership rules). Given the lack of controversy in the Commission’s order, what is perhaps most noteworthy about the decision are the concurring statements of the two Democratic Commissioners, which may provide some indication of the concerns of the Commission should we have a Democratic-controlled Commission following this year’s Presidential election.

Of course, as we’ve described in our posts about the FCC’s Localism Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (here), and the new rules regarding Enhanced Disclosure requirements for television broadcasters (here), the Commission has already begun to act in a far more regulatory manner than any other Commission in the past 20 years. Yet the issues raised by the Democrats in this decision are in areas not yet considered by the Commission. Commissioner Copps expresses his concern about the role of private equity in broadcast ownership, and whether such ownership is in the public interest. In numerous proceedings and in response to the presentation made at the FCC’s January meeting by the Media Bureau, Copps has suggested that private equity should be investigated, both to determine whether the Commission is fully aware of all ownership ties of the companies involved, and also (as emphasized in this case) for the potential economic impact on the operations of the broadcast stations caused by the new debt involved in the acquisition. Here, Commissioner Copps questions whether the announcement of a potential downgrade of the bonds of the Company if these deals occur should have been of more concern to the Commission. Private equity should be aware that, in a future FCC, an investigation of the economics of their operations should be expected.Continue Reading Does the FCC’s Approval of the Clear Channel Transfer of Control Provide a Window Into the Future?

In a wild series of legal decisions preceding the Democratic Presidential debate in Nevada, a Nevada judge ruled that MSNBC had to include Congressman Dennis Kucinich in its debate, only to be overruled by a decision of the Nevada Supreme Court released less than a hour before the debate was to begin.  Notably, the initial decision was not based on FCC rules, but instead on a breach of contract theory, as FCC precedent seems relatively clear that a Presidential debate sponsor need not include all candidates in a debate for the coverage of that debate by a broadcaster or cable operator to be exempt from the equal opportunities rules enforced by the FCC. 

 The FCC has long recognized that, to promote the coverage of debates on broadcast media, the sponsors need to be able to limit participation in those debates for them to have any meaning.  In some races where there are minimal requirements for being placed on a ballot, there can be dozens of candidates for a particular office.  If all needed to be included in a broadcast debate, the debate would never be broadcast, and the public would not receive the benefit that on-air coverage would provide.  The issue first arose when the equal opportunities rule was adopted, as broadcasters feared that, unless every candidate for a particular office was included in the debate, any broadcaster or cable company carrying the debate would have to give free "equal time" to any candidate that did not participate in the debate.  Continue Reading Nevada Court Denies Kucinich Right to Participate in Broadcast Debate – Recognizing FCC’s Exclusive Role to Regulate Equal Opportunities in Political Debates

As 2007 wound to an end, advertising issues figured prominently on the agenda of Washington agencies, including both the FCC and the FTC.  While the FCC is looking at specific regulatory requirements governing broadcast advertising, the FTC is investigating the privacy issues raised by advertising conducted by on-line companies.  In November, the FTC held a two day set of workshops and panels where interested parties discussed issues of behavioral advertising – advertising that can be targeted to individuals based on their history of Internet use, and whether or not regulation of these practices was necessary.  The wide-ranging discussion is summarized on our firm’s Privacy and Security Blog, here.  After gathering this testimony, we will see if the FTC decides to proceed to propose any regulations dealing with this sort of personalized, on-line advertising.

At the FCC, there are two separate proceedings dealing with advertising issues for broadcasters.  The first came about as part of the FCC’s diversity initiatives adopted at its December meeting.  There, the Commission determined that broadcasters will need to certify in their renewal applications that they have not discriminated in their advertising practices.  While this proposal was adopted at the Commission’s December 18 meeting, the full text of the decision has yet to be released, so we do not know the specifics of this new requirement.Continue Reading Advertising Issues on Washington’s Agenda for 2008

This week, the Copyright Royalty Board issued an Order denying a request by SoundExchange for rehearing of certain aspects of the decision released last month setting the royalties for satellite radio – XM and Sirius.  These are the royalties for the use of sound recordings by these services on their digital systems.  The decision, which set royalties at 6 to 8% of revenues of these services, and the denial of the rehearing motion, provide examples of how the CRB applies the 801(b) standard of the Copyright Act.  In setting royalties, that standard assesses not only the economic value of the sound recording, but also the public interest in the wide dissemination of the copyrighted material and the impact of the royalty on the service using the music.  The satellite radio decision sets a royalty far lower than that assessed on Internet radio – where the royalty is set using a "willing buyer, willing seller" standard looking only at the perceived economic value of the sound recording.  That willing buyer, willing seller standard is also proposed for broadcast radio in the recently introduced performance royalty bills now pending before Congress (see our summary here) – so it could be expected that any royalty set using that standard would be higher than that set for satellite radio. 

The initial Copyright Royalty Board decision, the full text of which is available here, first made a determination of how to compute the royalty.  While both the satellite radio companies and SoundExchange initially suggested a percentage of revenue royalty given that satellite radio can’t count specific listeners, the parties later amended their proposals (after the Internet radio decision) to include a computation based on the frequency of a song’s play, to try to more closely approximate the Internet radio performance-based model (about which we wrote here).  In addition to the suggestion that this metric more closely approximated that used in the Internet radio decision, the satellite radio companies suggested that a metric based on the songs played would give them the opportunity to adjust their use of music to reduce their royalty obligation.  The satellite companies suggested that, if the royalty was too high, they could reduce the number of different songs that they played.  While not specifically referenced in the decision, it is possible that they also considered the possibility of getting waivers from artists to encourage playing particular songs, which could further reduce a royalty based on a per song computation.  The Board declined to provide that option, finding that the percentage of revenue option best took into account the business of the companies.  The Board also suggested that it doubted that satellite radio really had the ability to lessen the use of music in reaction to a high royalty rate.  (The Board does not discuss the possibility of royalty waivers, which are essentially worth nothing in a situation where the royalties are based on a percentage of a service’s entire revenue).  Continue Reading Satellite Radio Music Royalty Reconsideration Denied By Copyright Royalty Board – What a Difference A Standard Makes

Investors in broadcast properties often seek to have their interests "insulated" from "attribution"   meaning that the interests do not count in a multiple ownership analysis.  In other words, if a party has an attributable interest in a company owning a broadcast station, that interest counts in determining whether the party can, under the FCC’s multiple ownership rules, own an interest in another station in the same market.  The FCC has extensive case law describing when an interest is non-attributable and does not count in a multiple ownership review.  In most cases, a non-attributable interest is one that does not hold voting rights on most company decisions.  However, the Commission has always recognized that the non-attributable, non-voting equity owner may retain certain voting rights when dealing with certain fundamental company actions, as necessary to protect the fundamental integrity of their investment.  In the recent decision approving the transfer of the Ion Media Network broadcast stations, the FCC clarified some of the permissible voting rights of nonattributable shareholders.

In the past, the FCC has permitted nonattributable owners to vote on certain fundamental actions of a company without threatening the owner’s nonattributable status.  Such fundamental actions included changes in the articles of organization or the by-laws of the company, a sale of more than 10% of the assets of the company, a merger or transfer of control of the company, a declaration of bankruptcy, or the issuance of new stock.  As these actions could all affect the fundamentals of the economic interests of the nonattributable owners, votes on these actions was permitted.  In the Ion Media case, new rights were found to not affect the non-attributable status of their investmentsContinue Reading FCC Clarifies Permissible Activities of Nonattributable Investors

We wrote yesterday about the introduction of a bill in the House and the Senate proposing to impose a performance royalty on broadcasters for the use of sound recordings on their over-the-air signals.  At that time, we did not have a copy of the bill itself, but were basing our post on press releases and a summary of the provisions of the bill that was available on Senator Leahy’s website.  We have been able to obtain copies of the bill titled the  "Performance Rights Act" – or actually of the "bills," as the House and Senate versions are slightly different.  Reading those bills, many of the questions that we had yesterday are answered, and some new questions are raised as to how this bill, if enacted, would affect radio broadcasters.

One question about which we wrote yesterday was whether these bills would require that any royalty be determined by the Copyright Royalty Board using a "willing buyer, willing seller" standard or the 801(b) standard that takes into account more than a simple economic analysis in determining the royalty.  The 801(b) standard is used for services in existence at the time of the adoption of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (essentially cable audio and satellite radio) and evaluates not only the economics of the proposed royalty, but also factors including the interest of the public in the dissemination of copyrighted material and the disruption of the industry that could be caused by a high royalty.  In connection with the recent CRB decision on the satellite radio royalties, the potential disruption of the industry caused the CRB to reduce the royalty from what the Board had determined to be the reasonable marketplace value of the sound recordings (13% of gross revenues) to a figure rising from 6 to 8 % of gross revenues over the 5 year term of the royalty.  In the Internet radio proceeding, using the willing buyer, willing seller model, no such adjustment was made.

In these bills, the proposal is to use the willing buyer, willing seller standard for broadcasting.  For a service that has been around far longer than any other audio service, it would seem that a standard that assesses the impact of a royalty on the industry on which it is being imposed would be mandatory.  Who wants to disrupt an entire, well-established industry that has served the public for over 80 years?.  But such a reasonable term is not part of the proposal here.Continue Reading More on the Broadcast Performance Royalty Bills

In a pre-Christmas surprise that most broadcasters could do without, identical bills were introduced in Congress on Tuesday proposing to impose a performance royalty on the use of sound recordings by terrestrial radio stations.  Currently, broadcasters pay only for the right to use the composition (to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) and do not pay for the use of sound recordings in their over-the-air operations of the actual recording.  This long-expected bill (see our coverage of the Congressional hearing this summer where the bill was discussed) will no doubt fuel new debate over the need and justification for this new fee, 50% of which would go to the copyright holder of the sound recording (usually the record label) and 50% to the artists (45% to the featured artist and 5% to background musicians).  The proponents of the bill have contended that it is necessary to achieve fairness, as digital music services pay such a fee.  To ease the shock of the transition, the bill proposes flat fees for small and noncommercial broadcasters – fees which themselves undercut the notion of fairness, as they are far lower than fees for comparable digital services.   

While, at the time that this post was written, a complete text of the decision does not seem to be online, a summary can be found on the website of Senator Leahy, one of the bills cosponsors.  The summary states that commercial radio stations with revenues of less than $1.25 million (supposedly over 70% of all radio stations) would pay a flat $5000 per station fee.  Noncommercial stations would pay a flat $1000 annual fee.  The bill also suggests that the fee not affect the amount paid to composers under current rules – so it would be one that would be absorbed by the broadcaster.  Continue Reading Bill Seeking Broadcast Performance Royalty Introduced In Congress

The FCC today adopted Commissioner Martin’s proposal for limited multiple ownership relaxation, adopting a presumption in favor of approving the common ownership of a broadcast station and a daily newspaper in the Top 20 television markets (we wrote about that proposal here).  But the grant of such combinations would not be automatic, but instead would be considered on a case-by-case basis, so opposition to any merger could be submitted to the FCC.  Under the rules announced today, newspaper-television combinations would not be entitled to the presumption in favor of grant if they involved one of the Top 4 ranked television stations in a market, or if there would be fewer than 8 independent media voices (full power TV or significant daily newspapers that are not commonly controlled) after the combination.  As for the other multiple ownership rules, from what was said at the meeting, no change at all will be made.  We addressed some of the many multiple ownership issues before the Commission that were apparently either not addressed or will not be changed in our post, here. 

As the full text of the decision has not been released, details of how the Commission addressed every issue are not available.  From the comments of the Democratic Commissioners who dissented from the decision, changes were being made to the standards adopted today throughout the night and as early as an hour before the meeting was held (see Commissioner Copps’ impassioned statement against the new rules, here, where he details the last minute revisions).  Given the last minute nature of the final order, it may be a while before the full text is released.  However, from statements made today and from the Commission’s press release, some details of the decision are known.  They are summarized below.Continue Reading FCC Adopts Changes in Newpaper-Broadcast Cross Ownership Rules – No Relief For Broadcasters Under Other Ownership Rules