FCC

Subscribe to FCC via RSS

In a recent decision, the FCC interpreted its radio multiple ownership rules in a case involving changes in an Arbitron market.  The FCC’s rules restrict the number of radio stations that one company can own in a market based on how many stations are in that radio market.  In situations where stations are rated in an Arbitron market, the number of stations is determined by how many stations are in that Arbitron market, as determined by data compiled by the financial analysis firm BIA.  In this case, while the application to acquire the station was pending, BIA came out with its first list of stations that it considered to be in the newly created Arbitron market.  That list showed that, in the new market, the Buyer already owned more stations than allowed by the rules, so acquisition of this additional station was prohibited.  The case stands for the proposition that, while changes in Arbitron markets that allow an acquisition to take place must have been in place for two years to become effective (to prevent owners from gaming the system by making short-term changes), changes that adversely affect the ability of an owner to acquire a station become effective immediately.

According to the decision, at the time that the application in question was filed, the station to be bought was listed by BIA as being in the Manchester, New Hampshire Arbitron market.  The number of stations owned by the Buyer in Manchester was such that the acquisition of the station was permissible at the time the application was filed.  However, Arbitron announced the creation of a new Concord radio market just before the filing of the FCC application for approval of the transfer of control of the radio station.  Soon after the filing of the application, BIA released its list of stations in the new Concord market, and it included a number of the stations owned by Buyer, including the station it was proposing to acquire.  In the new Concord market, the Buyer would have too many stations to permit the acquisition of this station under the restrictions set out in the multiple ownership rules.Continue Reading Adverse Change in Arbitron Market Blocks Radio Acquisition Under Multiple Ownership Rules

As we wrote last week, the FCC recently admonished two major broadcasters, each of which had a station group which had not complied with the FCC’s EEO rules.  In both cases, the FCC would have issued fines instead of the admonishments had it not been for renewal applications that were granted between the time of the…

We recently wrote about the Federal Communications Commission’s actions in their Diversity docket, designed to promote new entrants into the ranks of broadcast station owners. In addition to the rules adopted in the proceeding, the FCC is seeking comment on a number of other ideas – some to restrict the definition of the Designated Entities that are eligible to take advantage of these rules, others to expand the universe of media outlets available to potential broadcast owners – including proposals to expand the FM band onto TV channels 5 and 6, and proposals to allow certain AM stations, which were to be returned to the FCC after their owners received construction permits for expanded band stations, to retain those stations or transfer them to Designated Entities. The proposals, on which public comment is being sought, are summarized below.

Definition of Designated Entity. The first issue raised by the Commission deals with whether the class of applicants entitled to Designated Entity status and entitled to take advantage of the Commission’s diversity initiatives should be restricted. One proposal is to restrict the Designated Entity status to companies controlled by racial minorities. The Commission expressed skepticism about that proposal, noting that the courts had throw out several versions of the FCC’s EEO rules, finding that there was insufficient justification offered by the FCC to constitutionally justify raced-based preferences. The Commission asked that proponents of such preferences provide a “compelling” showing of needed, as necessary for a constitutional justification for governmental race-based discrimination.Continue Reading FCC’s Acts to Increase Diversity in Media Ownership – Part 2, The Proposals for Future Actions – Channel 6 for FM, AM Expanded Band, Definition of Designated Entity, Must Carry for Class A TV and Others

In two decisions released this week by the FCC, here and here, two large broadcast group owners were admonished for failures to comply with the FCC’s EEO rules. In both cases, failures to widely disseminate information about job openings in one market were discovered by the FCC in the course of random EEO audits that selected these stations for review. In both cases, the Commission determined that the violations were serious, and imposed reporting conditions (essentially subjecting the stations to an FCC audit of their EEO annual public file reports every year for the next 3 years). And in each case, the FCC would have fined the stations for their violations, but the Commission moved too slow, as in both cases, license renewals were granted between the time of the violations and the EEO audit.  Under provisions of the Communications Act, the Commission cannot fine a station for action that occurred during a prior renewal term – so the grant of the renewals cut off the possibility of a fine in these cases.

These actions highlight the importance of complying with the Commission’s EEO rules, which we have summarized in our EEO Guide, here. In particular, in both cases, the station groups had not widely disseminated information about job openings, as required by the rules. Wide dissemination requires the use of recruitment sources designed to reach all groups within a community to allow their members to learn about the job openings at the station. The Commission’s aim is to bring into the broadcast workforce employees representing diverse groups within a community rather than hiring all their employees from traditional broadcast sources.  In these cases, the stations had used only corporate websites, on-air announcements, and word of mouth recruiting. No outside sources, or sources reasonably likely to reach the entire community, were used by the broadcasters, hence the admonition and the reporting conditions. Continue Reading What a Difference A Renewal Makes – FCC Admonishes Two Broadcasters for EEO Violations, Fines Would Have Followed if Renewals Had Not Recently Been Granted

In two decisions (here and here) released last week, the FCC fined broadcasters $3200 and $2400 after inspections of the stations revealed that the licenses for their Studio Transmitter Link ("STL") did not list the proper location for these stations.  In both cases, it appeared that the stations had changed their studio…

In a decision last week, the FCC fined a radio station $4000 for broadcasting the message from someone’s telephone answering machine without permission.  The FCC’s rules forbid the broadcast of a telephone call without permission (and the recording of a phone call for broadcast without permission).  So, a station violates the rule when a caller says…

This week, after a long period when we saw little in the way of indecency enforcement by the FCC, the Commission issued two orders compelling payment of fines for television programs broadcast in 2003.  The Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (an order proposing a fine) only a few weeks ago asking ABC affiliates to respond to a potential indecency violation in connection with an NYPD Blue episode run in February 2003 (see our description of the proposed fines here and here).  Only a week after the submission of arguments against the proposed fine made by the cited affiliates in a 75 page response to the Notice of Apparent Liability, the FCC issued its order rejecting the arguments against the fines – an unheard of speed in issuing a decision.  Each station involved was fined $27,500.  Then, later in the week, the FCC issued an Order which fined a number of Fox affiliates $7000 each for perceived indecency violations in an episode of the Married By America reality television program, also broadcast in 2003 – following up on a Notice of Apparent Liability issued over two years ago by the FCC.  In one case, an incredibly quick action resulting in a large fine against many stations – in another a smaller fine against far fewer stations.  Why the differences?

The reason for fines coming now was that, in both cases, the 5 year statute of limitations was coming to an end and, if the Commission did not quickly act, it would be precluded from doing so.  In both cases, the Commission determined that it would fine only stations against which complaints were filed.  In the case of Married by America, the Commission had sent a notice of Apparent Liability to 169 stations, but ended up fining only 13 against which actual complaints had been filed.  In contrast, the Commission fined 45 stations for the NYPD Blue episode, even though the "complaints" were in many cases filed months after the program aired on the stations, and even though many of the "complaints" did not even allege that the local viewer had actually seen the program for which the fine was issued.  Instead, many of the complaints were apparently initiated by an on-line campaign urging that the people write the FCC to complain about the program – even if they hadn’t necessarily seen it.  In its decision, the Commission concluded that the fines were appropriate – even without specific allegations that the program was watched by the people who complained.Continue Reading A Tale of Two Indecency Decisions – FCC Issues Fines for Married by America and NYPD Blue

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