license

Subscribe to license

Yesterday’s unique Public Notice outlining Chairman Martin’s proposals for reform of the multiple ownership rules (which we summarized here) is a surprisingly restrained and limited approach to relaxation of the ownership rules – proposing to relax only the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership prohibitions, and only in the Top 20 TV markets.  Moreover, the reform would only allow the combination of a daily newspaper and a single radio or TV station, and the newspaper-TV combination would only be allowed if the TV station is not one of the Top 4 ranked stations in the market.  While the extremely limited nature of the proposed relief has not stopped critics of big media from immediately condemning the proposal (see the joint statement of Commissioners Copps and Adelstein, here), much less attention has been paid to those multiple ownership issues that the Chairman’s proposal does not seem to address – including TV duopoly relief in small markets and clarifications to the radio ownership rules requested by a number of broadcasters who sought reconsideration of the changes that arose from the 2003 ownership reforms. 

The Chairman’s Public Notice is itself a new approach to regulation – putting out for public comment (due by December 11) an action of the Commission just before that action is to be taken.  Usually, the Commission proposes a set of rule changes in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and the Notice provides time for interested parties to comment and then reply to each other’s comments.  Once all the written comments are submitted to the Commission, parties and their representative often make informal visits to the FCC to argue about the suggestions that have been made, and eventually, after much consideration, the Commission’s staff writes up a decision which is vetted by the Commissioners and their staff, and voted on by the full FCC.  Usually, these final decisions are shrouded in secrecy – though outlines of the proposals are often the subject of informed gossip and rumor, rarely does anyone see the full set of rules that the Commission is considering until after the decision is made. 

Continue Reading What Chairman Martin’s Multiple Ownership Proposals Omit – No Relief for Radio and TV

In a very unusual, if not unprecedented case, the FCC announced a Public Forum on the license renewal application of WWOR-TV to assess the service provided by that station to the citizens of New Jersey.  While the FCC has in the past held evidentiary hearings on license renewal applications, those hearings were trial-type, adversarial proceedings held on specific issues before administrative law judges – not amorphous public proceedings on general questions about the service provided by the station.  This proceeding seems much more akin to the "localism" hearings that the FCC has been holding around the country (including the most recent held in Washington on Halloween), only in this case it is not conducted to come up with some general policy guidelines, but instead it is to assess whether a broadcast license worth hundreds of millions of dollars should be renewed.  While the revocation of a license for failure to serve the public interest under the license renewal standards that have been in effect for the last 11 years is unprecedented, this process may be one that other stations could face were proposals of certain Congressional and FCC proponents of license renewal reform to get their way.

As we wrote here and here, some have suggested that the FCC’s license renewal process should be fundamentally reformed.  There have been suggestions that license renewal, which once occurred every three years for broadcast stations but now comes up but once every eight years, should return to that shorter cycle.  And some have suggested that the license renewal process should have more "teeth" to assess a broadcaster’s performance (see, for instance, the statement of Commissioner Copps at the FCC Localism hearing in Portland, Maine in June). These teeth have been suggested to include everything from specific quantitative showings of public interest programming by the broadcaster, to local public hearings to assess the level of that service for some or all broadcast stations.  How the FCC would have the resources to conduct hearings for any meaningful number of broadcast stations is unclear – but the suggestion has been made by various proponents of license renewal reform. Continue Reading FCC Sets Unusual Public Forum to Assess License Renewal of New Jersey Television Station

Twice this week, the FCC released decisions denying applications proposing city of license changes for AM stations proposing to take away the only station licensed to one community and move it to another.  In its order adopting simplified city of license changes (see our previous posts including those here and here), the FCC refused to change its policy of not allowing the removal of an established radio station which is the only station licensed to a community except in cases where an extraordinary showing justifying a  waiver of the rules could be made.  The two cases decided this week show that merely moving to a community with greater population (even one which has no other station licensed to it) will not, in and of itself, justify a waiver of the rules.  Thus, stations which are the only station licensed to their communities are effectively blocked from changing cities of license without  providing a "back-fill", i.e. moving another station so that it can be licensed to the community that would otherwise be abandoned.

In one case decided this week, the broadcaster proposed to move its AM station to a community that had three times the population of the one that it was proposing to leave.  The Commission rejected the move, finding that the residents of the current community should be able to rely on continued service from that station.  This was true even though other stations could be received in the community, as the Commission reminded licensees that their primary responsibility is to serve the needs of their city of license, and that this primary service cannot be duplicated by the secondary service provided by a station licensed to another town or city.  Continue Reading FCC Says No To City of License Change Taking Away Community’s Only Radio Service

In an unusual action, Commissioner Michael Copps last week publicly released a letter he wrote to Chairman Martin ( whose office is just down the hall from Copps’ office on the Eighth Floor of the FCC’s headquarters in Washington) urging the Chairman to initiate a proceeding to determine if the News Corporation’s acquisition of the Wall Street Journal is in the public interest.  Copps points to the fact that the company currently owns another daily newspaper published in New York (the New York Post) as well as two full power television stations (WWOR and WNYW) in the market.  While recognizing that the FCC has previously ruled that national newspapers should not be counted for purposes of the FCC’s newspaper- broadcast cross ownership limitations which currently bar local ownership of broadcast stations and daily newspapers in the same area.  This exception for national papers was principally decided in connection with Gannett’s USA Today, headquartered in the Washington DC area, where Gannett also owns a TV station.  Copps argues that, despite the USA Today precedent, this situation nevertheless demands further review for two reasons: 1) the local concentration of two TV stations and two widely-read local newspapers and 2) the national concentration that will result in two of the five most widely read newspapers in the country being commonly owned with one of the four major television networks, as well as the owner of many other outlets of communication spread throughout the country.

One seemingly unique aspect of the Copps request is that he is asking that the FCC investigate the acquisition of a newspaper, over which the FCC has no direct jurisdiction.  In fact, in the past, TV companies have purchased newspapers that they could not own consistent with the cross-ownership rules, with the understanding that they would divest one of these interests by the time that the next license renewal for the television station came up (or ask for a waiver of the rules at that time).  This would be necessary as the FCC would have jurisdiction over the duopoly through the renewal application.  In recent years, there have been companies which have bought newspapers in their television markets, taking the risk that, by the time the television station renewal was filed, the FCC’s cross-ownership rules would have changed.  And they are now left pursuing waivers in connection with their renewal applications.  In this case, while the FCC would not have jurisdiction over the acquisition of the Journal, they would have jurisdiction over the pending TV renewal applications.Continue Reading Copps Calls for FCC Proceeding to Consider News Corporation’s Acquisition of Wall Street Journal

During a panel at the NAB Radio Show, FCC Audio Services Division Chief Peter Doyle was asked a question about the processing of FM applications filed under the new simplified process for upgrades in their technical facilities and for changes in their cities of license (see our post here for details about that process).  The question dealt with rumors that the processing of certain FM applications were being delayed if the proposed upgrade would cause interference problems to any LPFM stations which would threaten their existence.  We have written about our concerns that such a policy was possible, here.  According to the response yesterday, these delays are indeed taking place – meaning that LPFM stations that are supposed to be secondary services which yield to new or improved full-service stations are now blocking improvements in the facilities of these full-power stations.

Doyle explained that, at the moment, there is no policy of denying the full-service station’s application – but these applications are being put on hold if they would impede an LPFM’s ability to continue to operate in order to study options as to how the LPFM service might be preserved through a technical change or through agreements to accept interference.  While no final determination has been reached as to what will happen to the applications if there is no available resolution to the LPFM interference issue, he pointed to the pending rulemaking (pending for almost two years) that would give LPFM’s higher status, and in effect allow them to preclude new or improved full-service operations.  There was some indication that these actions were being taken pursuant to the potential policies set out in that Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – even though these policies were simply proposals advanced for public comment and have not yet been adopted by the full Commission.

Continue Reading LPFM Slowing Processing of Full Power FM Stations

At last Thursday’s Public Hearing on multiple ownership in Chicago, about which we wrote here, a statement was read by a spokesman for Presidential candidate Barack Obama.  According to press reports, the statement expressed the candidate’s positions favoring shorter license renewal terms for broadcasters so that they would be subject to more public scrutiny, as well as criticizing the FCC for allowing broadcast consolidation.  These thoughts essentially echo the comments of FCC Commissioner Copps, especially on the subject of license renewal terms, whose views we wrote about here.  While many press reports have asked if this statement by Senator Obama foreshadows the broadcast ownership debate becoming part of the presidential campaign issues, we worry that it may signal a far broader attack on broadcasters during the upcoming political year.  The statement by Senator Obama is but one of a host of indications that broadcasters may face a rash of legislative issues that are now on the political drawing boards.

Broadcasters make easy targets for politicians as everyone is an expert on radio and television – after all, virtually everyone watches TV or listens to the radio and thus fancies themselves knowledgeable of what is good and bad for the public.  But those in Congress (and on the FCC) have the ability to do something about it.  And, with an election year upon us, they have the added incentive to act, given that any action is bound to generate at least some publicity and, for some, this may be their last opportunity to enact legislation that they feel important.  We’ve already written about the renewed emphasis, just last week, on passing legislation to overturn the Second Circuit’s decision throwing out the FCC’s fines on "fleeting expletives" and making the unanticipated use of one of those "dirty words" subject again to FCC indecency fines.  Clearly, no Congressman wants to be seen as being in favor of indecency (look at the rise in the indecency fines to $325,000 per occurrence which was voted through Congress just before the last election), and First Amendment issues are much more nuanced and difficult to explain to the voter, so watch this legislation.Continue Reading One Sign That Broadcasters Are About to Become Political Footballs – Obama Suggests Shorter Broadcast License Terms and Less Consolidation

If you are a broadcaster, you know that it’s not going to be a good day when you walk into a hearing on the possible extension of the performance royalty in sound recordings to over-the-air broadcasters and see buttons saying "I Support a Performance Right NOW" on the lapels of every other witness on the panel – including the Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters.  But that was the scene in Washington, as the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property held a hearing as to whether the right to collect a royalty for the public performance of a sound recording (the actual song as sung by a particular artist, as opposed to the underlying musical composition) should be paid by broadcasters.  Broadcasters in the United States have paid only a royalty on the public performance of the composition (to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC), and have never paid a royalty for the public performance of the sound recording.  The lack of a sound recording royalty has always been justified in the past on the theory that the artists and copyright holders in the sound recording benefit more than composers through the airplay of the sound recording, as they receive the bulk of the proceeds from CD sales, and the performers benefit from the promotion of live performances.  As they benefit from the promotion provided by the airplay of the song, there is no need for any sort of performance royalty.  As the music and radio businesses have both thrived in the United States – more so than anywhere else in the world – it seemed that this arrangement was mutually beneficial.

But, in recent years, the consensus over this mutually beneficial arrangement seems to have broken down.  Starting in 1995, a performance right in sound recordings has been imposed on digital services, including the royalty on Internet radio which has recently been so controversial (and about which we have written so much, here).  And, with the recent downturn in the record companies’ business, additional sources of revenue are being sought – thus the RIAA and SoundExchange, the collective that receives sound recording performance royalties, have started a Congressional push to require the collection of royalties from over-the-air radio.  And that push was reflected in the hearing held on Tuesday before a House Committee that seemed clearly to favor the imposition of this royalty on broadcasters.Continue Reading House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Broadcast Performance Right – No Breaks for the Broadcasters

The FCC released an order today, fining a broadcaster $20,000 for misrepresentations made in its license renewal application about the completeness of its public inspection file.  The fine issued in this case was not a fine for the fact that the file was incomplete (two stations in the cluster had each already been fined $4000 for the actual public file violations), but instead the fine was issued because the licensee had certified in its renewal application that the public file had been complete and accurate at all points during the course of the license term.  This case highlights both the need to keep an accurate public inspection file, and the need to carefully consider all certifications made in FCC applications.  Incorrect certifications can lead to fines and potentially even more severe sanctions if the FCC finds an intentional misrepresentation or lack of candor – the potential loss of a license.  Admitting a minor paperwork transgression like an incomplete public file will result in a fine – an inaccurate certification which appears to try to hide a problem can lead to far more severe consequences. 

In this case, the FCC found that the licensee had not maintained Quarterly Issues Programs lists.  The licensee claimed that its obligations had been met through a listing of public service announcements that the stations had put in their files.  The FCC rejected that argument, citing the requirement in its rules requiring that Quarterly Issues Programs lists contain "a narrative description of what issues were given substantial treatment" by the licensee as well as the programs that treated each issue.  In addition, the time and date of broadcast of each program, as well as its title and duration, is to be provided.  A simple list of PSAs does not meet these requirements – as it does not list the issues addressed, much less provide the detailed program information required by the rule.  For a summary of the Quarterly Issues Programs list obligations, and a model form to be used to meet the obligations, see our most recent memo on the subject, here.   Remember, the Quarterly Issues Programs Lists are a broadcast station’s only official record of how they have served the public interest needs of its community, so be sure that adequate attention is paid to the completion of these forms.Continue Reading Big Fines for Public File Violation that Escalated

In the broadcast world, if you stick around long enough, what was once big and then faded away will no doubt come around once again.  Whether its the resurrection of prime time games shows that faded in the 50s to become big again today, or the regulatory landscape – it all comes around again.  In comments made to an oversight hearing of the US House of Representatives yesterday, Chairman Martin stated that there is an item circulating through the FCC proposing to require that broadcasters file in their license renewal applications more detailed information about the types of public interest programming they provide.   Until the mid-1980s, broadcasters had to specify the percentage of their programming that was comprised of news, public affairs and "other" public interest programming, as well as the number of public service announcements that the station broadcast.  These specific requirements disappeared in the "deregulation" of the 1980s, but from the statements made yesterday, they may now be making a return if Chairman Martin and the Democratic Commissioners can agree on a set of rules to be imposed on broadcasters.

We’ve written about various proposals to require specific, quantifiable public interest obligations of broadcasters in the context of the recent digital radio order.  We also wrote about the long-outstanding proceeding to quantify public interest obligations of television broadcasters that was mentioned in a recent decision denying a license renewal challenge (and implying that a decision was coming soon).  Whether the Chairman’s mention at yesterday’s hearing of the upcoming "item" was a reference to these two proceedings, or to some entirely new effort to re-regulate broadcasters, remains to be seen.  But the "post-card" renewal that was adopted in the 1980s, which has continued to grow in size and complexity over the intervening years, may well grow significantly in the near future.Continue Reading Detailed License Renewal Requirements to Return?

In the last week, several new LPFM issues have arisen – one a Congressional push to authorize more of these stations by ignoring third adjacent channel interference to full power stations, and another involving complaints to the FCC about LPFM stations being forced to change channels or cease operation because of interference from changes made by full power stations. The latter issue has apparently arisen in the context of stations taking advantage of the FCC’s rules which made it easier to effectuate changes in the cities of license of FM stations (see our summary of the rule changes here), causing more movement of such stations. Both of these issues could present issues for FM broadcasters. 

The Congressional action was initiated by the introduction of legislation in both the House and the Senate that would eliminate third adjacent channel protections that full power stations have from LPFMs. Those protections have been the subject of controversy since the FCC authorized the LPFM service.  LPFM advocates have contended that the interference protections are unnecessary, as most FM receivers should be able to distinguish between stations on third adjacent channels. The NAB contends that the protections are needed as there are still many radios that would be affected by that interference. Full power stations, except for those authorized at short-spacings prior to 1964, are protected from third adjacent channel interference from each other. Competing engineering studies have been done, the FCC has not acted on this question (and in fact Congress had prohibited such action years ago).  But now, some feel that the time for some liberalization of the rules is in order.Continue Reading LPFM v. FM – More Stations Coming?