LPTV reimbursement program

Last week, we wrote about the FCC’s announcements of the opening of the filing period for LPTV, TV translator and FM stations that are seeking reimbursement for the costs they incurred because of the repacking of TV channels into a smaller part of the spectrum following the incentive auction. The FCC forms that need

As we noted in our post yesterday, the OMB recently approved the FCC’s forms to allow for reimbursement of the expenses of LPTV and TV translator stations and FM stations (full power and low power) and FM translators caused by the repacking of the TV spectrum following the incentive auction.  This approval sets

Months ago, the FCC approved reimbursing TV translators, LPTV stations, FM stations, and FM translators that incurred costs as a result of the repacking of TV stations into less spectrum following the TV incentive auction (see our post here).  Congress last year allocated the FCC money so that LPTV stations and TV translators forced

In a flurry of actions in the last week, the FCC has acted to assist LPTV stations and TV translators displaced by the TV incentive auction.   It also adopted rules to assist FM stations (including FM translators and Low Power FM stations) that were adversely affected by tower work caused by the incentive auction on the towers they share with TV stations. At the FCC meeting last week, the FCC issued its Report and Order agreeing to reimburse LPTV and TV translator stations for the expenses that they incur in changing channels to accommodate the shrinking of the TV band and the repacking of primary TV stations, as long as those expenses were not reimbursed by other parties (certain wireless carriers have reportedly reimbursed some of these stations for moving quickly to vacate their old channels). FM stations will also be reimbursed for their expenses incurred by tower work by TV stations involved in the repacking that displaced the FM station’s operations. The FCC did not adopt proposals for only partial reimbursement of expenses dependent on the length of displacement (see our article here for more on what those proposals were) – good news for FMs affected by these changes.

The FCC subsequently released a catalog of the types of expenses that would be reimbursed, with estimates for the expected range of those expenses. While displaced stations can seek reimbursement for other expenses that were incurred as a direct result of the incentive auction (excluding any reimbursement for lost sales or employee time), and for expenses that proved to be greater than the FCC’s expectations, the station seeking such reimbursement will need to prove that the expenditures were reasonable and justified. As noted in the Public Notice accompanying the catalog of reimbursable expenses, the FCC will be, at a later date, announcing when eligible stations can start filing for reimbursement. So if you are expecting reimbursement, watch for that notice.
Continue Reading

March is one of those unusual months in the broadcast regulatory cycle, where there are no routine EEO public file obligations, and no quarterly filing obligations or other regularly scheduled regulatory deadlines.  That means that my tardiness in publishing this article before the start of the month did not miss anything important.  But, starting next month, there will be a whole new set of deadlines about which broadcasters need to be concerned, as April 1 is when the first pre-filing announcements for broadcast license renewals will begin, signaling the start of the 3-year long radio renewal cycle. The 3-year TV license renewal cycle will begin at the same time next year.

Radio broadcasters in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia will be the first to file their renewal applications – and they will need to start running their “pre-filing” notices on their radio stations beginning on April 1, in anticipation of a June renewal filing (renewal applications to be filed no later than June 3, as June 1 is a Saturday).  The FCC has posted a helpful guide to the times that these notices need to run, and a model for the text of these notices, here (although the model text is now outdated, in that it does not acknowledge that stations now have online public files; the FCC has a pending proceeding to modify these public notices that one would hope would be resolved soon – see our articles here and here for details).  Stations in the Carolinas begin their pre-filing announcements two months later, with stations in other states to follow at 2-month intervals after that.  The schedule for renewals is on the FCC website here, and the pre-filing announcements begin two months before the renewal-filing deadline.
Continue Reading

At its March 15 meeting, the FCC is scheduled to consider two items dealing with broadcasters, according to a blog post authored by Chairman Pai published yesterday. The first item to be considered deals with LPTV stations and TV translators, as well FM broadcasters – setting out the rules for reimbursement to be paid

November is perhaps the month with the lightest schedule of routine FCC regulatory filing obligations – with no requirements for EEO Public File Reports, Quarterly Issues Programs or Children’s Television Reports. Nor are there other routine obligations that come up in the course of any year, though during November of 2019, broadcasters will be preparing for next year’s December 1 Biennial Ownership Report deadline. So does that mean that there are no dates of interest this month for broadcasters? As always, there are always a few dates of which you need to keep track.

The one November date applicable to all broadcasters is the requirement for the filing of ETRS Form Three, which gives a detailed analysis of the results of the nationwide EAS test conducted on October 3. Stations should have filed Form Two on the day of the test reporting whether or not the test was received. They now need to follow up with the more detailed Form Three report by November 19. See our article here for more information.
Continue Reading

The FCC yesterday released a Public Notice asking for comments on a “Catalog of Expenses” that would be reimbursed to licensees of LPTV and TV translator stations, as well as FM broadcasters, who are impacted by the repacking of the TV spectrum following the TV incentive auction. We wrote here about the FCC’s

On Friday, the Commission released a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FNPRM) seeking input on completing the transition of all low power television stations (LPTV) and TV translator stations to digital operations.  Driven by the transition of all full power TV stations last year and the guidance from the National Broadband Plan, which recommended setting a deadline of 2015 for the transition of LPTVs to digital in order to increase efficiency in the TV bands and assist in the reallocation of those bands, the Commission’s rulemaking turns to the remaining analog television operations in the spectrum, i.e. LPTV and TV translator stations.  The Commission, having noted a significant increase in the past year of LPTV stations obtaining authority for, and actually switching to, DTV operations, concludes that "low power television stations should now begin to focus their time and resources on developing and implementing a digital conversion plan." 

In response to the main question of "when?", the Commission suggests a date in 2012 as the hard date by which all LPTVs and TV translators would have to complete the construction of digital facilities and cease analog operations.  While a specific date in 2012 is not offered, the Commission believes that three years after the June 12, 2009 full power transition should be a sufficient time period for completing the transition.  And of course, given that it is now September 2010, that really means that LPTV stations would have between 15 and 27 months from today to complete the transition.  The FNPRM does seek comment on alternative time frames or transition mechanisms, but notes that an adoption of an earlier transition date in 2012 might adversely impact some LPTV stations, which could "transition to digital only to find that their digital channel is no longer available as a result of the spectrum reallocation that is one of the recommendations in the Broadband Plan."  Such stations would then be forced to transition a second time.  Given that the Commission has not yet actually commenced a proceeding to implement the spectrum reallocation recommended in the Broadband Plan, this comment is a bit troubling.  Clearly, if the Commission is actually going to reallocate the spectrum as suggested in the National Broadband Plan, it should do so first before it mandates a DTV transition for LPTVs.  Or at the very least, it shouldn’t mandate such a transition until it can ensure that LPTV stations are transitioning to digital on a channel that won’t subsequently be reclaimed and re-purposed for a competing wireless broadband operation.  In acknowledgment of this, the FNPRM seeks comment on whether the analog termination date should be by the end of 2015 or after the "recommended reallocation of spectrum from the broadcast TV bands". 


Continue Reading