Articles Posted in

Published on:

By

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

Headlines:

  • Law and Disorder: FCC Fines New York City Man $404,166 for Interfering with NYPD Radio Frequencies
  • A Friendly Port: In Novel FCC Action, Property Owners Face a $144,344 Fine for Housing a Pirate’s Radio Operation
  • Continuous Unidentified Transmissions on a Shared Channel Leads to a $25,000 Fine

FCC Slaps NYC Individual with a $404,166 Fine for Interfering with NYPD Radio Frequencies

After a unique investigation involving a television host’s Twitter account, a New York Police Department investigation into criminal impersonation of a police officer, and a bomb threat to Times Square, the FCC fined a New York City man for operating on NYPD radio frequencies without authorization, malicious interference with officers’ communications, and transmission of false distress calls.

Section 301 of the Communications Act prohibits the unauthorized use of any device for radio transmission of energy, communications, or signals. Section 333 of the Act prohibits willful or malicious interference with any stations licensed, authorized, or operated by the United States Government.  The FCC has interpreted this to include repeated disruptions to public safety communications apparatus.  In addition, Section 325(a) prohibits the utterance or transmission of “any false or fraudulent signal of distress, or communication relating thereto.”

In August, 2016, the Enforcement Bureau responded to a TV host’s Twitter message that stated “A man hacked into the NYPD’s secure radio network to yodel repeatedly . . . .” Several weeks later, the NYPD arrested the individual, who admitted under interrogation to making the transmissions.  The transmissions, which went to several NYPD precincts over the course of four months, included a bomb threat to a Times Square pharmacy, threats to harm police officers, music, and profanity.

Several months after the initial arrest, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability proposing the statutory maximum of $19,246 for each of the 21 violations it found. The individual was found to have violated Section 301 and Section 333 for each of the nine calls he made, and the FCC found three violations of Section 325(a) (one for each of the false threats and distress calls).

Following the individual’s failure to respond to the Notice, the FCC issued a Forfeiture Order to make the proposed $404,166 fine a reality. The FCC stated in the Order that the man’s actions showed deliberate disregard for “the safety of NYPD officers and the public that they are called to serve and protect.”

FCC Proposes a $144,344 Fine Against Pirate Radio Operator and Property Owners

Taking a new approach, the FCC proposed a fine against not only the operator of a Florida-based unlicensed radio station, but against the owners of the property housing the station.

Section 301 of the Communications Act states that “No person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio . . . except under and in accordance with this Act and with a license [granted by the FCC].” In past pirate radio actions, the FCC tended to invoke Section 301 against only the pirate radio operator.  In this case, the FCC broadened the definition of a party that “use[s] or operate[s]” a station to include those who knowingly have control and access to the transmission equipment and pay for the station’s utility costs. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

This evening the FCC released the Agenda for its November 16 Public Meeting, and as anticipated, the two Media items on it are the Reconsideration of the FCC’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and the FCC’s proposed approval of ATSC 3.0.  More importantly, the FCC released the proposed draft orders for each item and an associated “Fact Sheet” summarizing the proposals to be voted on at the November meeting.

The content of the broadcast ownership draft Order matches what Chairman Pai had announced in his testimony before a House subcommittee yesterday and in an FCC blog post this afternoon.  Specifically, the Order proposes to eliminate the Newspaper/Broadcast and TV/Radio Cross-Ownership Rules, permit certain TV duopolies by eliminating the Eight Voices Test and assessing proposed Big-4 station combinations on a case-by-case basis, eliminate attribution of Joint Sales Agreements, and create an incubator program to promote new entry and ownership diversity in the broadcast industry.

That would normally have been enough big news for a day, but in an era that makes what once was referred to as “Internet time” seem excruciatingly slow, most of this information was already old news by tonight.  As far as breaking news goes, the more interesting item was the FCC’s reveal of its plans for ATSC 3.0 (“Next Gen TV”), which it had been holding close to the vest until tonight.

As summarized by the FCC’s Fact Sheet attached to the draft Order, the FCC proposes to:

  • Allow television broadcasters to use Next Gen TV on a voluntary, market-driven basis.
  • Require broadcasters that use Next Gen TV to partner with another local station to simulcast their programming in the current digital television (DTV) transmission standard (ATSC 1.0), so that viewers will continue to receive their existing broadcast service.
  • For five years, require the programming aired on the ATSC 1.0 simulcast channel to be “substantially similar” to the programming aired on the ATSC 3.0 channel. This means that the programming must be the same, except for programming features that are based on the enhanced capabilities of ATSC 3.0, advertisements, and promotions for upcoming programs.
  • Exempt low power TV and TV translator stations from the simulcasting requirement, and permit case-by-case waivers if a station has no viable simulcast partner.
  • Retain mandatory carriage rights on cable and satellite systems for simulcast DTV signals, and afford Next Gen TV signals no mandatory carriage rights while the Commission requires local simulcasting.
  • Subject Next Gen TV signals to the public interest obligations that currently apply to television broadcasters.
  • Require broadcasters to provide advance on-air notifications to educate consumers about Next Gen TV service deployment and simulcasting.
  • Incorporate specific parts of the Next Gen TV technical standard (A/321 and A/322) into [the FCC’s] rules and explain the methodology used to calculate interference. The A/322 requirement would apply only to a broadcaster’s primary video stream and would sunset five years from the effective date of the rules unless extended by the Commission.
  • Conclude that it is unnecessary to adopt a Next Gen TV tuner mandate for new television receivers.

The FCC also proposes to adopt a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to:

  • Seek comment on issues related to exceptions and waivers of the requirement that Next Gen TV broadcasters partner with a local station to simulcast DTV signals.
  • Seek comment on whether to let full power broadcasters use vacant channels in the television broadcast band to encourage use of Next Gen TV.
  • Tentatively conclude that local simulcasting should not change the “significantly viewed ” status of a Next Gen TV station for purposes of cable and satellite carriage.

For broadcasters now diving into the spectrum repack and looking for the silver lining in having to rebuild on a new channel, tonight’s announcement will be welcome news.  Broadcasters have been urging the FCC to move forward on approving ATSC 3.0 so that it can be incorporated into station rebuilds and business planning, where any form of uncertainty complicates matters.  By revealing tonight its working draft of the ATSC 3.0 Order, the FCC has begun to remove that uncertainty. The remainder will hopefully dissipate on November 16.

Published on:

By

In a move that would have once been stunning, but which now was so expected as to be anticlimactic, the FCC today voted to eliminate the Main Studio Rule.  In doing so, it also eliminated various associated requirements such as the mandate that a station’s main studio be staffed during normal business hours with at least two employees (one management, one staff), and that it have the capability to locally originate programming.  The FCC did require that stations eliminating their main studio make any part of their public file that is not yet online available to the public during normal business hours “at an accessible place within its community of license.”  It also required stations to ensure that community members can continue to reach the station by telephone without cost, typically by maintaining a local or toll-free number.

Even though the FCC eliminated the rule on its own motion rather than in response to a petition (the times they are a-changin’ at the FCC), the move was not without controversy, with Commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel voting against the change.  Both expressed concern that allowing a station to close its local main studio would forever sever the intimate connection between the station and its community.  That is not a concern to be taken lightly, as the close connection between stations and their communities is what has made broadcasting unique among its many competitors.

Realistically, however, the elimination of the rule will not mark the elimination of main studios.  Main studios did not originally arise from regulatory fiat, but from practicality.  In the early days of radio, when pressure from musicians’ unions caused many radio stations to ban the airing of recorded music, main studios were a necessity.  There were no satellites, fiber feeds, or microwave links to relay programming long distances, so stations had to create programming under their own roof.  Even those stations that did play records had to have a place to play them close to the transmitter.  Early telephone lines were noisy, expensive, unreliable, and depending on your location, possibly unavailable.

But technology marched on.  One of my fun experiences as a young lawyer was representing one of the oldest radio stations in the world and seeing the antique sound lathes used to cut grooves in disks so large you could barely get your arms around them.  Programs were “syndicated” by physically transporting these disks around the country from station to station.  Even with this advance in technology, however, stations still had to have a place near their transmitter to play the disks, so by definition, every station had some local program origination capability.

As wireline connections around the country became more ubiquitous and reliable, and radio networks began to grow, the main studio changed with it.  No longer did every minute of programming need to be produced at the transmitter site; it could be relayed from long distances.  It was during this period, specifically 1939, that the FCC created the Main Studio Rule, forever freezing in bureaucratic amber what a main studio should look like.

Since then, a thousand technological advances have changed broadcasting (one of them being the advent of commercial TV).  Equipment became smaller, more reliable, and automated.  Microwave, satellite, and now Internet transmission made program distribution to stations easy and relatively inexpensive.  Hard-drive based music servers allowed diverse program schedules to be created and aired on radio stations without anyone needing to sit at a turntable flipping an LP every three minutes.  Relieved of these mechanical duties, on-air talent could focus all their energies on connecting with their audience rather than “tending” the station and its equipment.  And because of the ease with which audio and video can be relayed, that on-air talent could now do all of that from nearly anywhere in the world.  The days of having to be within a few hundred feet of the transmitter at all times are long gone.

Of course, that’s the operational side of the equation.  One of the reasons the Main Studio Rule was created was to “enable members of the public to participate in live programs and present complaints or suggestions to the stations.”  However, the wonder of many of the technologies discussed above is not that they exist, but that they are sufficiently inexpensive that not only stations but audiences are using them.  Once, appearing on a live radio program would have required a trip to the main studio.  Later, calling in to a live network program in New York from Kansas would have been so expensive as to likely exceed the value of any prize you might win.

That problem was first solved with toll-free calling to the distant studio — a technology that came on the scene 25 years after the Main Studio Rule was created.  Then toll-free numbers were supplanted by Voice-Over-Internet-Protocol (VOIP) equipment and cellphones that eliminated the need to pay separate long distance charges.  That capability was then improved upon by Skype and other services that allowed viewers and listeners to appear aurally and visually anywhere in the world with a broadband connection.

As for listeners being able to “present complaints or suggestions to the stations,” if toll-free numbers didn’t address that, email certainly did.  And if not email, then texts and social media.  I would be surprised to hear if there is a single station in the country that gets more main studio visits in a year than it receives messages via social media in a day.

So with the elimination of the Main Studio Rule will main studios just disappear?  Hardly.  They’ll just look less like 1939.

For most stations, main studios will continue to be useful hubs for organizing programming and operations.  They just won’t all need to look and operate the same.  Stations emphasizing a hyper-local format will have main studios so sophisticated that the original drafters of the Main Studio Rule would be in awe; a local studio with capabilities far beyond what any national radio network had in 1939 or afterwards.

Other stations, for example those whose formats focus on importing high-quality regional or national programming and distributing it locally, will have main studios with topnotch communications and automation gear, but probably no employee staring at the front door all day just in case someone shows up to see the public file (which is or soon will be online).  We live in the age of optimization, and main studios will be optimized to connect with a station’s audience, not to meet a 1939 conception of what a main studio should look like.

Of course, we have to be realistic.  Some stations will certainly shut down their main studio (particularly if we define a “main studio” as a place of daily program origination) because they believe they can operate more efficiently without that affectation of early radio.  There will also be those that close their main studio to reduce operating costs to the greatest extent possible.  In an era when competition from the Internet and other media has caused numerous rural stations to shut down and mail their licenses back to the FCC, allowing a station to operate without a main studio certainly seems preferable to forcing it to go dark because it can’t meet studio expenses.

And in that regard, perhaps it’s time to acknowledge what the Main Studio Rule really was — a government mandate to maintain a rigid brick-and-mortar presence in an Internet Age.  It’s existence hindered stations from evolving and adapting to the rapidly changing business strategies of their many non-broadcast competitors.  Of course the analogy doesn’t stop there.  Just as most people like the idea of a physical store where they can go and handle the merchandise, they like the idea of a main studio — a place where, if they ever felt like it, they could visit and see the product being created.  Of course, many of the people that like the idea of having a physical store buy everything online, and many that like the idea of a traditional main studio are streaming their music and video from non-broadcast sources.

Broadcasters could perhaps afford the luxury of having a formal main studio designed to suit the FCC when they were the only game in town, but that was then, and this is now.  Most broadcasters will continue operating a main studio in one form or another, and if viewers and listeners find the programming from such stations is better and tune in accordingly, there will be plenty of stations with elegant main studios for the foreseeable future.  If, however, the stations that divert those funds to program acquisition or other initiatives are the ones attracting larger audiences, then, and only then, will the era of the main studio finally draw to a close.

Published on:

By

The FCC announced late today that the freeze that has been in place since April 2013 which prevents full-power and Class A TV stations from filing applications to expand their coverage areas will be lifted temporarily, likely before the end of this year.  The lifting of the freeze allows stations that were not repacked following the Broadcast Incentive Auction to file minor modification applications to expand their signal for the first time in nearly five years.

Earlier this year, television stations that were repacked filed applications specifying facilities on their new channel assignments.  A small group of repacked stations that were unable to build on their assigned channel, and stations that were predicted to receive excessive interference as a result of the repack, were allowed to file applications for different facilities in a priority filing window that closed on September 15.  A second priority window for repacked stations to further modify their facilities is currently underway.  CommLawCenter reported on these various repack milestones here and here.

Today’s announcement alerts full-power and Class A TV stations which were not repacked that the freeze on filing modification applications will be lifted temporarily some time after the second priority window for repacked stations closes on November 2, but before a planned Special Displacement Window for LPTV stations is opened, which is predicted to occur early next year.

Given the timing of those two windows, the odds seem good that the temporary lifting of the freeze will occur before the end of this calendar year.  By allowing these stations to file modification applications before the opening of next year’s LPTV window, the FCC hopes to avoid having LPTV stations file in that window only to find their newly authorized facilities subsequently displaced by full-power and Class A TV stations that have been waiting to file a modification application since 2013.

While the freeze is lifted, applications to modify facilities will be accepted on a first come, first served basis.  Only applications that qualify as minor modifications will be permitted.  The temporary lifting of the freeze also means that processing of modification applications that were pending in April of 2013 can resume.

In this complex game of upgrade chess, LPTV station licensees should file any minor modification applications they are contemplating as soon as possible, since the FCC indicates that the filing of those types of applications will be frozen 30 days prior to the opening of the LPTV Special Displacement Window.  Such is the freeze-thaw cycle at the FCC.

Published on:

By

As we noted back in April (has it really been that long ago?) when the FCC first announced the TV spectrum repack deadlines, TV stations being repacked now have yet another quarterly filing obligation.  Television stations transitioning to a new channel in the repack must file a quarterly Transition Progress Report by the 10th of October, January, April, and July.  Yesterday, the FCC issued a Public Notice reminding stations of this obligation.

Each transitioning television station must electronically file the report (FCC Form 387) informing the FCC and public of the station’s progress towards constructing facilities on its newly-assigned channel and terminating operations on its current channel.  The quarterly reporting requirement will continue for each repacked station until the station has completed its transition and filed a final report indicating that it has done so.

While it is still early in the transition process, it is a mistake to assume that stations will have little to report in this first filing.  The Form 387 asks a number of baseline questions, such as whether a station needs to conduct a structural analysis of its tower, obtain any non-FCC permits or FAA Determinations of No Hazard, or order specific types of equipment to complete the transition.

Depending on a station’s response to a question, the electronic form will then ask for additional information regarding that particular subject.  For example, if a station indicates that it needs to make structural changes to its tower, it will be prompted to provide information about whether those changes are major and if so, whether they have been scheduled or completed.  In some cases, narrative responses may be necessary.

Ultimately, the form requires each station to indicate whether it anticipates that it will receive its equipment and complete any needed tower work in time to meet the construction deadline for its transition phase.

Don’t let the simple Yes/No appearance of the Form 387 fool you.  It requires input from both engineering and management personnel, and future reports will then be compared against the baseline it creates.  In other words, it would be a mistake to merely leave the task to the person who handles your other quarterly FCC reports as you walk out the station door.  You’ll likely be getting a panicked call from them shortly thereafter.

Published on:

By

Toll-free telephone numbers celebrated their 50th birthday this year (frankly, without much fanfare). These numbers allow callers to reach businesses without being charged for the call. When long distance calling was expensive, these numbers were enticing marketing tools used by businesses to encourage customer calls and provide a single number for nationwide customer service—for example, hotel, airline or car rental reservations.

Toll-free numbers are most valuable to businesses when they are easy to remember because they spell a word (1-877-DENTIST) or have a simple dialing pattern (1-855-222-2222). Like all telephone numbers, however, the FCC considers toll-free numbers to be a public resource, not owned by any single person, business or telephone company. Toll-free numbers are assigned on a first-come, first-served basis, primarily by telecommunications carriers known as Responsible Organizations. The FCC even has rules that prohibit hoarding (keeping more than you need) or selling toll-free numbers.

But the rules will change if the FCC adopts its recent proposal to assign toll-free numbers by auction as it prepares to open access to its new “833” toll-free numbers. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued last week proposes to auction off approximately 17,000 toll-free numbers for which there have been competing requests. The proceeds of these auctions would then be used to reduce the costs of administering toll-free numbers.

The NPRM also contemplates revising the current rules to promote the development of a secondary market for toll-free numbers. This would allow subscribers to reassign toll-free numbers to other businesses for a fee (think 1-800-STUBHUB!). The FCC suggests this would promote economic efficiencies, as the number would presumably be better utilized by a business owner willing to pay for it than by the company that merely happened to claim it first.

The proposed rules are not without controversy. Some toll-free numbers are used to promote health, safety and other public interest goals (e.g., 1-800-SUICIDE). The NPRM seeks comments on whether toll-free numbers used by governmental or certain nonprofit organizations should be exempt from the auction process. There are also questions about whether the expected demand for the 17,000 new numbers will erode if claiming a number is no longer free.

Comments in this proceeding will be due 30 days after the NPRM is published in the Federal Register, with replies due 30 days after that. If you are interested in filing comments, you can reach us at 1-888-387-5714 Call: 1-888-387-5714.  After all, it’s a toll-free call.