Published on:

By

As we discussed in a previous post and separate Client Advisory, the FCC released a Public Notice to implement a provision of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) that requires the FCC to submit a report on in-state broadcast programming to Congress by August 11, 2011. The Public Notice was published in the Federal Register yesterday, which means that comments are due by January 24, 2011, with reply comments due by February 22, 2011.

As we discussed previously, the purpose of the FCC’s Report to Congress is to address a concern of some members of Congress that subscribers located in markets that straddle a state line may be unable to receive broadcast news and information from their own state because the local stations made available by cable and satellite providers are all located in the “other” state. According to the FCC, the report will: (1) analyze the number of households in a state that receive the signals of local broadcast stations assigned to a community of license located in a different state; (2) evaluate the extent to which consumers in each local market have access to in-state broadcast programming over-the-air or from a multichannel video programming distributor; and (3) consider whether there are alternatives to DMAs for defining “local” markets that would provide consumers with more in-state broadcast programming.

This proceeding is relevant to retrans because there have been some efforts on Capitol Hill to introduce legislation allowing cable and satellite operators to import the signals of television stations from another market. While the official description of this situation describes these subscribers as being deprived of news and information regarding their own state, the more pragmatic concern of such viewers it is argued is that they aren’t able to watch sports teams from their state as often as they would like. However, creating a legislative opportunity to import distant stations carrying such in-state sports (and other) programming would often mean importing a station that duplicates the network and syndicated programming of a local station already carried by cable systems and satellite providers in the market. Importing stations in this manner raises complex issues with respect to potentially siphoning off the local station’s viewers (and advertisers), undercutting the local station’s program exclusivity, and impacting the local station’s leverage when it commences retransmission consent negotiations.

For those who plan on filing comments or replies, keep in mind that the FCC has specifically asked for data to help it analyze the issues relating to the availability of in-state broadcast stations for consumers, including the proper “methodologies, metrics, data sources, and level of granularity” that should be used in its report to Congress. The FCC is also asking for specific information to identify counties and populations within given states that have limited access to in-state broadcast programming.

As a result of efforts currently underway on the Hill with respect to potentially allowing the importation of in-state but out-of-market signals, those interested in retransmission consent should continue to monitor this matter closely.

Published on:

By

As Scott Flick reported in a previous post, our firm filed a Petition on behalf of an unlikely coalition of broadcast and cable associations and their allies, including 46 of the state broadcasters associations, the National Association of Broadcasters, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the Society of Broadcast Engineers, the American Cable Association, the Association for Maximum Service Television, National Public Radio, the Association of Public Television Stations, and the Public Broadcasting Service. The parties joined forces to ask the FCC to extend the deadline for all EAS Participants to acquire and install the equipment necessary to use the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) standard for Emergency Alert System alerts. The unified effort paid off, as today the FCC released an Order waiving Part 11.56 of its Rules and extending the CAP deadline from March 29, 2011 to September 30, 2011.

Last September 30, FEMA announced the adoption of the CAP v1.2 standard, which triggered a 180-day deadline for implementation. In a post found here, I described CAP and what the CAP compliance deadline requires of EAS Participants.

The extension means that the estimated 25,000 to 30,000 EAS Participants now have more time to acquire the new and sophisticated equipment they need to become CAP-compliant, while giving FEMA more time to certify CAP-compliant EAS equipment. The six-month delay will also allow equipment manufacturers to test their CAP products and to make any changes needed to meet the certification requirements. This process, in turn, will give EAS Participants the certainty they need to make better informed decisions regarding what equipment they should obtain and install to ensure compliance with CAP. Finally, the extension will give all parties, including noncommercial broadcasters, smaller cable systems, and rural broadcasters more time to budget for the purchase of new equipment.

The FCC acknowledged that if it failed to extend the 180-day deadline, it could “lead to an unduly rushed, expensive, and likely incomplete process.”

The Order also leaves open the possibility of extending the CAP deadline beyond September 30, 2011. This is because the FCC will soon be conducting a rulemaking proceeding to incorporate CAP into its Part 11 Rules, and at this point it is unclear what specific Part 11 rule changes will be made as a result of the new CAP standard. According to the FCC, it plans to complete that rulemaking prior to September 30, 2011, but will ask for comments on “whether the extension for CAP acceptance by EAS Participants granted in this waiver order is sufficient, and reserves the right to further extend the date for CAP reception in any new rule we may adopt.” Given that the outcome of the rulemaking proceeding will likely result in a number of significant revisions to the FCC’s EAS Rules, another extension of the deadline is certainly plausible in order to give parties enough time to come into compliance with the new rules.

In other words, stay on alert, as we will definitely be hearing much more about CAP in the near future.

Published on:

By

Along with all of the other activities of the coming holidays, December 1 represents a busy filing deadline for digital television stations and many commercial and non-commercial radio stations, depending upon their location. For those affected, below is a brief summary of the applicable deadlines, as well as links to our recent client alerts and advisories describing the requirements in more detail.

December 1 Noncommercial Ownership Reports

Noncommercial educational radio stations licensed to communities in Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota, and noncommercial educational television stations licensed to communities in Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont must file their Biennial Ownership Reports by December 1, 2010. For a detailed discussion of the filing requirements, please see our Client Alert here.

December 1 EEO Deadlines

Radio and television stations licensed to communities in: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Vermont have a number of December 1, 2010 deadlines for compliance with the FCC’s EEO Rule. For a detailed discussion of the requirements, please see our Client Advisory here.

December 1 DTV Ancillary/Supplementary Services Report

All commercial and noncommercial educational digital television broadcast station licensees and permittees must file FCC Form 317 by December 1, 2010. For a detailed discussion of this requirement, please see our Client Advisory here.

Published on:

By

All commercial and noncommercial educational digital television broadcast station licensees and permittees must file FCC Form 317 by December 1, 2010.

The FCC requires all digital television stations to submit FCC Form 317 each year. The report details whether stations provided ancillary or supplemental services at any time during the twelve-month period ending on the preceding September 30. It is important to note that the FCC Form 317 must be submitted regardless of whether stations offered any such services. FCC Form 317 must be filed electronically, absent a waiver, and is due on December 1, 2010.

Ancillary or supplementary services are all services provided on the portion of a DTV station’s digital spectrum that is not necessary to provide the required single free, over-the-air signal to viewers. Any video broadcast service that is provided with no direct charge to viewers is exempt. According to the FCC, examples of services that are considered ancillary or supplementary include, but are not limited to, “computer software distribution, data transmissions, teletext, interactive materials, aural messages, paging services, audio signals, subscription video, and the like.”

If a DTV station provided ancillary or supplementary services during the 12-month time period ending on September 30, 2010, it must remit to the FCC 5% of the gross revenues derived from the provision of those services. This payment can be forwarded to the FCC’s lockbox at the U.S. Bank in St. Louis, Missouri and must be accompanied by FCC Form 159, the Remittance Advice. Alternatively, the fee can be paid electronically using a credit card on the FCC’s website. The fee amount must also be submitted by the December 1, 2010 due date.

For assistance in preparing and filing FCC Form 317, please contact any of the attorneys in the Communications Practice Section.

Published on:

By

As a record three billion dollar political advertising season comes to a close, broadcasters must remember that the FCC requires many broadcast stations to stay open for business this weekend. Specifically, all radio and television stations that have provided weekend access to any commercial advertiser within the twelve months prior to the election must provide similar access to federal candidates the weekend before the November 2 election date.

A station only needs to offer federal candidates the same kinds of weekend services that it has previously offered to commercial advertisers. This means that if a station has provided weekend access only for deleting copy or canceling spots, as opposed to selling and scheduling new spots, the station is only required to provide those same pre-election weekend services for federal candidates. Stations also need to keep in mind that they cannot discriminate between candidates with regard to providing access.

According to FCC staff, unlike federal candidates, state and local candidates do not have a similar right to weekend access even if the station has provided such access to commercial advertisers.

Published on:

By

The FCC’s Media Bureau released a Public Notice today announcing a freeze on the filing of applications for new digital low power television (“LPTV”) and TV Translator stations, and major modifications to existing analog and digital LPTV and TV Translator stations in “rural areas.”

After the completion of the nationwide transition to digital broadcasting by full-power television stations, the FCC announced that it would permit the filing of applications for new digital LPTV and TV Translator stations on a first-come, first-served basis. The FCC announced the filings would commence in two phases, with the filing of applications in “rural areas” beginning on August 25, 2009, followed by “non-rural areas” on January 25, 2010. The January 25, 2010 filing date for non-rural areas was delayed until July 26, 2010, and then ultimately suspended indefinitely. “Rural” area stations are those with a transmitter site that is farther than 75 miles from the reference coordinates for the 100 largest cities listed in Appendix A of the Media Bureau’s original Public Notice on this matter.

Today’s Public Notice indicates that the FCC will continue to accept and process applications for minor changes to existing facilities, flash-cut applications, digital companion channel applications for existing analog stations, and displacement applications where the applicant can demonstrate actual interference from existing full-power television operations, or from stations still operating on channels 52 to 69.

As the basis for its action, the Media Bureau cited the recommendation in the National Broadband Plan to make an additional 500 MHz of spectrum available for broadband use over the next ten years. The Media Bureau stated that the freeze would allow the FCC “to evaluate its reallocation and repacking proposals and their impact on future licensing of low power television facilities.” The Public Notice goes on to state that, after the FCC has completed its broadband rulemakings, the Media Bureau will determine when LPTV filings can be made again. However, given the number of rulemaking proceedings the National Broadband Plan will generate, it is reasonable to assume that a lifting of the freeze will not occur anytime soon.

For assistance in analyzing a station’s options in light of the Media Bureau’s action, please contact any of the attorneys in the Communications Practice Section.

Published on:

By

In a Public Notice released yesterday, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC established new comment dates to refresh the record on several closed captioning issues first raised in proceedings initiated in 2005 and 2008. Comments are due November 24, 2010, with reply comments due December 9, 2010.

2005 Closed Captioning Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“2005 NPRM”)

First, the FCC is seeking to refresh the record on several items that were raised in its 2005 NPRM that remain outstanding. Specifically, it is asking for additional comments on whether the FCC should establish “quality” standards for non-technical portions of the captioning rules. Such standards would be aimed at ensuring the accuracy of the captions themselves. In this regard, the FCC would like comments on what the adoption of such standards would cost to programmers and distributors, whether there are enough competent captioners to meet the demand, and whether different captioning quality standards should apply to live and pre-recorded programming.

Second, the FCC seeks to refresh the record regarding the need for new rules that go beyond the current “pass through” rule. The “pass through” rule requires video programming distributors to deliver all programming containing closed captioning with the original closed captioning data intact in a format that can be displayed by decoders meeting the standards of Part 15 of the FCC’s Rules. According to the Public Notice, the FCC is looking for ways to prevent technical problems in the delivery of captions and to remedy technical problems quickly when they do occur.

With respect to violations of the captioning requirements, the FCC seeks comments on whether to establish specific “per violation” forfeiture amounts, and if so, what those amounts should be. The FCC is also seeking comments on whether video programming distributors should be required to file periodic captioning compliance reports.

The 2005 NPRM also discussed the continued use of electronic newsroom technique (ENT), in which the closed captioning text is fed directly from a station’s teleprompter. Because this captioning technique does not provide captions for unscripted segments, the current rule limits its use to stations that are not affiliated with ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox, or which are located outside the top 25 markets. Nonbroadcast networks serving at least 50% of cable/satellite households are also prohibited from relying on ENT. The FCC is asking whether the use of ENT for captioning should be further restricted by, for example, expanding the prohibition to stations outside the top 25 markets.

The FCC is also seeking comments on whether it should mandate that petitions for exemption from the closed captioning requirements be filed electronically.

2008 Closed Captioning Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“2008 NPRM”)

With respect to the 2008 NPRM, the FCC is asking for comments to refresh the record on how the captioning exemption for “channels” producing revenues of less than $3 million should apply to digital multicasting. In 2008, the FCC asked whether each programming stream in a multicast signal should constitute a separate “channel,” or whether the broadcaster’s primary and multicast streams should be considered a single channel for purposes of determining whether they exceed the $3 million exemption limit. The FCC wishes to update the record, and is asking for comments on the ramifications of ruling that each multicast stream is a separate channel.

As noted above, comments on these proposals are due November 24, 2010, and reply comments are due December 9, 2010. Please contact any of the lawyers in the Communications Practice Section for assistance in the preparation and filing of comments or reply comments.

Published on:

By

In the heat of the battle raging over carriage of various Fox networks on Cablevision’s systems, Randy May, the founder and chief intellect of the Free State Foundation, has weighed in on the retransmission consent debate (available here). I read his comments with interest, because Randy often provides insightful observations on important telecommunications policy issues, and I care about retransmission consent.

I was disappointed. The paper only rehashes the cable television party line.

Surprisingly, Randy suggests that broadcasters’ exercise of retransmission consent rights should be scrutinized and possibly regulated even more. One would have to dig pretty deep to find the last time Randy advocated solving a problem by throwing more government at it.

The party line Randy endorses goes something like this: broadcasters get special privileges from the government with respect to signal carriage, which give them a retrans “negotiating advantage.” Retransmission consent negotiations don’t happen in a free market goes the argument. The solution? Broadcasters’ retransmission rights should be even more regulated than they are already.
Randy cites two “advantages” broadcasters supposedly enjoy in retrans negotiations: (1) must-carry and (2) program exclusivity. The cable industry party line is a little tortured, coming, as it does, from interests subject to a small fraction of the regulatory umbrella that shadows broadcasters. These are the same companies, after all, that argue government should stand back and let broadband carriers treat Internet traffic as they will.

The party line is also completely wrong about the carriage rules.
First, the existence of must-carry sometimes harms, but never helps, broadcasters that elect retransmission consent. Broadcasters must claim their retrans rights once every three years through a technical and exacting election process. If they make a mistake, they risk having to give away their signals for free. Cable companies routinely use this against broadcasters in retrans negotiations.

By definition, any broadcaster engaged in retransmission consent negotiations has forfeited its must-carry rights. It’s either-or. Each broadcaster makes its election once every three years — same election for all overlapping cable operators, no cherry-picking. If you elect retrans, you have no guarantee of being carried at all and no option to revert to must-carry if negotiations break down.

Must-carry benefits some broadcasters, no doubt. But it doesn’t confer any advantage on a broadcaster that elects retransmission consent. The cable/DBS/telco party line suggests that must-carry gives broadcasters a retrans advantage, but it never identifies what that supposed advantage is. Randy doesn’t explain the advantage either. There is none.
Second, the program exclusivity rules impose huge burdens on broadcasters. Start with the unregulated baseline: producers and distributors are free under the law to agree to exclusive distribution territories. The broadcast networks and affiliates, if they wanted to, could agree that each affiliate has unfettered nonduplication protection throughout its DMA. That would be a free market.

But this is anything but a free market: even if broadcasters purchase exclusivity rights, they may not enforce those rights except within limited, FCC-defined areas. If you doubt me, just read the notes to the network nonduplication and the syndicated exclusivity rules. And this is a bargaining advantage? A reason to pile more rules on broadcasters?
Having read hundreds of Randy’s usually insightful postings over the years, I’m disappointed to see him republish boilerplate cable industry advocacy. His comments run counter to the Free State Foundation’s guiding principles and lack Randy’s trademark sharpness and passion. More to the point, they bizarrely suggest that the government somehow does broadcasters a favor by limiting their free market rights.

Published on:

By

In October of 1996 my boss, the chairman of a $3 billion television production and distribution empire (and one of the smartest television dealmakers I ever met) scoffed when I said that television could be delivered over the Internet. I told him to wait ten years. Well, in 2006 we had YouTube, but I doubt Bill Bevins would count that as television.

In the first ten days of October 2010:

  • I spoke on the “Hot Topics” panel at the annual TPRC conference, where leading academics and policy makers discuss legal, economic, social, and technical issues on national and international information and communications policy. The hot topic this year: over-the-top (OTT) television.
  • A friend called asking for advice – he’d been offered a senior executive post with a very large broadcasting company paying a great salary, and a senior position with a scrappy OTT startup, paying lots of stock and the chance to hit big. In 2010, he sees this as a tough call.
  • I watched Forrest Gump in “high definition” on a 50″ plasma monitor, streamed by Netflix to my son’s Xbox. The quality was stunning.
  • I installed my new AppleTV and watched a high definition podcast, also streamed, and several “high definition” videos on YouTube and Netflix. In several cases, the quality was very good. And the Apple TV interface is much more elegant and easier to use than our FiOS set top box.

I should have told Bill 14 years.

OTT is here. There’s a lot of long tail and niche content online. It’s getting easier to find and use, and if you have a fast broadband connection, the quality can be outstanding. So just what is cord cutting and how do you define OTT? And what do they mean for traditional video providers?

Cord cutting at its extreme means a household drops MVPD service and relies on other sources of television – primarily free OTA television supplemented by long-tail OTT internet services like Netflix and Hulu. OTT means traditional television content delivered through non-traditional (generally Internet) television distribution channels. It doesn’t refer to non-traditional video content (YouTube and other user generated content) regardless of distribution channel. We make this distinction because, rightly or wrongly, we consider YouTube and Vimeo to be something entirely different (and less threatening to incumbent providers) than the delivery of high resolution, full-format, traditional programming over the Internet.

Many fear OTT will lead to tens of millions of households to cut the cord. This is naturally a concern for cable and satellite providers, but many broadcasters worry too, because MVPDs won’t pay broadcasters for cord cutting households. Personally, I think we are likely to see a fair amount of cord cutting in the next few years, and an even larger amount of what I call cord trimming – dropping premium services or higher tier services. In new households, broadband is essential, while pay television service is often optional. And the combination of gorgeous, over-the-air, live high definition broadcast service and increasingly compelling long tail OTT options is likely to be a better option for many households than traditional MVPD service.

But there’s a silver lining for cable systems and broadcasters, and even for DBS providers.

  • Cable systems may lose video subs, but demand for OTT television will drive broadband adoption into more of the 40 million households that haven’t adopted it so far, and it will lead others to upgrade their connections, at higher prices. Since broadband service is generally more profitable than video services, cable profit margins could actually rise even if gross revenue shrinks.
  • Broadcasters could lose retransmission consent fees from cord cutting households, but cord shrinking will affect broadcast competitors – cable networks – before broadcasters, because it’s the expensive higher tiers and premium services that cord-shrinking customers drop. The broadcast and sports channels are the last to go before cord is cut altogether.
  • If total MVPD penetration falls from the high eighties to the mid sixties in the next seven to ten years, as I suspect it will, tens of millions in advertising will migrate back from cable and satellite to broadcast, because reach is still important. Twelve or so years ago, with MVPD penetration in the mid 60s, broadcasters were far more profitable, even without retransmission revenue.
  • Much higher broadband penetration could breathe new life into the DBS business model, which is an incredibly cost efficient way to distribute high quality linear television. With more broadband homes to sell into, DBS providers can create a hybrid satellite-OTT service that meets and in many ways exceeds what the cable operators can do with their own video services.

OTT service will have many effects beyond cord shrinking and cord cutting. But incumbent providers should embrace OTT, because the opportunities it enables – the best of which we can’t imagine yet – far outweigh the risks that it poses to all incumbent business models. It creates opportunities for greater efficiencies and more varied service offerings for all incumbents, if they have the vision to see the opportunities and the perseverance to follow through. Best of all, OTT can make television more satisfying for consumers, more measurable, and easier to use – leading, inevitably, to more usage. In the television business, we all like more usage, as long as we get our share. Getting that share is the challenge and the opportunity.

Published on:

By

The Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced in a public notice released today that it has adopted the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) v1.2 Standard for FEMA’s Integrated Public Alert Warning System (IPAWS). Under the FCC’s Rules, Emergency Alert System (EAS) participants (e.g., radio and television stations, and wired and wireless cable television systems) must be able to receive CAP-formatted EAS alerts no later than 180 days after FEMA publishes the technical standards and requirements for CAP transmissions. Although FEMA’s public notice does not mention the 180 day clock, an FCC representative stated today that the 180 day period commences with issuance of the FEMA public notice. As a result, all EAS participants should assume that the release of the public notice today (September 30) initiated the 180 day period to acquire and install CAP-compliant equipment.

At its essence, IPAWS is a network of alert systems through which FEMA is upgrading the way Americans receive alert and warning information, providing that information through as many communications pathways as possible. CAP is an alerting format that uses digital technology to allow a consistent warning message to be disseminated simultaneously over as many different warning systems as possible. In addition to enhanced audio and video, CAP permits digital photos and text to be included in emergency alerts and AMBER alerts.

FEMA and the FCC are to be commended for their hard work in seeking to improve EAS and better alert the American people in the event of an emergency. However, EAS participants and equipment manufacturers alike have argued that 180 days is not enough time to acquire equipment compatible with the new CAP standards and to configure EAS systems to receive and relay CAP messages. Manufacturers of EAS equipment may not be able to meet the sudden demand for new equipment by that deadline if every EAS participant is indeed required to have CAP-capable equipment installed within 180 days. Many EAS players have also noted that the 180 day time frame does not take into account legitimate budgeting concerns, given that the equipment alone can cost $2,000-$3,000. With tight federal, state, and local budgets, most EAS participants will likely get no assistance in acquiring the equipment necessary to make the new alerting system work.

There is also the issue of equipment certification and testing. FEMA is expected to wrap up its initial certification process by issuing a list of CAP-certified equipment by the end of November. But it isn’t clear if the FCC will conduct its own certification process to provide EAS participants and EAS equipment manufacturers with the certainty of FCC rule compliance they would like prior to moving forward with acquiring CAP-compliant equipment. Many also complain that it remains unclear if parties will be able to fully test the reliability of their new CAP equipment until late 2011, given that the first national FEMA test of CAP is not expected to occur until that time.

Also, while EAS participants are required to meet the 180 day deadline, there are no rules requiring state or local Emergency Management Agencies or public safety departments to be able to actually deliver such alerts by that deadline. So while EAS participants will need to be able to receive national CAP messages delivered by FEMA, they will also need to make sure that their new equipment can simultaneously receive older “legacy” messages that may continue to be issued locally. And if states decide to implement a CAP-compliant EAS system in the future, there is no guarantee that the equipment they acquire then will be fully compatible with the equipment purchased earlier by EAS participants in that state.

The good news is that staff at both FEMA and the FCC have been made aware of these and other concerns surrounding the 180 day deadline and seem sympathetic to those concerns. It is therefore possible that the 180 day compliance period could be extended, but EAS participants should not rely on that being the case. Because of this, EAS participants will need to carefully assess their situation to determine when and how to select EAS equipment appropriate to their needs. EAS participants that wait until too late to focus on this issue will certainly face an emergency of their own.