Published on:

By

We are frequently asked by broadcasters during the political season whether they are required to provide political candidates with free spot availabilities because they are running “free” or “no charge” spots for commercial advertisers. These spots, of course, are really not free at all. They have a cost, but it is hidden in the cost of the other spots in the package.
The FCC has said that bonus spots to churches, charities, non-profit organizations and governmental entities do not need to be considered for purposes of computing a station’s lowest unit charge (LUC). Thus, the bonus spots (or PSAs) given an organization such as the Office of National Drug Control Policy — which required one free spot for every paid spot — do not affect stations’ LUC.
Much more common are the bonus spots that are given to a for-profit commercial advertiser as an inducement to enter into a package deal. For example, a radio station may offer an additional 20 Run-of-Schedule (ROS) spots for no additional charge to commercial advertisers who enter into a package deal to buy 20 drive time spots at full rate card price.
Sometimes these are listed simply as “bonus spots,” and no price is allocated to the spot at all. In such cases, the station is required to divide the total number of spots of all types in the package into the total consideration paid to compute the price for each spot in the package, including the “no charge” spots. So, if a radio station charges $1,000 for a package consisting of 20 drive time spots (shown on the invoice as $50 each) and 20 ROS spots (shown on the invoice as “bonus”), the FCC would divide the total number of spots (20+20=40) into the total package price ($1000) and say that the rate for LUC purposes of both the drive time and ROS spots is $25 each. This may well be lower than any drive time spot running on the station, and higher than any ROS spot. Because candidates may “cherry pick” spots in a package, and buy only one at the package rate, this leads to a very harsh result, because a candidate would be able to buy one or many drive time spots at the low $25 rate without having to buy any ROS spots.
In other cases, the advertising contracts for such package deals list price for the bonus spots as “no charge,” “free” or “$0.00.” While the FCC has said that it would not rule out the possibility that a station could assign a value of “zero” to a bonus spot, it said that such assignment would have to be based on the station’s normal commercial sales practices. Moreover, listing a bonus spot as free would trigger a requirement that the station make the spots available to candidates at no cost. In our experience, few, if any stations are in the business of giving away free advertising — at least unless tied to the purchase of full priced spots.
To avoid these traps, the station should put a price on each spot in the package, without changing the total package price. For example, if the station were to assign a price of $48 to each drive time spot, and $2 to each ROS spot, the charge to the customer stays the same, and the station has preserved the rates of its most valuable time. And, because most candidates want their ads to appear in better time periods, we believe it is unlikely that candidates would purchase ROS even at these low rates.
It is best that these rates be shown on the station’s contracts and invoices. However, the FCC recognizes that advertisers and agencies want to believe they are receiving “something for nothing” even though we all know there is no such thing as a free lunch. Therefore, stations are permitted to create a contract and invoice showing the “no charge” rate in a package, so long as there is a contemporaneous memo attached to the contract in the station’s records (but not sent to the advertiser or agency) that allocates the rates properly (in this case, $48 and $2), is signed and dated and can be produced upon request by the FCC. By doing so the station can send a contract and subsequent invoice to a commercial advertiser showing a “no charge” rate, while preserving the maximum value for the station’s best spots. These memos should be created, signed and dated at the time the contract is executed.
Stations should consult counsel as to how to deal with outstanding advertising packages that list spots as “free” or “no charge.”

Published on:

By

The FCC announced in April 2009 its intent to implement a new version of its biennial Ownership Report form, and to require that all commercial broadcast stations file a new Ownership Report with the FCC by November 1 of odd-numbered years. Since that time, the FCC has had to delay the original November 2009 filing deadline a number of times, for reasons ranging from its electronic filing system grinding to a halt and being unable to handle the sheer mass of the new reports, to technical glitches with the form itself, delays in Office of Management and Budget approval, and fierce opposition from broadcasters at the FCC, OMB and now in court based upon the paperwork burden and privacy concerns the new form raises. As we discussed in an earlier Client Alert, the FCC’s revised deadline requires parties to report their November 1, 2009 ownership data on the new form by July 8, 2010.

As that deadline draws near, however, it looks like there are still a few obstacles that the FCC must navigate. As we reported in a recent Client Alert, the FCC yesterday responded to a petition filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit by a group of broadcasters. Those broadcasters have asked the court to stop the FCC from implementing the revised Form 323, arguing that the requirement that all “attributable” principals provide their Social Security Number (SSN) to obtain a Federal Registration Number (FRN) for the new ownership report violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Privacy Act. In its court-ordered response to these allegations, the FCC claims it has complied with the law, and that the broadcasters’ claims are moot in any event because filers are no longer actually required to provide their SSNs and can instead apply for a “Special Use FRN” (SUFRN) (love that acronym!) to complete the new ownership report form.

That response is not, however, entirely accurate. The FCC initially refused to create a Special Use FRN for purposes of reporting ownership interests. It feared that broadcast investors would choose to use that option rather than supplying their SSN, thereby undercutting the FCC’s ability to determine precisely which “Ted Jones” was the owner of a particular radio station. The FCC relented only when it became clear that many broadcasters would be unable to file their Ownership Reports at all since they had no ability to force their investors to reveal SSNs, and the FCC’s electronic filing system would not accept an ownership report if all attributable investors listed did not have an SSN-obtained FRN.

Even when the FCC later relented and created the SUFRN, it limited its use to the filing of biennial ownership reports (as opposed to post-sale ownership reports or other FCC applications). The FCC also made clear that the use of a SUFRN, while technically allowing broadcasters to file their ownership reports through the electronic filing system, did not comply with its rules and that it expected broadcasters to have obtained SSN-obtained FRNs before the next biennial ownership report is due in November 2011.

Since that time, and under continuing pressure from communications lawyers and privacy advocates (who are often one and the same), the FCC appears to be growing more flexible about the use of SUFRNs in completing ownership reports. Action by the court in the short time remaining until the July 8, 2010 filing deadline may determine just how flexible the FCC will need to be in that regard, and whether the filing deadline might have to be extended yet one more time.

Published on:

By

Earlier this week, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz began the FTC’s final workshop concerning the future of media “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” by dismissing as a ” non-starter” any chance that his agency would recommend new taxes to support or “save” journalism. In advance of this workshop, the FTC staff had prepared and released a discussion document entitled “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism.” One of the goals of the document is to try and save the current newspaper business model by, in part, imposing substantial new taxes on other media, including broadcasters. While the FTC says that the term “journalism” used throughout the document does not mean that that the FTC favors newspapers over broadcasters or other media, a close reading of the draft indicates that newspapers would be the primary beneficiary of the FTC proposals should they be adopted.
Shortly after the release of the document, the FTC issued a statement to the effect that the draft did not reflect a formal intention on the part of the FTC to seek new taxes and that the paper was for discussion purposes only. However, in order to fund the proposals, including those to provide potentially billions of dollars in subsidies and various tax breaks and credits to newspapers, the document proposes that the government institute:

• A 7 percent tax on broadcast spectrum to raise $3 to $6 billion while at the same time relieving broadcasters of their obligation to air “public-interest programming.”

• A 5 percent tax on consumer electronics that “would generate approximately $4 billion annually.”

• A spectrum auction tax “on the auction sales prices for commercial communication spectrum, with the proceeds going to the public-media fund.”

• A 2 percent sales tax on advertising to generate approximately $5 to $6 billion annually” and to change “the tax write-off of all advertising as a business expense in a single year to a write-off over a 5-year period [to] generate an additional $2 billion per year.”

• A 3 percent Internet Service Provider-cell phone tax requiring consumers to pay a tax on their “monthly ISP-cell phone bills to fund content they access on their digital services” to raise $6 billion annually for the FTC’s proposals.

While the FTC’s look to the future of news gathering might be noble, the proposals to raise taxes on broadcasters, consumer electronics, Internet Service Provider customers, and others would undoubtedly increase costs for consumers and businesses alike, not to mention they raise a host of First Amendment and Constitutional questions regarding politicization and governmental interference with a supposedly impartial press.
In the real world, most newspaper publishers recognize that innovation and new business models are the best ways to survive and thrive going forward as opposed to having the government impose harsh taxes on other media in the “robbing Peter to pay Paul” manner envisioned by much of the FTC report. According to press reports, John Sturm, President and CEO of the Newspaper Association of America commented on the FTC report by stating that “We’ve never sought or asked for anything like a bailout” and Rupert Murdoch is on record warning against the FTC proposals and the “heavy hand” of governmental regulation.

Chairman Leibowitz stated that the FTC’s workshops “have always been more about the future of journalism than saving the past.” While the Chairman might be right, the staff report circulating at the FTC would suggest otherwise as many of its proposals are clearly backward looking. Given the stakes and dollar amounts involved, broadcasters, consumer electronics manufacturers, Internet Service Providers as well as consumers should pay close attention to this proceeding as it continues to unfold at the FTC. The FTC plans to issue its final report on the future of media sometime this Fall.

Published on:

By

There is a growing need for tower space as wireless technologies proliferate, and the potential profits to be made by tower owners leasing space for these new technologies has resulted in the growth of companies whose sole business is to own and manage towers. However, managing towers is not a simple affair, as they are subject to numerous regulations from the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Aviation Administration, not to mention the many other applicable regulations of the Department of Homeland Security, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Transportation, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

The FCC recently released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing revisions to Part 17, its Antenna Structure Registration rules, with the stated goals of improving compliance and safety and to remove dated and burdensome requirements on tower owners. It also claimed that the proposals will help tower owners, as the FCC puts it, “more efficiently and cost effectively” comply with the FCC’s rules.

While it may be true that the FCC is proposing to streamline aspects of its rules, for antenna structure owners, the NPRM is a mixed bag at best and includes a number of possible new regulations that could increase regulatory compliance burdens. For example, the FCC is proposing new regulations changing the way it evaluates proper tower painting, adding station record retention requirements, changing the required location of signage, and establishing new tower light failure and tower inspection requirements. Of perhaps the greatest concern, the FCC is asking whether it should adopt a whole new set of rules to be consistent with those to be issued by the FAA which could expand notification requirements for construction of new facilities that operate on specified frequency bands, changes in authorized frequency, addition of new frequencies, and new power and height thresholds.
Among the potentially beneficial changes, the NPRM proposes to replace the current tower inspection and observation requirements with a simple rule mandating only prompt reporting of outages, ease the requirement regarding quarterly inspections of automatic control systems associated with tower lighting, clarify the rules regarding the posting of Antenna Structure Registration numbers, create an objective standard for determining when an antenna structure must be cleaned or repainted, and permit tower owners to notify tenants by email when a tower structure has been registered rather than being required to provide a paper notification.

The FCC set the public comment dates in this proceeding through publication in the Federal Register today. Comments are due July 20, 2010, and reply comments are due August 19, 2010. As will be discussed in greater detail in a Client Advisory regarding the proposed rule revisions, the FCC has requested comment on these and a multitude of other changes. A complete copy of the FCC’s NPRM can be found here. Given the breadth of this proceeding, tower owners and tenants should seriously consider providing their input on the proposed rule changes or be prepared to live with the consequences. In worst case scenarios, tower owners can face fines of more than a million dollars for failing to comply with various federal (as well as state and local) regulations, and it is therefore wise for them to register their input on what those regulations will look like.

Published on:

By

Given that low power television (LPTV) stations have been trying unsuccessfully for many years to obtain must-carry rights comparable to those enjoyed by full-power stations, it is often overlooked that some LPTVs do, in fact, have carriage rights. However, these must-carry rights are available only to a select few LPTV stations.

Specifically, an LPTV station is “qualified” for mandatory carriage only if: 1) it broadcasts at least the minimum number of hours required of full-power stations by the FCC’s rules; 2) it meets all the obligations applicable to full-power television stations including, among other things, with respect to non-entertainment programming, and provides local news, informational and children’s programming that addresses local needs that are not being met by full-power stations; 3) it complies with interference restrictions consistent with its secondary status; 4) it is located no more than 35 miles from the cable system’s principal headend and delivers a good quality signal to that headend; 5) the community of license of the station and the franchise area of the cable system were both located outside the largest 160 markets on June 30, 1990 and the population of the community of license was not larger than 35,000 as of that date; and 6) there is no full power television station licensed to any community within the county served by the cable system.

The last two criteria are typically the most difficult obstacles for LPTV licensees to overcome, as cable systems are only required to carry LPTVs in the smallest of markets and, even in those areas, only when there is a dearth of full-power stations in the area. While the restrictions are difficult for most LPTV stations to meet, a recent FCC decision shows that it is not impossible. In that case (found here), digital LPTV station WRTN-LD, located just outside of Nashville, Tennessee, was able to convince the FCC, over the objections of Comcast, that the station is a “qualified” LPTV station entitled to must-carry rights on Comcast’s cable system. While Comcast argued that the station is part of the Nashville market and therefore ineligible for must-carry rights, the station was able to demonstrate that its service area was outside the Nashville market and that it met the other qualifying criteria.

This case serves as a reminder to all licensees to investigate options and not merely presume that no help is available at the FCC or elsewhere. For LPTV licensees in particular, a quick review of the LPTV carriage criteria above with respect to their own situation is well worth the effort involved.

Published on:

By

Last week, we listened to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski speak at the National Association of Broadcasters convention in Las Vegas. One topic he made a point to discuss was the recent Petition filed by cable and satellite companies arguing that the retransmission consent process is unfair, and asking the government to intervene in private contractual disputes to decide how broadcasters can and cannot negotiate carriage deals, including mandating arbitration of disputes and requiring stations to permit “interim carriage” of their programming while negotiations are ongoing. However, the issue is not stations “yanking” their signals from cable and satellite operators while negotiations drag on, but the failure of operators to secure the right to retransmit the programming when their current retransmission agreement expires, as the Communications Act requires. Indeed, it is the same basic contractual process that cable and satellite operators go through when seeking to extend carriage of non-broadcast networks, except that non-broadcast networks wield nationwide control over access to their programming, whereas broadcasters wield such control only in individual markets.

While the Chairman did say in his speech that the marketplace is the “preferred method” for resolving disputes that come up during negotiations, he also referenced the Petition’s claim that broadcasters were to blame for a rise in cable fees, stating: “Some ask: Is free TV really free when cable rates go up because of retransmission fees?”
However, that rhetorical question is just that — rhetorical. Free TV can only survive as free TV if it is financially able to produce/compete for the programming also sought by non-broadcast networks. The only way that is possible in a 500-channel world is for broadcast stations to have the dual revenue stream (advertising and retransmission fees) enjoyed by their non-broadcast competitors. Only by being financially viable can broadcast stations remain as a free alternative for those wishing to “cut the cable” or “dump the dish.” In fact, as digital multicasting allows stations to deliver multiple free programming streams, free TV becomes a more attractive option and a more effective check on rising cable rates.

Unlike a cable network, a broadcaster can never “yank its signal” from the public when retransmission negotiations falter and what often seems to be missing from the debate is that the public does not “lose” a TV station’s signal when it is dropped by a cable system during a retransmission consent dispute because the signal is available to viewers for free over the air. The law merely prohibits a cable or satellite operator from reselling broadcast programming to viewers if the operator itself is unwilling to pay the going rate for it. In that regard, it is no different than any other business transaction, except that the public can always choose to “avoid the middleman” and obtain the programming directly from the television station (for free) by using an antenna. In this context, and particularly in light of the extreme rarity of program disruptions occurring during retransmission negotiations, cable and satellite operators have a difficult challenge making the case that carriage negotiations with broadcast stations are significantly different than carriage negotiations with cable networks.

The fundamental difference between these negotiations is mostly one of degree — broadcast programming tends to regularly be among the most popular programming, making it more valuable to those wishing to resell it to their subscribers. However, broadcast programming will only remain popular if broadcasters continue to earn the revenues necessary to produce and purchase such programming. A cynical observer might therefore conclude that the desire to prevent broadcasters from receiving a share of subscription revenues commensurate with audience ratings is only partially about reducing cable and satellite systems’ operating costs, and just as much about keeping those revenues out of the hands of those who compete with cable and satellite for ad sales and audience. Systems overpaying for fringe cable networks while underpaying for far more popular broadcast programming harms free local TV without any countervailing benefit (unless you are the owner of a fringe cable network).

Also, the problem with forcing interim carriage during negotiations (aside from the fact that its a violation of the Communications Act) is that the continued availability of a station’s programming for retransmission is not, as cable/satellite operators frequently claim, an unfair “bargaining chip” used by broadcasters in retransmission negotiations — it is the entire point of the negotiation. Requiring that broadcast programming continue to be made available at last year’s rate during negotiations, as the Petition urges, provides cable operators with an obvious incentive to drag out the negotiations as long as possible rather than bring them to a rapid conclusion and begin paying the current rate. Imposing an interim carriage requirement would actually destabilize retransmission negotiations, as broadcasters would be forced to declare the negotiations terminated in order to end the interim carriage and hopefully force the cable/satellite operator back to a serious negotiation. Encouraging cable/satellite operators to delay negotiations long past the expiration of their existing retransmission agreements, and then forcing broadcasters to declare an official end to the negotiations as the only way of ending lower cost interim carriage and forcing a serious offer from the cable/satellite operator, is inherently more likely to result in carriage disruptions than the current process.

Like homeowners in a buyer’s market, cable and satellite operators are no doubt unhappy that market conditions are currently less in their favor compared to the “good old days”, but that hardly makes the market “broken” or “unfair.” Trying to fix something that isn’t broken is a surefire way to break it badly, and it is the public that would be forced to pick up the pieces.

Published on:

By

Blair Levin, who headed the FCC’s Omnibus Broadband Initiative (OBI) for the past year and who was the principle architect of the National Broadband Plan, announced yesterday that he’s leaving the FCC on May 7 to join the Aspen Institute, a large and prestigious think tank.

Levin created the OBI from scratch. He moved in to the FCC, but he hired many new staff. He adopted new procedures for gathering public input, including blogging, “staff workshops”, and what amounted to frequent cold calls to people in business and academia to solicit views and information. The OBI was not your father’s FCC proceeding!

Levin also drew a dauntingly broad scope for the effort, and the OBI staff continued to expand that scope almost until the last minute. The proceeding, and the Plan, addressed broadband technology, deployment, services, adoption, financing, and usage. It asked how broadband affects other institutions and industries, from broadcasting, cable, wireless, and voice services to education, politics, energy and the environment, to name just a few.

Levin’s efforts drew enthusiastic support from some quarters and criticism from others. Some disliked his unorthodox procedural approach and others welcomed it. Some who agreed with his positions questioned his procedures, and vice versa. Whatever one thinks of the procedure or the recommendations, the National Broadband Plan is a remarkable document – comprehensive, polished and beautifully written and presented.

The most polarizing issue was a proposal to reallocate broadcast spectrum for wireless broadband use. I’ve questioned some aspects of the broadband plan, especially whether proponents of more broadband spectrum have really made their case. But I’ve been awed by Levin’s ability to “shake things up” in a town where the status quo can last for decades.

Reactions to Levin’s announcement have been as mixed as views of the National Broadband Plan. I’m disappointed to see him go. Levin is one of the smartest, hardest working, most effective, and best-intentioned people to work at the FCC (and that’s a big club). I disagree with some of his views, but I’ve never doubted his sincerity or the honesty of his motives.

Levin didn’t start the debate over broadcast spectrum – that began in the 1980s – and it won’t end on May 7. But he focused the issue and gave it legs. The country is now having a debate about the future of broadcasting that would have seemed unthinkable a year ago.

I’m an optimist — perhaps a delusional optimist. But if downsizing the nation’s broadcasting service is suddenly thinkable today, maybe real deregulation of broadcasting, including much-needed ownership reform, is also thinkable. The FCC’s Future of Media proceeding essentially asks that question.

I’ve harbored hope that ongoing engagement on “the spectrum issue” will eventually lead to grounds-up rethinking of the broadcast ownership rules. Broadcast regulation needs some serious shaking up, and the constituencies around many of those regulations are honed in the art of the status quo. Levin demonstrated an uncanny ability to reset people’s conceptions about what is and isn’t achievable. Broadcasters could use some of that energy focused on ownership rules which artificially limit their participation in a digital broadband future. He’s leaving, but perhaps someone will learn from Levin how to pull off something as ambitious as repealing anachronistic broadcast regulations. I hope so. And I hope the Aspen Institute knows what it’s getting into!

Published on:

By

Death, taxes … and FCC annual regulatory fees. Its that time of year again and the FCC has issued its latest annual Notice of Proposed Rulemaking containing regulatory fee proposals for Fiscal Year 2010. Those who wish to file comments on the FCC’s proposed fees must do so by May 4, 2010 with reply comments due by May 11, 2010.
For one of the few times in recent history, the annual fee amount the FCC is proposing to collect is actually less than the amount from a previous year. Consistent with this, and with a few exceptions, most of this year’s fees are the same or less than last year’s fees for all AM, FM, and television stations, as are the fee amounts for LPTV, Class A, translator, booster, and broadcast auxiliary licenses.

One big change in this year’s fee proposals is the elimination of the exemption for digital stations to pay fees now that the DTV transition has ended. Going forward, all digital full-service television stations will be required to pay a full license fee, including those stations that were operating pursuant to digital Special Temporary Authority as of October 1, 2009. It is also important to point out that the Commission is proposing to charge only a single fee for each low power or Class A facility simulcasting in both digital and analog.

The Communications Section will shortly be publishing a full Advisory on the proposed Reg Fees, including fee tables and charts for you to use to calculate your payments that will be due later this year.

Published on:

By

March 2010
The next Children’s Television Programming Report must be filed with the FCC and placed in stations’ local Public Inspection Files by April 10, 2010, reflecting programming aired during the months of January, February and March 2010.

Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
As a result of the Children’s Television Act of 1990 and the FCC Rules adopted under the Act, full power and Class A television stations are required, among other things, to: (1) limit the amount of commercial matter aired during programs originally produced and broadcast for an audience of children 12 years of age and younger; and (2) air programming responsive to the educational and informational needs of children 16 years of age and younger.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

This Advisory provides a review of the FCC’s political broadcasting regulations.

Introduction
Eight years after adoption of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (“BCRA”) of 2002, popularly known as “McCain-Feingold,” Congress’ and the FCC’s interest in political broadcasting and political advertising practices remains undiminished. Broadcast stations must insure that a broad range of federal mandates are met, providing “equal opportunities” to all candidates using the stations facilities, affording federal candidates for public office “reasonable access” and treating all candidates for public office no less favorably than the station treats its most favored advertisers. Accordingly, it is imperative that broadcasters be very familiar with what is expected of them in this regulatory area, that they have adequate policies and practices in place to insure full compliance, and that they remain vigilant to legislative, FCC, and FEC changes in the law.

Continue reading →