Published on:

By

In a post today on the FCC’s Blog, Diane Cornell, Special Counsel to Chairman Wheeler, described the FCC’s efforts to reduce backlogs of applications, complaints, and other proceedings pending at the FCC. The post announces that the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau has closed 760 docketed proceedings, and is on track to close another 750 by the end of the year. The post also indicates that the FCC’s Wireless Bureau resolved 2046 applications older than six months, reducing the backlog of applications by 26%.

Of particular interest to broadcasters, however, is the news that the “Enforcement Bureau has largely completed its review of pending complaints, clearing the way for the Media Bureau to grant almost 700 license renewals this week.” Many of these pending complaints were presumably based on indecency claims, which have in recent years created such a backlog of license renewal applications (particularly for TV stations) that it has not been unusual for a station to have multiple license renewal applications pending at the FCC, even though such applications are only filed every eight years.

For those unable to buy or sell a broadcast station, or to refinance its debt, because that station’s license renewal application was hung up at the FCC, this will be welcome news. Just two years ago, the number of indecency complaints pending at the FCC exceeded 1,500,000, dropping to around 500,000 in April of 2013, when the FCC proposed to “focus its indecency enforcement resources on egregious cases and to reduce the backlog of pending broadcast indecency complaints.”

While indecency and other complaints will certainly continue to arrive at the FCC in large numbers given the ease of filing them in the Internet age, today’s news brings hope that most of them will be addressed quickly, and that long-pending license renewal applications will become a rarity at the FCC. That would be welcome news for broadcasters, who frequently found that the application delays caused by such complaints were far worse than any fine the FCC might levy. Such delays were particularly galling in the many cases where the focus of the complaint was content wildly outside the FCC’s definition of indecency (“language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities“).

For a number of years, complaints that merely used the word “indecent” were put in the “indecency complaint” stack, resulting in multi-year holds on that station’s FCC applications. I once worked on a case where a politician who had been criticized in a TV’s newscast for his performance in office filed an FCC complaint stating that the station’s comments about him were “indecent”. You guessed it; this exercise of a station’s First Amendment right to criticize a public official resulted in a hold being placed on the station’s FCC applications for years while the complaint sat at the FCC.

The FCC’s efforts to eliminate these delays, and the inordinate leverage such delays gave to even the most frivolous complaints, are an excellent example of the FCC staff working to accomplish the Commission’s public interest mandate. While broadcasters may feel they have not have had many reasons to cheer the FCC in recent years, today’s announcement certainly merits some applause.

Published on:

By

In the U.S., jamming communications signals is illegal. Over the years, I’ve written a number of posts about the FCC’s persistent efforts to prevent jamming. Among these were fines and other actions taken against an Internet marketer of cell phone jamming devices; a variety of individuals and companies selling cell phone jamming devices through Craigslist; an employer attempting to block cell phone calls by its employees at work; a truck driver jamming GPS frequencies to prevent his employer from tracking his whereabouts; and an individual jamming the frequencies used by a shopping mall for its “mall cop” communications systems.

In each of these cases, the FCC went after either the party selling the jamming device, or the user of that device. Normally, jammers work by overloading the frequency with a more powerful interfering signal, confusing the signal receiver or obliterating the lower-powered “authorized” signal entirely. Historically, jammers have often been individuals with a grudge or an employer/employee trying to get the electronic upper hand on the other.

It was therefore a new twist when the FCC announced today that it had entered into a Consent Decree with one of the largest hotel operators in the U.S. “for $600,000 to settle the [FCC’s] investigation of allegations that [the operator] interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers in the conference facilities at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center in Nashville, Tennessee … in violation of Section 333 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended….”

The FCC’s Order describes the basis for its investigation and the Consent Decree as follows:

Wi-Fi is an essential on-ramp to the Internet. Wi-Fi networks have proliferated in places accessible to the public, such as restaurants, coffee shops, malls, train stations, hotels, airports, convention centers, and parks. Consumers also can establish their own Wi-Fi networks by using FCC-authorized mobile hotspots to connect Wi-Fi enabled devices to the Internet using their cellular data plans. The growing use of technologies that unlawfully block consumers from creating their own Wi-Fi networks via their personal hotspot devices unjustifiably prevents consumers from enjoying services they have paid for and stymies the convenience and innovation associated with Wi-Fi Internet access.

In March 2013, the Commission received a complaint from an individual who had attended a function at the Gaylord Opryland. The complainant alleged that the Gaylord Opryland was “jamming mobile hotspots so that you can’t use them in the convention space.” Marriott has admitted that one or more of its employees used containment features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system at the Gaylord Opryland to prevent consumers from connecting to the Internet via their own personal Wi-Fi networks. The Bureau investigated this matter to assess Marriott’s compliance with Section 333 of the Act and has entered into the attached Consent Decree. To resolve the Bureau’s investigation, [the operator] is required, among other things, (i) to pay a $600,000 civil penalty to the United States Treasury, (ii) to develop and implement a compliance plan, and (iii) to submit periodic compliance and usage reports, including information documenting to the Bureau any use of containment functionalities of Wi-Fi monitoring systems, at any U.S. property that [it] manages or owns.

Today’s Order makes clear that the FCC’s concerns about “signal jamming” are not limited to traditional brute force radio signal interference. In this case, the jamming was done by “the sending of de-authentication packets to Wi-Fi Internet access points.” Also of interest is that the FCC did not assert, as it often has in past jamming cases, that it was concerned about the impact of jamming communications on those in nearby public spaces. It appears that the “de-authentication” was limited to areas inside the hotel/convention center, and the FCC made clear that even this limited jamming was “unacceptable”.

This is not the first time the FCC has exercised its authority in ways affecting the hospitality industry (for example, fining hotels because their in-house cable systems don’t comply with FCC signal leakage limits designed to protect aviation communications). However, the FCC’s willingness to step in and regulate access to Wi-Fi on hotel property indicates that the FCC might be a growing influence on hotels’ business operations, particularly as hotels seek to make an increasing portion of their revenues from “guest fees” of various types, including for communications services. The Order indicates that the hotel here was charging anywhere from $250 to $1,000 per wireless access point for convention exhibitors and customers, providing a powerful incentive for the hotel to prevent parties from being able to sidestep those charges by setting up personal Wi-Fi hotspots.

Figuring out ways to drive up demand for these hotel services is Business 101. Doing it in a way that doesn’t draw the FCC’s ire is an upper level class.

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:

  • Unenclosed and Unpainted Tower Leads to $30,000 in Fines
  • $20,000 Fine for Missing Issues/Programs Lists at Two Stations
  • Increased Fine for Intentional Interference and Unlicensed Transmitter Use

Multiple Tower Violations Result in Increased Fine

Earlier this month, a Regional Director of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau (the “Bureau”) issued a Forfeiture Order against the licensee of a New Jersey AM radio station for failing to properly paint its tower and enclose the tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure.

Section 303(q) of the Communications Act requires that tower owners maintain painting and lighting of their towers as specified by the FCC. Section 17.50(a) of the Commission’s Rules says that towers must be cleaned or repainted as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. Section 73.49 of the FCC’s Rules requires “antenna towers having radio frequency potential at the base [to] be enclosed with effective locked fences or other enclosures.” The base fine for failing to comply with the lighting and marking requirements is $10,000, and the base fine for failing to maintain an effective AM tower fence is $7,000.

In March of 2010, agents from the Bureau’s Philadelphia Office inspected the licensee’s tower in New Jersey. The terms of the Antenna Structure Registration required that this particular tower be painted and lit. During their inspection, the agents noticed that the paint on the tower was faded and chipped, resulting in significantly reduced visibility. During their inspection, the agents also found that an unlocked gate allowed unrestricted access to the tower, which had radio frequency potential at its base. The agents contacted the owner of the tower and locked the gate before leaving the site.

In April of 2010, the Philadelphia Office issued a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) to the licensee for violating Sections 17.50(a) and 73.49 of the FCC’s Rules. The next month, in its response to the NOV, the licensee asserted that it inspects the tower several times each year and had been planning for some time to repair the faded and chipped paint and promised to bring the tower into compliance by August 15, 2010 by repainting the structure or installing white strobe lighting. The licensee also indicated that it had never observed the gate surrounding the tower be unlocked during its own site visits and noted that several tenants, each of whom leased space on the tower, also had keys for the site.

In November of 2010, agents inspected the tower again to ensure that the violations had been corrected. The agents discovered that the licensee had neither repainted the tower nor installed strobe lights and that now a different gate to the tower was unlocked. The agents immediately informed the licensee’s President and General Manager about the open gate, which they were unable to lock before leaving the site. The following day, the agents returned to the tower and noted that the gate was still unlocked. The agents again contacted the President, who promised that a new lock would be installed later that day, which did occur. At the beginning of December 2010, agents visited the tower with the President and the station’s Chief Engineer. The tower still had not been repainted, nor had strobe lights been installed. On January 7, 2011, the Chief Engineer reported to the FCC that white strobe lighting had been installed.

The Philadelphia Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) on October 31, 2011 for failure to repaint the tower and failure to enclose the tower with an effective locked fence or enclosure. In the NAL, the Philadelphia Office adjusted the base fines upward from the combined base fine of $17,000 because the “repeated warnings regarding the antenna structure’s faded paint and the unlocked gates . . . demonstrate[ed] a deliberate disregard for the Rules.” The Philadelphia Office proposed a fine of $20,000. In its response to the NAL, the licensee requested that the fine be reduced based on its immediate efforts to bring the tower into compliance with the rules and its overall history of compliance.

In response, the FCC declined to reduce the proposed fine because corrective action taken to come into compliance with the Rules is expected and does not mitigate violations. In addition, the FCC rejected the licensee’s argument that it had taken “immediate action” to correct the violations because the licensee was first notified about the chipped paint in March 2010 and did not install the strobe lights until January 2011. Finally, the FCC declined to reduce the fine based on a history of compliance because the licensee had violated the FCC’s Rules twice before. Therefore, the FCC affirmed the imposition of a $20,000 fine.

Fine Reduced to Base Amount for Good Faith Effort to Have Issues/Programs Lists Nearby

The Western Region of the Enforcement Bureau issued a Forfeiture Order against the licensee of two Colorado stations for failing to maintain complete public inspection files.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Few dates on the broadcasters’ calendar are easier to miss than the deadline for TV stations (and a few fortunate LPTV stations) to send their must-carry/retransmission election letters to cable and satellite providers in their markets. Because it doesn’t occur every year, or even every other year, but every third year, the triennial deadline can slip up on you if you don’t closely monitor our Broadcast Calendar. For those that haven’t been paying attention, October 1, 2014 is the deadline for TV stations to send their carriage election letters to MVPDs. The elections made by this October 1st will govern a station’s carriage rights for the three-year period from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017, and this will be the first set of election letters that stations must immediately upload to their online public inspection file at the FCC.

I noted in a post here three years ago that the impact of these elections is becoming more significant with each three-year cycle. In particular, that post focused on the fact that network-affiliated stations can no longer consider retrans revenue to be “found” money, but instead as revenue essential to both short-term and long-term survival. Short-term, in that stations must compete for programming and advertising against cable and satellite programmers that have long had two revenue streams–advertising and subscriber fees. Long-term, in that there was little doubt that networks were looking to charge affiliates more for network programming by taking an ever larger share of retrans revenue, and that it was only a matter of time before networks began selecting their affiliates based not upon past performance, but upon which station could bring the best financial package to the network going forward.

As we’ve learned over the past year in particular, that means not just negotiating the best retransmission deals possible, but sending an increasing portion of those revenues to the network. Wells Fargo analyst Marci Ryvicker, who will be one of our speakers at the 2014 Pillsbury Trends in Communications Finance event in New York next month, noted that pattern just a few weeks ago. Using CBS’s recent projections on the overall revenue it expects to receive from affiliates, she was able to calculate the monthly affiliate cost for CBS programming at $1.30 per subscriber by 2020. Add to that the station’s costs for negotiating retrans deals, as well as the increasing cost of producing local programming and securing attractive syndicated content, and it is clear that no network affiliate can afford to be cutting substandard retrans deals and hope to survive in the long term. MVPDs may grumble about those “greedy stations” during retrans negotiations, but generating the revenue necessary to retain the programming that attracts cable, satellite, and over-the-air viewers (not to mention advertisers) is not an optional activity for local TV stations.

The impact of this is not, however, limited to purely matters of retransmission. Yes, broadcasters can no longer afford to enter into amateur retrans deals that threaten to alienate their networks by providing below-market rates, or which sloppily authorize retransmission or streaming rights far outside the local broadcaster’s market (this mistake becoming even more consequential if the FCC moves forward in eliminating the network non-duplication rule). The bigger trend is that these economic forces are driving consolidation in the TV industry.

Building large broadcast groups allows co-owned TV stations the critical mass necessary to negotiate difficult retrans deals against the much-larger cable and satellite operators, and, where necessary, to withstand the economic impact of a retrans impasse when it happens. Similarly, larger TV groups are better positioned to negotiate the best possible programming deals with their networks (keeping in mind that “best possible” isn’t necessarily the same as “good”).

Single stations and small station groups routinely have to punch well above their weight by employing smart executives and counsel with deep experience in retrans negotiations to survive in this increasingly harsh environment. That is what makes the FCC’s prohibition earlier this year on certain joint retrans negotiations, as well as current efforts on Capitol Hill to broaden that prohibition, so perverse. By eliminating one of a small broadcaster’s best options for cost-effectively negotiating viable retransmission agreements, the government is pushing those broadcasters to sell their stations to a larger broadcaster (or some would say, to the government itself). In the current environment, a station that fails to sell to a larger broadcaster possessing the skill and mass necessary to effectively negotiate retransmission agreements risks losing its network affiliation to just such a station group, precisely because that group can frequently deliver better retrans results.

So as you send out your elections this year, keep in mind that while the election process itself hasn’t changed, what you will need to do afterwards has changed dramatically. More to the point, think hard about what you need to be doing with your retrans negotiations if you still want to be around in three years to send out that next batch of election letters.

Published on:

By

Broadcasters let out a small sigh of relief today when the FCC made clear there is no requirement that TV stations have private investigators on staff.

With TV stations’ political files now available online, three political activist organizations have been jointly filing complaints against TV stations alleging various errors and omissions in online public file paperwork relating to political ad buys by third-party advertisers. These three organizations, the Campaign Legal Center, Sunlight Foundation, and Common Cause, expanded their campaign (no pun intended) substantially in mid-July, when they filed complaints against a Washington, DC and a Portland, Oregon TV station. Rather than paperwork problems, however, these complaints claimed that the stations had failed to accurately disclose on-air the true identity of the sponsor behind certain “Super PAC” political ads. In both cases, the complainants asserted that their own research indicated the PACs were mostly or entirely funded by a single individual, and that the stations should have therefore identified that individual rather than the PAC as the sponsor of the political spot.

While there is ample precedent for requiring broadcasters to be comfortable that the sponsorship information in a political spot is accurate, the most recent complaints concerned broadcasters for two reasons. First, there apparently was no question that the PACs had indeed been the ones to write the check for the ads and were valid legal entities, so a TV station altering the sponsorship identification text to specify the station’s opinion as to who the “real” sponsor is raises numerous legal issues, not the least of which is that the station could well get it wrong. For example, it would be a pretty brazen station that would change the sponsorship identification on Microsoft ads to “paid for by Bill Gates” on the theory that Bill Gates was the main “person” behind the organization that wrote the check. Of course, in this example the station would be doubly wrong, as Bill Gates ceased being the largest shareholder of Microsoft in May of this year, demonstrating the risk a station takes in attempting to be the arbiter of who is “behind” an advertiser.

This example also demonstrates the second issue that concerned broadcasters about the complaints. If, in the absence of an obvious sham advertiser, broadcasters had an obligation to ignore the “name on the check” and attempt to discern the actual source of the check writer’s income, they would need a full-time staff of researchers doing nothing but verifying the structure of advertisers. In addition, the airing of political ads would be perpetually delayed while stations seek adequate certainty that they have discerned the true source of all ad funds.

The result would be a no-win situation for broadcasters, who would have to expend enormous resources trying to determine where an advertiser’s money comes from, and having done that, expose themselves to both private liability (from the advertiser who wasn’t credited as the sole sponsor of the spot, as well as from the individual who was) and regulatory liability (if the government disagrees with the licensee’s sponsorship conclusions).

Today, the FCC wisely avoided placing broadcasters in that conundrum, ruling in a letter decision that:

We conclude that the complaints do not provide a sufficient showing that the stations had credible evidence casting into doubt that the identified sponsors of the advertisement were the true sponsors. As the Commission has stated previously, “unless furnished with credible, unrefuted evidence that a sponsor is acting at the direction of a third party, the broadcaster may rely on the plausible assurances of the person(s) paying for the time that they are the true sponsor.” While the complaint against [the station] presented some evidence that station employees may have come across facts in the course of news reporting on political issues that could have raised questions in their minds concerning the relationship of NextGen Climate Action Committee and Tom Steyer, we exercise our discretion not to pursue enforcement in this instance, given the need to balance the “reasonable diligence” obligations of broadcasters in identifying the sponsor of an advertisement with the sensitive First Amendment interests present here.

While it is reassuring that the FCC moved quickly to reject the complaints, today’s action leaves the political sponsorship identification waters somewhat murky. In addition to the less than comforting “we exercise our discretion not to pursue enforcement in this instance” language, the FCC proceeded to state that “[o]ur approach might have been different if the complainants had approached the stations directly to furnish them with evidence calling into question that the identified sponsors were the true sponsors.” In using this language, the FCC suggests that the only problem with the complaints “might have been” that the complainants didn’t present their evidence to the stations while the spots were still airing so that the stations could have assessed the evidence at the time and decided whether to modify the sponsorship identification.

While that ruling is generally consistent with past FCC rulings, in that a broadcaster must be presented with “credible, unrefuted evidence that a sponsor is acting at the direction of a third party,” the FCC sidestepped the equally important issue of when a PAC’s sponsorship identification may be deemed adequate, or if PAC contributors must be listed instead. As a result, broadcasters are left wondering if a sponsorship identification will be second-guessed when 80%, 90%, 95%, 99%, or some other percentage of the sponsor’s income comes from one source. Similarly, what if only 50% comes from one individual, but the other 50% comes from another individual, and the two are say, brothers? Once again, broadcasters are being asked, on pain of liability, to make disclosure decisions for PACs that are more correctly the province of the Federal Election Commission.

Of course, the sponsorship identification requirement is not limited to political ads, and the flaws in the approach suggested by the complainants seem jarringly obvious when applied in the context of a business advertiser. For example, should ads for every Mom and Pop business disclose that the real sponsor is not the business, but Mom and Pop, who gave up their vacation this year in order for the business to be able to afford broadcast advertising? Similarly, if it is not the entity writing the check for advertising that is relevant, but the principal source of its income, shouldn’t all ads placed by defense contractors need to disclose the U.S. government as the actual sponsor of their ads?

On the other hand, if, as the FCC has suggested in past sponsorship decisions, the real issue is the identity of the decision maker for that advertiser, how could a broadcaster ever know that information with adequate certainty to reject the assurances of the advertiser and take on the liability of unilaterally changing sponsorship identifications in ads?

To be clear, no one is suggesting that a sponsor should be able to avoid on-air attribution by creating a phony front organization whose faux nature is obvious to all, including the broadcaster. However, a Political Action Committee is an entity legally recognized under the law, which is also regulated by law. If more information about its contributors is deemed a public good, Congress and the Federal Election Commission have the authority and the responsibility to take action to accomplish that result. In the absence of such action, the task should not fall to broadcasters by default.

Published on:

By

August 2014

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:

  • Nonexistent Studio Staff and Missing Public Inspection File Lead to $20,000 Fine
  • Failure to Route 911 Calls Properly Results in $100,000 Fine
  • Admonishment for Display of Commercial Web Address During Children’s Programming

Missing Public Inspection File and Staff Result in Increased Fine

A Regional Director of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau (the “Bureau”) issued a Forfeiture Order against a Kansas licensee for failing to operate a fully staffed main studio as well as for failing to maintain and make available a complete public inspection file.

Section 73.1125(a) of the FCC’s Rules requires that a broadcast station have a main studio with a “meaningful management and staff presence,” and Section 73.3526(a)(2) requires that a broadcast station maintain a public inspection file. In July of 2012, a Bureau agent from the Kansas City Office tried to inspect the main studio of the licensee’s station but could not find a main studio. Although the agent was able to find the station’s public inspection file at an insurance agency in the community of license, the file did not contain any documents dated after 2009. After the inspection, the licensee requested a waiver of the main studio requirement, which the FCC’s Media Bureau ultimately denied.

In May of last year, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) against the licensee. In the NAL, the Bureau noted that the base fine for violating the main studio rule is $7,000 and the base fine for violating the public file rule is $10,000. However, due to the over two-year duration of the public inspection file violation and the 14 month duration of the main studio violation, the Bureau increased the base fines by $2,000 and $1,000, respectively, resulting in a total proposed fine of $20,000.

In its response to the NAL, the licensee did not deny the facts asserted in the NAL. Therefore, the Forfeiture Order affirmed the factual determinations that the licensee had violated Sections 73.1125(a) and 73.3526(a)(2) of the FCC’s Rules. However, in its NAL Response, the licensee requested that the proposed fine be reduced because the licensee’s station serves a small market and it would face competitive disadvantages if it were required to fully staff the main studio.

The Bureau rejected the licensee’s request to reduce the fine based on an inability to find qualified staff because there is no exception to Section 73.1125(a)’s requirement of a main studio due to staffing shortages. The Bureau also pointed out that the licensee had no staff presence at the main studio for more than a year. The Bureau briefly entertained the idea that the licensee had intended to argue that it was financially unable to maintain a fully staffed studio; however, since the licensee did not submit any financial information with its response to the NAL, the Bureau dismissed the possibility of reducing the fine amount based on the licensee’s inability to pay.

The Bureau also rejected the licensee’s argument that maintaining a main studio would place the station at a competitive disadvantage because the licensee’s main studio waiver request was based only on financial considerations, which is not a valid basis for a waiver of the main studio rule. Moreover, the Bureau pointed out that even if the waiver had been granted and the licensee had then staffed the studio, corrective action after an investigation has commenced is expected by the FCC, and does not warrant reduction of cancellation of a fine. Therefore, the Bureau affirmed the fine of $20,000.

Automated Response to 911 Calls Leads to Substantial Fine

The Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL against an Oklahoma telephone company for routing 911 calls to an automated operator message in violation of the 911 Act and the FCC’s Rules.

Under Section 64.3001 of the FCC’s Rules, telecommunications carriers are required to transmit all 911 calls to a Public Safety Answering Point (“PSAP”), to a designated statewide default answering point, or to an appropriate local emergency authority. Section 64.3002(d) of the FCC’s Rules further requires that if “no PSAP or statewide default answering point has been designated, and no appropriate local emergency authority has been selected by an authorized state or local entity, telecommunications carriers shall identify an appropriate local emergency authority, based on the exercise of reasonable judgment, and complete all translation and routing necessary to deliver 911 calls to such appropriate local emergency authority.”
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

For those who follow my speaking schedule on our CommLawCenter Events Calendar… wait, no one follows my speaking schedule? Disappointing. Well if you had, you would have known I was speaking on a pair of regulatory panels at the Texas Association of Broadcasters’ convention yesterday (incidentally, another great show this year from Oscar Rodriguez and TAB’s excellent staff).

On the first of those panels, with Stephen Lee of the FCC’s Houston Enforcement Bureau office, we discussed the FCC’s July 1st expansion of the TV online political file requirement to all TV stations. During that discussion, an audience member asked whether radio stations would someday have to put their public inspection files online as well. I noted that when the FCC moved TV public files online in August of 2012, it had indicated that it was starting with TV, but anticipated it would eventually consider moving radio public files online as well. However, in the two years since, the FCC has focused on working the bugs out of the online public file software and has not mentioned expanding the online requirement to radio.

Unknown to most, that changed unexpectedly about two hours after the panel, when the FCC released a Public Notice rapidly responding to a petition for rulemaking filed just six days earlier by the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause and the Sunlight Foundation. The petition asked that cable and satellite providers also be required to post their political files online. While broadcasters and those three organizations (who have filed more than a dozen complaints against TV stations for alleged online political file violations in the past few months) haven’t seen eye to eye on much in the past, this might be one requirement they can agree on, albeit for very different reasons.

While the original purpose of the political file was to ensure that candidates had the information needed to enforce their rights to equal opportunity and lowest unit rate for advertising, the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause and the Sunlight Foundation have sought to use it instead to track political spending by PACs, since that information is not available, at least in real time, from the Federal Election Commission. To make it easier for them to access this information, they demanded the FCC require that TV stations post their political files online. They have also urged the FCC to require TV stations’ political files be posted in a machine-readable format to make aggregating the information easier.

Broadcasters opposed those efforts, noting the burden of keeping the fast-changing political file up to date online, and the competitive concerns with posting sensitive ad rate data online for all the world to see. In particular, they found it competitively unfair that broadcasters were required to post their ad rate information online when competing cable and satellite providers were not.

The FCC agreed, and when it decided to require that TV stations post their public files online, it originally excluded the political file from that requirement, finding that uploading and updating the political file online would be too burdensome. However, after a change in personnel at the FCC, the agency reversed course and concluded that posting the political file online wouldn’t be burdensome after all.

Television broadcasters therefore likely welcomed yesterday’s Public Notice seeking comment on at least leveling the information playing field with cable and satellite. However, buried in the middle of the Public Notice, and completely unrelated to the petition for rulemaking on cable and satellite political files to which the Public Notice responds, is a single sentence sending chills down the collective spines of radio broadcasters:

“We also seek comment on whether the Commission should initiate a rulemaking proceeding to require broadcast radio stations to use the online public file, and on an appropriate time frame for such a requirement.”

While the need to first launch a rulemaking means that a radio online public file requirement would take at least some time to implement, it appears that it is indeed (spontaneously) back on the FCC’s agenda. With staffs that are typically much smaller than those of TV stations, radio stations would undoubtedly find an online public file requirement to be far more burdensome than it was for TV (not that TV stations found it to be a picnic either). If they don’t want to find themselves facing that very burden in the not too distant future, radio licensees will need to speak up in what most would have assumed is a completely unrelated proceeding. To the broadcaster who asked that question at yesterday’s panel, the FCC has quietly changed my answer.

Published on:

By

July 2014

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:

  • Multi-Year Cramming Scheme Results in $1.6 Million Fine
  • Violation of Retransmission Consent Rules Leads to $2.25 Million Fine
  • $25,000 Fine for Failure to Respond to FCC

Continued Cramming Practices Lead to Double the Base Fine

The FCC recently issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) against a Florida telephone company for “cramming” customers by billing them for unauthorized charges and fees related to long distance telephone service.

The FCC had received more than 100 customer complaints against the company. The complaints alleged that the company had continued to bill the customers and charge them late fees after they had paid their final bills and canceled their service with the company. The FCC opened an investigation in response to the complaints and issued a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) to the company in July 2011, but the company did not submit a timely response. The FCC issued an NAL in 2011 proposing a $25,000 fine against the company for its failure to reply to the LOI, and ultimately issued a Forfeiture Order fining the company $25,000.

Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (the “Act”) requires that that “[a]ll charges . . . in connection with . . . communication service shall be just and reasonable.” Prior decisions of the FCC have determined that placing unauthorized charges and fees on consumers’ phone bills is an “unjust and unreasonable” practice and is therefore unlawful.

The NAL provides information from 11 customer complaints detailing instances where customers attempted to cancel their service and continued to be charged late fees and other fees by the company. The FCC determined that the phone company did not have authorization to continue billing these customers after they canceled their service.

Although the FCC’s Forfeiture Guidelines do not provide a base fine for cramming, the FCC has settled on $40,000 as the base fine for a cramming violation. The NAL addressed 20 cramming violations, which would create a base fine of $800,000. However, the FCC determined that an upward adjustment of the fine was appropriate in this case because the unlawful cramming practices had been occurring since 2011, the company did not respond to the 2011 LOI, and there was a high volume of customers who received cramming charges. Therefore, the FCC increased the proposed fine by $800,000, resulting in a total proposed fine of twice the base amount, or $1.6 million.

Cable Operator’s Retransmission of Six Texas TV Stations Results in Multi-Million Dollar Fine

Earlier this month, the FCC issued an order against a cable operator for rebroadcasting the signals of six full-power televisions stations in Texas in violation of the FCC’s retransmission consent rules.

The cable operator serves more than 10,000 subscribers in the Houston Designated Market Area (“DMA”) in 245 multiple-dwelling-unit buildings and previously had retransmission consent agreements with the stations. However, those agreements expired in December 2011 and March 2012. The cable operator continued retransmitting the signals of those stations without extending or renewing the retransmission consent agreements, and the licensees notified the cable operator that its continued retransmissions were illegal. Subsequently, each licensee filed a complaint with the FCC.

In its May 2012 response to the complaints, the cable operator did not deny that it had retransmitted the stations without the licensee’s express written consent, but said that it had relied on the master antenna television (“MATV”) exception to the retransmission consent requirement. The cable operator noted that it had begun converting its buildings to MATV systems in November 2011 and had hoped to complete the installations before the retransmission agreements expired in December 2011, but did not complete the MATV installation until July 26, 2012.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

June 2014

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:

  • Bad Legal Advice Leads to Admonishment for Public File Violations
  • $10,000 Fine for Tower Violation
  • Missing Emergency Alert System Equipment Results in $6,000 Fine

Licensee’s Poor Financial Condition and Reliance on Bad Legal Advice Fend Off Fines

Earlier this month, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued an order against the former licensee of a Texas radio station admonishing the licensee but declining to impose $40,000 in previously proposed fines relating to public inspection file violations.
In December of 2010, agents from the Enforcement Bureau’s local office reviewed the station’s public inspection file and determined that, among other things, the file did not contain any quarterly issues-programs lists. In response, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”), and ultimately a Forfeiture Order, imposing a fine of $25,000, which the licensee subsequently paid.

After the original NAL was issued, the station hired an independent consultant to assist it in ensuring that the station’s public inspection file was complete. In August of 2011, the licensee submitted a statement to the FCC in which it certified that all of the required documents had been placed in the station’s public inspection file. However, field agents visited the station again in October of 2011, and found that the public inspection file still did not contain any issues-programs lists. In response, the FCC issued two more NALs in June of 2012 (the “2012 NALs”) for the still-incomplete public inspection file and for the false certification submitted in response to the original NAL. The 2012 NALs proposed a $25,000 fine for providing false information to the FCC and a $15,000 fine for the still-missing issues-programs lists.

In this month’s order, the FCC analyzed the now-former licensee’s claim that it had engaged an independent consultant to assist it in responding to the original NAL and that it had subsequently placed documentation regarding issues-programs in its public inspection file. The FCC noted that the outside consultant’s advice that placing copies of the station’s daily program logs in the file would be adequate to meet the requirement was erroneous. However, since the licensee had sought to fix the problem by hiring a consultant and had relied on the consultant’s advice, the FCC concluded that the licensee had not negligently provided incorrect information to the Enforcement Bureau, and therefore the FCC did not impose the originally-proposed $25,000 fine for false certification.

In contrast, the FCC concluded that the former licensee had indeed willfully violated Section 73.3526 of the FCC’s Rules by not including issues-program lists in its public inspection file. The former licensee had, however, submitted documentation of its inability to pay and asked that it not be required to pay the proposed $15,000 fine. The FCC agreed that the former licensee had demonstrated its inability to pay, and therefore declined to impose the $15,000 fine.

In doing so, the FCC also noted that while “[r]eliance on inaccurate legal advice will not absolve a licensee of responsibility for a violation, [it] can serve as evidence that the licensee made an effort to assess its obligations, that its assessment was reasonable, if erroneous, and was made in good faith.” In light of all the facts, the FCC elected to formally admonish the former licensee, and warned that, should the former licensee later acquire broadcast licenses, it could face substantial monetary penalties, regardless of its ability to pay, for future rule violations.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a 6-3 decision released this morning, the Supreme Court didn’t just rain on Aereo’s parade, but drenched it. For a case involving fairly convoluted points of law, the Supreme Court’s decision is surprisingly straightforward: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, no amount of technology will change the fact that it is a duck.

At this early stage of the case–keep in mind this was just about whether an injunction against Aereo should have been issued by the lower courts for one specific type of copyright infringement–the question before the Court was whether Aereo’s system “performs” broadcasters’ copyrighted works, and whether that is a “public” performance. If so, Aereo’s operations infringe on broadcasters’ copyrights in that programming. Aereo’s argument in response was that since its system does nothing until activated by a subscriber, and even then only transmits a single private copy to that subscriber, Aereo was not involved in generating public performances.

The Court strongly disagreed, finding that an essential purpose of Congress’s passage of the Copyright Act of 1976 was to make clear that transmissions of broadcast programming by third-parties to the public (e.g., cable systems) create public performances that implicate copyright law. Specifically, the Court noted “the [Copyright] Act is unmistakable: An entity that engages in activities like Aereo’s performs,” and “the fact that Aereo’s subscribers may receive the same programs at different times and locations is of no consequence. Aereo transmits a performance of petitioners’ works ‘to the public.'”

Aereo’s argument that it is just a renter of receiving equipment fared no better, with the Court stating: “We conclude that Aereo is not just an equipment supplier and that Aereo ‘performs.'” Of note for those concerned about whether an Aereo decision for broadcasters might affect the public’s ability to store other data in the cloud, the Court agreed with the brief filed by the Department of Justice that there is an important distinction between members of the public storing their own content in the cloud and those using the Internet to access the content of others, finding that a transmission to “the public” for purposes of implicating the Copyright Act “does not extend to those who act as owners or possessors of the relevant product.”

However, the most interesting aspect of the decision is that the Court is far more hostile to Aereo than even the 6-3 vote would indicate. Some of the strongest arguments against Aereo are actually found in Justice Scalia’s dissent, which was joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. While criticizing the majority for its “looks like a cable system” premise, in making his best case for finding in favor of Aereo, Justice Scalia makes two telling statements. The first, after he argues that Aereo is just a passive conduit for subscribers’ content reception and therefore does not “perform” broadcasters’ copyrighted content, is his statement noting

“[t]hat conclusion does not mean that Aereo’s service complies with the Copyright Act. Quite the contrary. The Networks’ complaint that Aereo is directly and secondarily liable for infringing their public-performance rights (Section 106(4)) and also their reproduction rights (Section 106(1)). Their request for a preliminary injunction–the only issue before this Court–is based exclusively on the direct-liability portion of the public performance claim…. Affirming the judgment below would merely return this case to the lower courts for consideration of the Networks’ remaining claims.”

Justice Scalia then goes much further, stating:

“I share the Court’s evident feeling that what Aereo is doing (or enabling to be done) to the Networks’ copyrighted programming ought not to be allowed. But perhaps we need not distort the Copyright Act to forbid it.”

He then proceeds to note again that there are other copyright infringement claims before the lower court that should be considered on remand, and that Congress is always free to modify the law to eliminate any perceived “loophole” if necessary.

As a result, while today’s ruling is a 6-3 decision in favor of granting an injunction against Aereo, it ultimately reads like a 9-0 rebuke of Aereo’s business plan. One of the most interesting legal analogies is also found in Justice Scalia’s dissent, where he likens Aereo to a copy shop where the shop owner plays no part in the content copied:

“A copy shop rents out photocopiers on a per-use basis. One customer might copy his 10-year-old’s drawings–a perfectly lawful thing to do–while another might duplicate a famous artist’s copyrighted photographs–a use clearly prohibited by Section 106(1).”

The reason this analogy is (perhaps unintentionally) revealing is that in the Aereo scenario, the subscriber can’t use the system to display his ten-year-old’s drawings; he can only display the content that Aereo puts on the shelf in its copy shop for the subscriber to access–all of which is copyrighted. Even if a particular program has entered the public domain, the broadcast signal–including its combination of program selections, current advertising, and station interstitials–is not in the public domain. In any event, Aereo has never attempted to limit its relay of content to subscribers to public domain materials (which admittedly would be the worst business plan ever).

While there had been some concern among broadcasters (and hope for Aereo supporters) after oral argument in this proceeding that Aereo was gaining traction with its claim that a ruling against Aereo was a ruling against innovation, the Court’s decision states that it sees today’s ruling as narrowly focused on the issue of transmission of broadcast signals, and that parties seeking to expand its principles to issues like cloud computing will have to wait until that issue is actually before the Court. In the meantime, the Court made clear that the only innovation it saw in Aereo was copyright infringement, and that has already been around for a long time.