Published on:

By

February 2009
Pursuant to the FCC’s February 5th Public Notice, “Procedures Regarding Termination of Analog Television Service On or After February 17, 2009,” any station wishing to “early” terminate analog operation was required to notify the FCC no later than February 9th of their intent to do so.

On February 10th, the FCC released a list of the 491 stations that filed this notification indicating their intent to terminate analog operation on February 17th. The list also reflects the 190 stations that have already terminated analog operations or intend to do so prior to February 17th.

Continue reading →

By
Posted in: Radio
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

2/6/2009
Members of our Communications Group sought and received clarification from the FCC staff regarding ambiguities in the FCC’s February 5th Public Notice on Procedures Regarding Termination of Analog Television Service On or After February 17, 2009.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

On Wednesday, February 4th, Pillsbury’s Communications practice participated in a Webinar session entitled “Retrans Agreements: What the Other Side Knows…That You May Not.”

Retransmission agreements are growing more complex and retransmission fees are becoming a bigger share of broadcast revenue. As business approaches and technology evolve, broadcasters are packing more content into their signals and expanding their web offerings. Some cable operators are asking for more than simple retransmission rights when they pay cash to broadcasters. This can have a big impact on broadcast operations.

The Webinar session addressed the changing face of retransmission consent, and what station and station group executives need to know before their next round of negotiations. The Webinar also discussed post-agreement issues, including the mechanics of fee computation.

Questions addressed included:

  • How can retransmission agreements restrict broadcast business opportunities?
  • Can both sides benefit from deployment of new technologies like mobile video and interactive broadcasting?

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A Q&A with Pillsbury’s Lauren Lynch Flick

1/27/2009
Consumer advocates want to push back the February 17, 2009 jump to digital broadcasting, but an extension may do more to simply postpone feared disruptions than prevent them.

Next to the Internet, perhaps no consumer technology platform is evolving faster than television. For more than a generation, channel surfing was a relatively simple decision from a service standpoint. Analog broadcasts dated back to the 1940’s, while competing cable and satellite-based subscription services gained popularity in the ensuing decades. Today, these traditional choices are being revamped by the growing popularity of more sophisticated high definition (HD) TV equipment and myriad set-top receiver options from service providers and consumer electronics manufacturers that provide greater access and control over content. Yet, just as the nation is poised to embrace a major step forward in the evolution of over-the-air television, concerns for the nation’s readiness to do so threaten the government’s long-standing proposal to terminate analog broadcasts in favor of digital television (DTV) on February 17, 2009.

Already implemented in regional test markets, this massive digital “switchover” has revealed several important lessons and issues unanticipated by consumers. In this Q&A, Pillsbury Communications law partner Lauren Lynch Flick answers persistent questions consumers have regarding how they can stay informed and tuned-in.

Q: Let’s start with the big switch to digital TV signals, who does this affect and why is it happening?

A: In short, many of the frequencies, or channels, that broadcasters use today for the free, “over the air” television stations that we are all familiar with and used to being able to receive, are being reallocated for public safety, such as assuring that police and fire crews can communicate with one another on the same frequencies in an emergency, as well as for new wireless services by phone and data carriers. In the past year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) auctioned these old analog TV frequencies off to the highest bidding companies in anticipation of television broadcasters vacating the channels by the Congressionally-mandated deadline of February 17, 2009.

The switch to newer, digital TV (DTV) signals allows broadcasters to provide viewers with additional programming streams, as well as greatly increased picture and sound quality. Nevertheless, the challenge of making sure that all households, especially those with older sets, can receive the new signals, is daunting.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

1/26/2009
Legislation has been introduced in the United States Senate which, if enacted, would delay the current February 17, 2009 DTV transition deadline for a period of four months, or until June 12, 2009. A delay in the transition date will inevitably cause uncertainty and raise many questions, such as whether a station’s decision to cease analog operations before the proposed deadline may still go forward as planned.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

January 2009
In late December 2008, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) released a series of six Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture against broadcasters asserting violations of the FCC’s Equal Employment Opportunity rule (“EEO rule”). In a joint statement appended to each of the six cases, FCC Commissioners Michael J. Copps (now Acting FCC Chairman) and Jonathan S. Adelstein (the “Commissioners”) signaled their strong desire that enforcement of EEO matters be stepped up by the Commission. The Commissioners noted that “Commission enforcement of EEO rules has been inconsistent and, as one consequence, employment in broadcasting does not reflect America.” Specifically, the Commissioners noted that while 251 cases resulted in 86 forfeitures between 1994 and 1997, only 10 cases resulting in 8 forfeitures were released between 2004 and 2007.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

January 2009
The following deadlines are based on information known by us as of the date hereof, may or may not apply to a particular broadcaster, are for general informational purposes only, and should be double-checked for currency close to each pertinent date/deadline. Actions by the FCC, Congress, or the courts could affect any of these deadlines by, for example, eliminating a particular reporting/filing obligation altogether or modifying the form used, content, deadline, fee, or manner of reporting/filing, such as requiring the posting of a report on the Internet or filing a report with the FCC electronically. It should also be noted that any FCC filing date which falls on a weekend or federal holiday, as a general rule, causes the filing deadline to be shifted to the immediately following business day. Furthermore, the listing of deadlines is not intended to be complete or exhaustive of all regulatory and non-regulatory deadlines that may apply to a given broadcaster year-to-year. Accordingly, broadcasters should seek the advice of communications counsel in each instance to assure timely and proper filing. This edition of our annual “Broadcasters’ Calendar” supercedes all prior editions and accordingly any prior editions should no longer be used.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

January 2009
Commercial and noncommercial Radio stations licensed to communities in Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma must file their Biennial Ownership Reports with the FCC by February 1, 2009. Commercial and noncommercial Television stations licensed to communities in the States of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and New York must also file their Biennial Ownership Reports by the same deadline.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

January 2009:

Upcoming Deadlines

  • FCC Form 499-Q is Due by February 1, 2009
  • Customer Proprietary Network Information Certification is Due by March 1, 2009

Enforcement Matters:

  • Telecommunications Carrier Enters Into $10,080,600 Consent Decree for CPNI and Universal Service Fund Violations
  • Telecommunications Carrier Found Apparently Liable for More than $650,000 for Failure to Register and Obtain 214 Approval and Failure to Comply with USF Requirements

Continue reading →