Articles Posted in Satellite

Published on:

By

When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned various restrictions on political spending by corporations in the Citizens United decision, it set off a flurry of activity in Washington. Many, including famously the President in his State of the Union address, derided the decision as opening the political process to the corrupting influence of corporate cash. Many in Congress promised a swift legislative response to minimize the impact of the Court’s ruling. Regardless of where you stand on the Court’s decision, I have to say I was disturbed by a number of statements coming out of Capitol Hill afterwards which made clear that the speakers had no understanding of the laws already on the books relating to political advertising on electronic media. Some promised to change the law to what it actually already is (although they apparently didn’t know it), and others pointed out “problems” that would result from the Citizens United ruling that current law already prohibits from occurring.

Grandstanding without basis is, however, a well-established Washington tradition, and I presumed that when legislative staffers got together to draft the legislation, they would quickly figure out that these criticisms and unneeded solutions had been off-base. I apparently was too optimistic. Today, Senator Schumer of New York unveiled the Senate version of the legislation (Senate link not yet available) at a news conference on the steps of the Supreme Court. The President publicly applauded the legislation, and the House has promised hearings within a week on its version of the bill in hopes of enacting it quickly enough to govern this Fall’s elections. The DISCLOSE Act (the acronym for “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections”), as its name indicates, requires ample disclosure when corporations or unions spend money on ads relating to a federal political campaign. Unfortunately, it does not stop there, and attempts to then rewrite political advertising laws contained in the Communications Act of 1934 that were not impacted by the Citizens United ruling. These changes appear to be an effort to require broadcasters, as well as cable and satellite operators, to subsidize the ads of not just candidates, but of their national political parties as well, in an effort to make their ad dollars go farther than those of a corporation exercising its rights under Citizens United.

Setting aside the wisdom or constitutionality of that approach, the rub is that the legislation was apparently drafted in such a rush that aspects of it quite literally make no sense. For example, the relevant section of the bill is entitled “TELEVISION MEDIA RATES”, but it then amends the political advertising provisions of the Communications Act that affect both television and radio. Even if the impact on radio was unintended, the matter is further confused by a requirement that the FCC perform random political audits during elections of at least 15 DMAs of various sizes, and that each DMA audit include “each of the 3 largest television broadcast networks, 1 independent television network, 1 cable network, 1 provider of satellite services, and 1 radio network.”

Similarly, the statutory exceptions to the requirement for providing equal time to a candidate’s opponents when the candidate appears on-air would be amended to exclude certain appearances by a candidate’s representative as a triggering event. However, since only the appearance of a candidate can trigger equal time in the first place, creating an exception for appearances by a candidate’s representative serves no purpose.

Further indicating that the bill is premised on a misunderstanding of the current law, the Reasonable Access provisions of the Communications Act would be amended so that instead of FCC licensees being required to provide federal candidates with “reasonable amounts of time,” they would be required to provide “reasonable amounts of time, including reasonable amounts of time purchased at the lowest unit charge ….” The premise of this change appears to be a lack of understanding that all time sold to a candidate in the 45 days before a primary and the 60 days before a general election must be sold at the lowest unit charge for that class of time. The broadcaster has no discretion to charge anything but the lowest unit charge during that time, making this change pointless as well.

A number of other odd provisions in the Senate version of the bill that would significantly impact media companies (and not just broadcasters) is discussed in an Advisory we issued to our clients earlier today. Two of particularly great concern would drastically reduce the lowest unit charge for political advertising while significantly expanding the pool of entities eligible to receive lowest unit charge. It is worth noting that none of these media-oriented provisions appear to be in the House version of the bill, so hopefully they will be excised from the Senate bill before any harm is done. Regardless, broadcasters, as well as cable and satellite providers, need to be vigilant to ensure that these provisions, if not eliminated outright, are at least heavily modified before any final bill emerges.

Published on:

By

4/29/2010
Several members of Congress led by Senator Schumer and Congressman Van Hollen introduced today the “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections” Act–the DISCLOSE Act. The House and Senate versions differ, with the Senate version vastly expanding eligibility for Lowest Unit Charge, reducing the Lowest Unit Charge, prohibiting preemption of political ads, and requiring the FCC to perform political audits of broadcasters, cable, and satellite operators.

The DISCLOSE Act is primarily aimed at reversing, to a large degree, the recent 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the Court held that corporations, and by implication unions, have a constitutional right to make independent expenditures for advertising supporting or opposing the election of political candidates. As we reported in a Client Alert in January of this year, the decision opened the way for increased political advertising by invalidating limits on corporate political ad spending. The decision allows, among other things, corporations (and unions) to purchase airtime at any time to directly advocate for or against candidates for federal elective office. While the decision invalidated limits on corporate spending on political advertisements, it did retain certain disclosure and disclaimer requirements found in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

10/28/2009
Last week the FCC launched a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to adopt six “open Internet” rules that would bind all broadband access providers, including those providing mobile and satellite broadband services. If adopted, the rules could have pervasive and lasting effects in many industry sectors, including broadband, voice and video service providers, infrastructure, device, chipset and other component vendors, content publishers and distributors, software publishers, and application service providers.

The NPRM abandons the “net neutrality” moniker in favor of a new phrase, “the free and open Internet.” Nonetheless, views on every aspect of the debate remain highly polarized, driven by vast economic stakes in the outcome, disagreements about the factors that have made the Internet a success, philosophical differences about the nature of the Internet and disagreement over the role of the FCC in 21st century communications. The NPRM puts the FCC at center stage in the debate for now, but the federal courts and Congress may take prominent or even decisive roles. Some parties, notably including two of the five sitting FCC commissioners, question the FCC’s legal authority to adopt and enforce the rules it has proposed. If the federal courts agree, the FCC will have to re-tool its approach or look to Congress to expand its jurisdiction.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

9/10/2009
On September 8, 2009, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the Department Treasury and the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) of the Department of Commerce issued final rules in the Federal Register amending the Cuba Sanctions program and the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) to increase the range of telecommunications services that can be provided between the United States and Cuba and exports and re-exports of items to implement those services, as well as authorizing related payments and travel. These are included in a larger set of rule changes implementing the President’s April 13, 2009, directive to promote contact between family members and the flow of information between the two countries.

The new OFAC rule removes the policy directive requiring individual licenses for the provision of telecom­munications services and authorizes certain telecommunications services, contracts, related payments, and travel-related transactions by general licenses. Of primary importance is the addition of satellite (including radio and TV) and cellular services as covered technologies. Certain additional transactions involving third countries and related to the provision of services between Cuba and the U.S. will now be permitted but will require specific licenses.

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

September 2008
The FCC released a Declaratory Order on Friday, September 26, 2008, making it clear that the television station cable carriage elections that must be made by October 1, 2008 will determine a station’s carriage rights throughout the entire 2009-2011 carriage election cycle.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

7/25/2008
July 31, 2008 is the deadline by which television stations are required to file claims for copyright royalties with the Copyright Office. FCC rules require television stations to make signal carriage elections by October 1, 2008 for the period 2009-2012. The upcoming termination of analog broadcasts makes this year’s carriage elections especially important. In addition, television stations that will terminate analog broadcasting have a special October 1 notice obligation with respect to satellite operators.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

January 2008
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. The reason is that 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. Accordingly, broadcasters should seek the advice of communications counsel in each instance to assure timely and proper filing. With respect to the tax-related deadlines identified herein, broadcasters should consult with their tax advisors. This edition of our annual “Broadcasters’ Calendar” supercedes all prior editions and accordingly any prior editions should no longer be used.

This material is not intended to constitute a complete analysis of all tax considerations. Internal Revenue Service regulations generally provide that, for the purpose of avoiding United States federal tax penalties, a taxpayer may rely only on formal written opinions meeting specific regulatory requirements. This material does not meet those requirements. Accordingly, this material was not intended or written to be used, and a taxpayer cannot use it, for the purpose of avoiding United States federal or other tax penalties or of promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters.

Continue reading →