Articles Posted in Television

Published on:

By

May 2014

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

Introduction
More than ten 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 ensure 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 ensure full compliance, and that they remain vigilant in monitoring legislative, FCC, and FEC changes in the law.

In this environment, it is critical that all stations adopt and meticulously apply political broadcasting policies that are consistent with the Communications Act and the FCC’s rules, including the all-important requirement that stations fully and accurately disclose in writing their rates, classes of advertising, and sales practices to candidates. That information should be routinely provided to candidates and their committees in each station’s carefully prepared Political Advertising Disclosure Statement.

Many of the political broadcasting regulations are grounded in the “reasonable access,” “equal opportunities,” and “lowest unit charge” (“LUC”) provisions of the Communications Act. These elements of the law ensure that broadcast facilities are available to candidates for federal offices, that broadcasters treat competing candidates equally, and that stations provide candidates with the rates they offer to their most-favored commercial advertisers during specified periods prior to an election. As a general rule, stations may not discriminate between candidates as to station use, the amount of time given or sold, or in any other meaningful way.

It is also important to note that television stations affiliated with ABC, CBS, NBC, or FOX located in the top 50 markets must keep their political records in their online public inspection file located on the FCC’s website. Beginning July 1, 2014, all other television stations must commence placing new political file documents in the political file section of their online public inspection file as well. This requirement does not apply to radio stations at this time.

While this Advisory outlines some of the general aspects of the political broadcasting rules, there are dozens of possible variations on any one issue. Accordingly, stations should contact legal counsel with any specific questions or problems they may encounter.—Article continues.

A pdf version of this entire article can be found at Political Broadcasting Advisory.

Published on:

By

May 2014

Class A and Full-Power Television Broadcasters in All Markets Regardless of Network Affiliation and Market Rank Must Comply with the Online Retention of Political Programming Materials as of July 1, 2014

The FCC recently published in the Federal Register a reminder that all Class A and full-power television broadcasters must, by July 1, 2014, begin maintaining new political advertising materials mandated by Section 73.1943 of the Commission’s Rules in the station’s online public inspection file.

As previously reported, pursuant to the FCC’s Second Report and Order (“R&O”), adopted in May 2012, Class A and full-power television stations affiliated with the top four networks in the top 50 Designated Market Areas (“DMAs”) have been required to comply with the online political file rule since August 2, 2012.

The R&O stayed the online political file requirement for all Class A and full-power television stations that are not a top four network station in the top 50 DMAs until July 1, 2014. Accordingly, from July 1, 2014 forward, all stations, regardless of network affiliation or DMA, must begin keeping their political file in their online public inspection file. Notably, while political advertising documents created on or after July 1, 2014 must be placed in the online public file, stations should continue to retain hard copies of pre-July 1, 2014 documents in their physical public file to comply with the two-year retention period for political file documents set forth in Section 73.3526(e)(6).

The Federal Register notice can be viewed here.

A pdf version of this article can be found at Client Alert.

Published on:

By

Back in March, the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Safety Bureau (PSHSB) issued a Public Notice seeking to update the record on a 2005 Petition for Immediate Interim Relief regarding proposals to make fundamental changes to the FCC’s EAS Rules with respect to requiring broadcast stations to air multilingual EAS alerts. Yesterday, the PSHSB released a Public Notice extending the comment deadlines in the proceeding. Comments are now due by May 28, 2014 and replies are due by June 12, 2014.

The March Public Notice seeks comments on a number of issues, but the most-discussed issue is the Petitioner’s proposal to have the FCC adopt a so-called “designated hitter” requirement for multilingual EAS.

The Public Notice quotes the Petitioner in describing the proposal:

Such a plan could be modeled after the current EAS structure that could include a “designated hitter” approach to identify which stations would step in to broadcast multilingual information if the original non-English speaking station was knocked off air in the wake of a disaster. Broadcasters should work with one another and the state and/or local government to prepare an emergency communications plan that contemplates reasonable circumstances that may come to pass in the wake of an emergency. The plan should include a way to serve all portions of the population, regardless of the language they speak at home. One market plan might spell out the procedures by which non-English broadcasters can get physical access to another station’s facilities to alert the non-English speaking community – e.g. where to pick up the key to the station, who has access to the microphones, how often multilingual information will be aired, and what constitutes best efforts to contact the non-English broadcasters during and after an emergency if personnel are unable to travel to the designated hitter station.

The March Public Notice asked for comment on a number of questions related to this proposal. The Commission also acknowledged in the March Public Notice that broadcasters have raised concerns that a multilingual EAS requirement using the designated hitter approach would require them to hire additional personnel capable of translating emergency alert information into one or more additional languages.

Given that there is a nine year record in this proceeding and that any multilingual EAS requirements will have wide-ranging implications, those wishing to file comments in the proceeding now have some additional time to make that happen.

Published on:

By

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Aereo case, providing the first indication of how the Justices view the case pitting Aereo against content providers, particularly broadcast networks. For background on Aereo’s technology and the previous lower court cases, Scott Flick of our office has written extensively on the subject, and a variety of his writings on Aereo can be found here. While trying to read the Court’s mind solely through the questions asked by the Justices can be risky, it is fair to say that Aereo encountered some skepticism on its claim to be an innovator and not a copyright infringer.

Given the significant amount of lower court litigation preceding Tuesday’s oral arguments, there wasn’t much in the way of surprises in the arguments made, many of which focused on the question of whether Aereo engages in a “public performance” when it transmits content to paying subscribers requesting that programming. A transcript of the proceeding can be found here. A number of the Justices focused on the question of whether Aereo’s fabled sea of mini-antennas served any purpose beyond seeking to circumvent the Copyright Act of 1976. Chief Justice Roberts noted that Aereo’s system seemed designed specifically “to get around the copyright laws,” and Justice Ginsburg asked Aereo’s counsel if there is any “technical reason” Aereo needed to have 10,000 dime-size antennas to operate, or if it was merely designed that way to “avoid the breach of the Copyright Act.”

What was a bit of a surprise was the extent to which the Justices’ questions focused on Aereo’s strategic effort to cloak itself as just another provider of cloud services. A number of the Justices indicated concern that there might not be an elegant way of ruling against Aereo without risking a ripple effect to cloud-based services, and it was obvious that none were interested in seeing that happen. Justice Kagan sought clarification regarding how Aereo could be distinguished from other cloud service companies, asking:

What if –­­ how about there are lots of companies where many, many thousands or millions of people put things up there, and then they share them, and the company in some ways aggregates and sorts all that content. Does that count?

Counsel for the broadcasters and the Justice Department attempted to respond to this concern, largely reiterating the position taken in the DOJ’s amicus brief:

The proper resolution of this dispute is straightforward. Unlike a purveyor of home antennas, or the lessor of hilltop space on which individual consumers may erect their own antennas . . . [Aereo] does not simply provide access to equipment or other property that facilitates customers’ reception of broadcast signals. Rather, [Aereo] operates an integrated system–i.e., a “device or process”–whose functioning depends on its customers’ shared use of common facilities. The fact that as part of that system [Aereo] uses unique copies and many individual transmissions does not alter the conclusion that it is retransmitting broadcast content “to the public.” Like its competitors, [Aereo] therefore must obtain licenses to perform the copyrighted content on which its business relies. That conclusion, however, should not call into question the legitimacy of businesses that use the Internet to provide new ways for consumers to store, hear, and view their own lawfully acquired copies of copyrighted works.

The catchphrase for this idea in the oral arguments became a “locker” in the cloud, where consumers could safely store their lawfully obtained content, but which would cross the copyright line if stocked for the consumer for a fee with infringing content by a commercial service like Aereo. While a useful analogy, it did not appear to put an end to the Justices’ concern that the line between a fair use and infringement might not always be clear in the cloud. That is certainly true, but it is also true outside the cloud, where copyright questions are notoriously complex and difficult.

Of course, the most interesting aspect of the Court’s diversion into an examination of cloud services is that it is technically irrelevant to the case at hand. It is safe to say that when Congress enacted the Copyright Act of 1976, cloud computing wasn’t even a distant dream. Imputing an intent on the part of Congress to draft the law in 1976 so as to neatly exclude such services from what might have then been considered copyright infringement is an unrealistic expectation. As a result, courts have always been faced with the task of applying existing copyright law to evolving applications of technologies, with the understanding that Congress will need to step in and change the law if the results cease to be satisfactory.

Having said that, it is the policy of the Supreme Court to narrowly rule on questions before it wherever possible, and drafting a decision addressing only Aereo without reaching the broader question of copyright law in the cloud is certainly the judicious approach, and what most expect the Court to do when a decision is released this summer.

Published on:

By

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court are less than a week away in the Aereo case, and broadcasters are feeling pretty good about their chances. With the Department of Justice, Professor Nimmer (who, along with his father, quite literally wrote the book on copyright), and a host of other luminaries filing in support of the broadcasters’ position, the storyline looks a lot like broadcasters have portrayed it from the beginning: that this is a simple case of copyright infringement hidden behind a veil of modern technological obfuscation.

Sensing that such a storyline is fatal to its prospects, Aereo has responded by casting this case as an attack on consumers’ use of the cloud, and has attracted some allies based on that storyline. However, it is a pretty thin storyline, as few think that the country’s highest court is so careless as to draft a broadcast retransmission rights decision that accidentally destroys the world of cloud computing. The two are not tough to distinguish, and even if the Court secretly disliked cloud computing, it hardly needs to opine on the copyright implications of cloud computing to decide the Aereo question.

Still, lower courts have disagreed on these issues, and only a fool enters the Supreme Court certain that the court will rule in his favor. There are many moving parts, and if a case were easy to decide, it would not have made it to the Supreme Court. That is why both sides will be anxiously watching the oral arguments for hints as to where the various justices stand on the matter.

As of today, however, broadcasters have one less reason to sweat about the outcome. The Court announced yesterday that Justice Alito, who had previously recused himself from the case, is now able to participate. This is a significant development for broadcasters. Because the 2nd Circuit decision being appealed was in Aereo’s favor, Alito’s earlier recusal meant that the case would be heard by the remaining eight justices. That created the risk of a 4-4 tie, which would leave the adverse 2nd Circuit decision in place.

In that scenario, broadcasters would need to win 5 of the 8 possible votes in order to overturn the lower court decision. That can be a tall order, and impossible if it turns out that four justices are firmly on the Aereo side of the fence. With Alito no longer recused, broadcasters now have an additional avenue for scoring that fifth vote. In other words, it’s easier to attract 5 votes out of 9 than it is to get 5 votes out of 8. That means broadcasters are unlikely to find themselves losing on a tie vote, and if the rest of the court should split 4-4, Alito’s entry into the fray effectively gives broadcasters a free throw opportunity at the buzzer to score his vote and break that tie. Now broadcasters just need to convert on that opportunity.

Published on:

By

After Monday’s FCC meeting left television broadcasters facing higher expenses and lower revenues by restricting the use of Joint Sales Agreements and joint retransmission negotiations, broadcasters were due for some good news. Where the FCC is the bearer of bad news, it has often fallen to the courts to be the bearer of good news, generally by overruling the adverse FCC decision. Unfortunately, that process can take years, meaning that in Washington you have to take a very long term view of “the good outweighs the bad.”

This week, however, the FCC’s bad news was followed very quickly by the Supreme Court’s decision today in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. In McCutcheon, the Court ruled that while limits on political contributions to individual candidates continue to be permissible, overall limits on contributions to candidates and party committees are unconstitutional. In other words, the government can limit how much you donate to an individual candidate or party committee, but cannot limit the number of candidates or party committees you support with your donations.

While campaign finance reform will continue to be a hot-button issue, a direct effect of today’s decision will be to increase the war chests of candidates and parties through greater political donations. Much of those increased funds will ultimately be used for political advertising, redounding to the benefit of media in general, but particularly to local broadcasters.

The Court’s 5-4 decision was not particularly a surprise, as many saw McCutcheon as the sequel to 2010’s Citizens United decision, in which the Court found restrictions on political expenditures by corporations and unions to be unconstitutional. When the Supreme Court released its decision in Citizens United, we all understood the immediate financial implications for media, but no one was quite sure just how great that impact would be. It turned out to be very substantial, completing the multi-decade transition of political advertising from being a “not worth the regulatory headaches” obligation of broadcasters to now being a highly sought after segment of the overall advertising market. Indeed, there is no stronger validation of this than the fact that cash flow multiples used in station acquisitions are based on two-year averages, balancing political year revenue with revenue from a non-political year.

As in 2010, the question is not whether today’s decision will result in more ad revenue for media outlets, but how much more. Given that in recent years the number of donors bumping up against the now-unconstitutional cap measured in the hundreds rather than the thousands, the economic impact of today’s decision is unlikely to match that of Citizens United. However, it may have a more interesting effect. The limit on overall donations effectively forced a political contributor to pick and choose a small number of candidates to support with the maximum ($2600 at the moment) donation, and to turn away others because of the cap. The practical result was that donors tended to focus their contributions on candidates in hotly contested races where the contribution could have the most impact.

With today’s elimination of the overall cap, a donor can make the maximum individual donation to every federal political candidate it wishes to support. The likely result is an increased flow of political contributions to candidates in races previously deemed to be lost causes, creating tighter races through the influx of political ad dollars.

From a political standpoint, this means the number of hotly contested races around the country will increase. From an economic standpoint, it means political ad dollars will flow on a more geographically diverse basis, ensuring that a larger number of local stations benefit, rather than just those in swing states and swing districts. This will be welcome news for stations that previously found themselves missing out on political ad dollars while candidates and parties flung large sums at stations in nearby swing districts. By itself, it may not entirely remove the sting of Monday’s FCC actions, but given enough time, the courts may eventually produce some good news in that regard as well.

Published on:

By

March 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:

  • FCC Proposes $40,000 Fine for Public Inspection File/License Renewal Violations
  • Short-Term License Renewal and Hefty Fine for Missing QIP Lists
  • $5,000 Fine for FM Station’s Failure to Maintain Minimum Operating Hours


Failure to Disclose Rules Violations Leads to $40,000 Fine

Late last month, the FCC issued two essentially identical orders against co-owned Milwaukee and Chicago Class A TV stations in response to a number of missing Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists and Children’s Television Programming Reports and for not reporting the missing issues/programs lists in the stations’ license renewal applications. The FCC’s Media Bureau proposed a $20,000 fine against each station, for a total fine of $40,000.

In late December of last year, the FCC issued Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) for the two stations, noting that the stations had mentioned in their license renewal applications that they had failed to timely file numerous Children’s Television Programming Reports, but had not disclosed the absence from their online public files of over a dozen (each) Quarterly Issues/Program Lists. Section 73.3526 of the FCC’s Rules requires licensees to maintain information about station operations in their public inspection files so the public can obtain “timely information about the station at regular intervals.”

The base fine for failure to file a required form is $3,000, and the base fine for public file violations is $10,000. After considering the facts, the FCC concluded in each NAL that the respective station was liable for $9,000 for the missing Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists, $9,000 for the missing Children’s Television Programming Reports, and an additional $2,000 for failing to disclose the missing Quarterly Issues/Program Lists in their renewal applications.

After receiving the NALs, each station requested that the fine be reduced due to an inability to pay. The FCC will not consider reducing a fine based on a claimed inability to pay unless the licensee submits federal tax returns for the last three years, financial statements, or other documentation that accurately demonstrates its financial status. In this case, each station submitted appropriate documentation about its financial condition. However, the FCC was not persuaded that the amount of the fines exceeded each station’s ability to pay, and declined to reduce the fines.

Public Inspection File Violations Lead to $46,000 in Fines and Limited License Terms
In connection with recent license renewal applications, the FCC issued four essentially identical Memorandum Opinions and Orders and Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, resulting in $46,000 in fines for a Washington radio licensee. In addition, three of the licensee’s four stations’ license renewal applications were granted for only a four-year term rather than the normal eight-year term.

The first three of the licensee’s stations were missing, respectively, 24, 26, and 20 Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists for various periods during the license term. The fourth station’s public inspection file was missing 12 reports for a two-year period spanning from 2006 to 2008. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

March 2014

TV, Class A TV, and locally originating LPTV stations licensed to communities in Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming must begin airing pre-filing license renewal announcements on April 1, 2014. License renewal applications for all TV stations in these states are due by June 2, 2014.

Pre-Filing License Renewal Announcements

Stations in the video services that are licensed to communities in Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming must file their license renewal applications by June 2, 2014 (June 1 being a Sunday).

Beginning two months prior to that filing, full power TV, Class A TV, and LPTV stations capable of local origination must air four pre-filing renewal announcements alerting the public to the upcoming license renewal application filing. These stations must air the first pre-filing announcement on April 1, 2014. The remaining announcements must air on April 16, May 1, and May 16, 2014, for a total of four announcements. A sign board or slide showing the licensee’s address and the FCC’s Washington DC address must be displayed while the pre-filing announcements are broadcast.

For commercial stations, at least two of these four announcements must air between 6:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. (Eastern/Pacific) or 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. (Central/Mountain). Locally-originating LPTV stations must broadcast these announcements as close to the above schedule as their operating schedule permits. Noncommercial stations must air the announcements at the same times as commercial stations, but need not air any announcements in a month in which the station does not operate. A noncommercial station that will not air some announcements because it is off the air must air the remaining announcements as listed above, i.e., the first two must air between 6:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. (Eastern/Pacific) or 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. (Central/Mountain).

The text of the pre-filing announcement is as follows:

On [date of last renewal grant], [call letters] was granted a license by the Federal Communications Commission to serve the public interest as a public trustee until October 1, 2014. [Stations which have not received a renewal grant since the filing of their previous renewal application should modify the foregoing to read: “(Call letters) is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to serve the public interest as a public trustee.”]

Our license will expire on October 1, 2014. We must file an application for renewal with the FCC by June 2, 2014. When filed, a copy of this application will be available for public inspection at www.fcc.gov. It contains information concerning this station’s performance during the last eight years [or other period of time covered by the application, if the station’s license term was not a standard eight-year license term].

Individuals who wish to advise the FCC of facts relating to our renewal application and to whether this station has operated in the public interest should file comments and petitions with the Commission by September 1, 2014.

Further information concerning the FCC’s broadcast license renewal process is available at [address of location of the station] or may be obtained from the FCC, Washington, DC 20554.

If a station misses airing an announcement, it should broadcast a make-up announcement as soon as possible and contact us to further address the situation. As noted above, special rules apply to noncommercial stations that do not normally operate during any month when their announcements would otherwise be required to air, as well as to other silent stations. These stations should contact us to ensure they give the required public notice.

Article continues — the full article can be found at Pre-Filing and Post-Filing License Renewal Announcement Reminder

Published on:

By

There was quite a stir today when the FCC, despite being closed for a snow day, issued a Notice of Apparent Liability proposing very large fines against Viacom ($1,120,000), NBCUniversal ($530,000), and ESPN ($280,000) for transmitting false EAS alert tones. According to the FCC, all three aired an ad for the movie Olympus Has Fallen that contained a false EAS alert tone, with Viacom airing it 108 times on seven of its cable networks, NBCUniversal airing it 38 times on seven of its cable networks, and ESPN airing it 13 times on three of its cable networks.

The size of the fines certainly drew some attention. Probably not helping the situation was the ad’s inclusion of the onscreen text “THIS IS NOT A TEST” and “THIS IS NOT A DRILL” while sounding the EAS tone. The FCC launched the investigation after receiving complaints from the public.

All three entities raised a variety of arguments that were uniformly rejected by the FCC, including that “they had inadequate notice of the requirements and applicability of the rules with respect to EAS violations.” What particularly caught my eye, however, was that all three indicated the ad had cleared an internal review before airing, and in each case, those handling the internal review were apparently unaware of Section 325 of the Communications Act (prohibiting transmission of a “false or fraudulent signal of distress”) and Section 11.45 of the FCC’s Rules, which states that “No person may transmit or cause to transmit the EAS codes or Attention Signal, or a recording or simulation thereof, in any circumstance other than in an actual National, State or Local Area emergency or authorized test of the EAS.”

Back in 2010, I wrote a post titled EAS False Alerts in Radio Ads and Other Reasons to Panic that discussed the evolution of the FCC’s concerns about false emergency tones in media, which originally centered on sirens, then on Emergency Broadcast System tones, and now on the Emergency Alert System’s digital squeals. Two months later, I found myself writing about it again (The Phantom Menace: Return of the EAS False Alerts) when a TV ad for the movie Skyline was distributed for airing with a false EAS tone included in it.

That was the beginning of what has since become a clear trend. Those initial posts warned broadcasters and cable programmers to avoid airing specific ads with false EAS tones, but were not connected to any adverse action by the FCC. After three years of EAS tone tranquility, the issue reemerged in 2013 when hackers managed to commandeer via Internet the EAS equipment of some Michigan and Montana TV stations to send out false EAS alert warnings of a zombie attack. The result was a rapid public notice from the FCC instructing EAS participants to change their EAS passwords and ensure their firewalls are functioning (covered in my posts FCC Urges IMMEDIATE Action to Prevent Further Fake EAS Alerts and EAS Alerts and the Zombie Apocalypse Make Skynet a Reality), but no fines.

From there we moved in a strange direction when the Federal Emergency Management Agency distributed a public service announcement seeking to educate the public about the Emergency Alert System, but used an EAS tone to get that message across. Because it did not involve an actual emergency nor a test of the EAS system, the PSA violated the FCC’s rule against false EAS tones and broadcasters had no choice but to decline to air it. The matter was resolved when the FCC quickly rushed through a one-year waiver permitting the FEMA ad to be aired (Stations Find Out When Airing a Fake EAS Tone Is Okay).

Late last year, however, the evolution of the FCC’s treatment of false EAS alerts turned dark (FCC Reaches Tipping Point on False EAS Alerts) when the FCC issued the first financial penalties for false EAS alerts. The FCC proposed a $25,000 fine for Turner Broadcasting and entered into a $39,000 consent decree with a Kentucky radio station for airing false EAS alert tones. The FCC indicated at the time that other investigations were ongoing, and more fines might be on the way.

We didn’t have to wait long, as just two months later, the FCC upped the ante, proposing a fine of $200,000 against Turner Broadcasting for again airing false EAS alert tones, this time on its Adult Swim network. The size of the fine was startling, and according to the FCC, was based upon the nationwide reach of the false EAS tone ad, as well as the fact that Turner had indicated in connection with its earlier $25,000 fine that it had put in place mechanisms to prevent such an event from happening again. When it did happen again, the FCC didn’t hesitate to assess the $200,000 fine.

Today’s order, issued less than two months after the last Turner decision, ups the ante once again, proposing fines of such size that only some of the FCC’s larger indecency fines compare. The FCC is clearly sending a signal that it takes false EAS tones very seriously, and the fact that the ads containing the EAS tones were produced by an independent third party didn’t let the programmers off the hook. In other words, it doesn’t matter how or why the ads got on the air; the mere fact that they aired is sufficient to create liability.

So what lesson should broadcasters and cable networks take away from this? Well, the all too obvious one is to do whatever it takes to prevent false EAS tones from making it on air. However, an equally useful lesson is to make sure that your contracts with advertisers require the advertiser to warrant that the spots provided will comply with all laws and to indemnify the broadcaster or network if that turns out not to be the case. That won’t save you from a big FCC fine and a black mark on your FCC record, but it will at least require the advertiser to compensate you for the damages you suffered in airing the ad and defending yourself. Unfortunately, many advertising contracts are not particularly well drafted (and some are just a handshake), which can expose you to a variety of liabilities like this unnecessarily.

It is therefore wise to have both your ad contracts and your advertising guidelines carefully reviewed by counsel experienced in this area of the law. Vigilant review of ads submitted for airing is an excellent first line of defense, but as demonstrated in today’s decision, it won’t do much good if the individuals reviewing the ads don’t know what to look for.

Published on:

By

February 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:

  • FCC Limits License Renewal to Two Years and Assesses $4,000 Fine
  • $24,000 Consent Decree for Incomplete Public Inspection File
  • Hotels Cited for Exceeding Signal Leakage Limits in Aeronautical Bands

Station Assessed Fine for Public File Violations and Granted Short-Term License Renewal
In reviewing the license renewal application for a Meridian, Texas radio station, the FCC’s Media Bureau proposed a $4,000 fine for public inspection file violations. It also granted the station’s license renewal application, but only for a period of two years (rather than the normal eight), based upon the station’s extended periods of silence during the prior license term.

Section 73.3526 of the FCC’s Rules requires licensees to maintain information about station operations in the station’s public inspection file so the public can obtain “timely information about the station at regular intervals.” In its license renewal application, the station indicated that it could not locate a number of its quarterly issues-programs lists. The base forfeiture amount for public inspection file violations is $10,000, but the FCC has authority to adjust that amount up or down based on a licensee’s circumstances. Here, the FCC noted that “the violations were extensive, occurring over a period of nearly two years and involving at least 6 issues/programs lists.” Despite this, the FCC ultimately imposed a forfeiture amount of only $4,000 since the violations were not “evidence of a pattern of abuse.”

The station was also dark for lengthy periods during the prior license term. Section 312(g) of the Communications Act prohibits long periods of silence by licensed stations because licensees have an obligation to provide service to the public by broadcasting on their allocated spectrum. When the FCC reviews a station’s renewal application, it considers whether the licensee has adequately served its community of license. Section 309(k) of the Communications Act provides that the renewal application should be granted if “(1) the station has served the public interest, convenience and necessity; (2) there have been no serious violations of the Act or the Rules; and (3) there have been no other violations which, taken together, constitute a pattern of abuse.” In this case, the FCC pointed out that the licensee had two periods of silence, each lasting nearly a year, and that the station had been dark for almost half of the license term. Since the licensee had failed to provide “public service programming such as news, public affairs, weather information, and Emergency Alert System notifications” during these long periods of inactivity, the FCC determined that granting a renewal of only two years would be the most effective sanction because it would incentivize the licensee to maintain its broadcast operations and not go silent in the future.

License Agrees to Pay $24,000 Under Terms of Consent Decree for Missing Public File Documents
The FCC has entered into a consent decree with an Atlanta LPTV licensee after conducting a lengthy investigation. Almost two years ago, in March of 2012, the FCC sent a letter to the licensee asking for specific information to determine the station’s eligibility for Class A television status. The requested information included the location of the main studio, a description of production equipment, names of employees, the location of the public inspection file, a copy of the quarterly issues/programs lists, and a copy of the public inspection file documentation. In its response, submitted in June of 2012, the licensee informed the FCC that the station had been vandalized and provided police reports and other documentation to account for its failure to produce a public inspection file. In another letter dated almost one year after the licensee’s explanatory letter, the FCC asked for further clarification from the licensee regarding the location of the station’s public inspection file and why the police report did not mention vandalism of the public inspection file. The licensee replied one month later in July of 2013 and provided another police report to explain the theft of equipment.

Continue reading →