Articles Posted in Television

Published on:

By

Late yesterday, the FCC released a public notice providing information on the repacking process that will follow the broadcast spectrum incentive auction. This is the FCC’s second response to calls by a number of parties seeking greater transparency (and information in general) regarding the technical aspects of the repacking process, including the FCC’s repacking model and modeling assumptions. The FCC anticipates that more pieces of the puzzle, including details about how bids will be selected, how channels will be assigned, and the associated algorithms, will be made public in the coming months.

Specifically, in conjunction with the public notice, the FCC has made available the following:

  1. an update to its TVStudy computer software (now version 1.2) and supporting data for determining the coverage area and population served by television stations using the methodology described in OET Bulletin 69. According to the FCC’s public notice, the updated software operates in the same way as the prior version, but has an improved user interface and enhanced capabilities for station-to-station analysis;
  2. data about Canadian and Mexican television allotments and incumbent licensees in a format that can be readily used with the updated TVStudy software program; and
  3. descriptions of the analysis for “pre-calculating” which stations could be assigned to which channels in the repacking process, and which stations cannot operate on the same channels or adjacent channels, based on geographic issues. The software and data being provided contain preliminary assumptions necessary to perform the analysis. The Commission states that those assumptions are for illustrative purposes only and that the FCC has made no decision as to whether to adopt any of them.

While all additional information regarding the auction and repacking process is welcome, this most recent release appears incremental at best, and we have a long way to go before broadcasters or potential auction bidders will be able to accurately assess their options. Given the stakes, however, those who can decipher the FCC’s auction tea leaves earliest, and most accurately, will be at an advantage in the months to come.

Published on:

By

In a decision that disappointed but didn’t entirely surprise broadcasters, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today declined to rehear in banc its earlier decision rejecting a request by broadcasters to terminate with extreme prejudice Aereo’s broadcast subscription service in New York. Today’s announcement was not a decision on the merits, but merely the result of a poll taken among the Second Circuit judges in which less than a majority indicated an interest in hearing the case in banc. Barring an effort by broadcasters to seek Supreme Court review (and Fox, at least, has indicated that option is not off the table), the matter will return to the trial court for a full trial on whether Aereo is infringing on broadcast copyrights.

Once again, Second Circuit Judge Denny Chin, who had been the district judge in the earlier Cablevision case on which Aereo has built its business, dissented from today’s decision. His dissent is respectful but spirited, and so thoroughly dismantles the court’s earlier decision in favor of Aereo that a reader new to the dispute could be forgiven for being mystified as to how the other two judges on the original panel could have reached a contrary conclusion.

As interesting as the legal dispute itself is (at least to lawyers), the end result may well be governed more by technology than by law. If you have spent much time in the communications world, you have heard the old saw that “the law struggles to keep up with technology.” In the case of Aereo, however, it has been quite the opposite, with technology struggling to keep up with the law.

After the Second Circuit’s decision in Cablevision created, as Judge Chin’s dissent today puts it, “‘guideposts’ on how to avoid compliance with our copyright laws,” Aereo and others apparently raced to develop technology that could neatly fit through the legal loophole Cablevision ostensibly created. Judge Chin is obviously not a fan of such reverse engineering, noting today that “[i]n my view, however, the system is a sham, as it was designed solely to avoid the reach of the Copyright Act and to take advantage of a perceived loophole in the law purportedly created by Cablevision.”

So far, the Aereo legal proceedings have presumed that Aereo was successful in its engineering efforts, and that its “one tiny antenna per subscriber” approach allows it to technologically clear the legal hurdles of the Copyright Act. Those familiar with the intricacies of radiofrequency engineering, however, have been quick to point out that the biggest obstacle to the Aereo system isn’t the laws of copyright, but the laws of physics.

One of the immutable laws of RF antenna design is that the size of the receiving antenna must correlate to the wavelengths it is meant to receive. As a result, high frequency devices (which means short wavelengths) can get by with smaller antennas, whereas the comparatively massive wavelengths of TV signals require much larger receiving antennas. That is why, during the golden age of over-the-air TV reception, and during the silver age of over-the-air HDTV reception, the promises of smaller and smaller antennas that would work “just as good” as hulking rooftop antennas never came to fruition.

Aereo’s claim of reliable reception with dime-size TV antennas (particularly in New York, the world capital of urban multipath interference) therefore seemed more akin to alchemy than to advanced RF antenna design. However, with the exception of patent lawyers and a fair number of communications lawyers, engineering expertise is not a common skill in the legal trade. As a result, the debate over Aereo has focused on that which lawyers know–the law–rather than on that which determines whether Aereo even fits within the legal loophole it claims to exploit–incredible advancements in TV antenna design.

Communications lawyers are perhaps more sensitized than most to the law/engineering dichotomy, as communications is one of the few fields where engineering solutions to legal problems are often an elegant alternative to brute force legal tactics. Because of this, one of the most interesting commentaries on the Aereo dispute I have come across is a piece by Deborah McAdams titled Aereo’s Unlikely Proposition.

It is a very intriguing article (and well worth a read) in which a number of engineers discuss why the “fits exactly into the shape of the loophole” system described by Aereo can’t exist in the real world. In other words, that Aereo isn’t an example of the law falling behind technology, but of technology being unable to produce an antenna capable of outrunning the law. If true, then the success of Aereo’s legal battle hangs not on whether it has a groundbreaking legal theory, but on whether the claimed antenna technology emerged from Aereo’s engineering department, or from its marketing department.

In either case, Aereo’s claims for its technology would be better assessed in an RF testing lab than in a courtroom. Extended debate over the legality of Aereo’s claimed technology is pointful only once it has been confirmed that Aereo has indeed created a revolutionary antenna technology that functions as described. If not, then the legal wranglings over a theoretical retransmission system are much ado about nothing.

Published on:

By

Last month, the FCC released an Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that clarified a number of aspects of the FCC’s complex closed captioning requirements for video programming delivered using Internet Protocol (IP) and the devices used by consumers to view it. In the FCC’s words, the Order and Further Notice was issued to “affirm, modify, and clarify certain decisions” made by the Commission last year implementing closed captioning requirements for video programming distributed via IP.

The original IP captioning rules were adopted in January 2012 in response to the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA). The Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice has now been published in the Federal Register, and the rules adopted in the Order are set to take effect on August 1, 2013. For those who would like a refresher on the CVAA and the IP requirements, you can find my previous posts on the subject here and here.

In the Further Notice adopted simultaneously with the Order, the Commission asked for comment on imposing “closed captioning synchronization requirements for covered apparatus, and on how DVD and Blu-ray players can fulfill the closed captioning requirements of the statute.” Based on the publication of the Further Notice in the Federal Register, comments on the Further Notice are now due on September 3, 2013, and reply comments are due September 30, 2013.

The bulk of the Order is largely a response to three Petitions for Reconsideration filed in connection with last year’s Report and Order, which adopted rules governing the closed captioning requirements for owners, providers, and distributors of IP-delivered video programming, as well as the closed captioning capabilities of devices used by consumers to view video programming. The Petitions were filed by the Consumer Electronics Association, TV Guardian, and a coalition of consumer groups, respectively.

Highlights of the FCC’s Order and Further Notice include:

  • Refusing to limit covered devices to those intentionally designed to play back video programming, but clarifying the rule and issuing two class-based waivers in response to requests by the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) to exclude equipment such as digital cameras and baby monitors;
  • Clarifying that the January 1, 2014, deadline for devices to be equipped to display closed captioned video programming applies to the date of manufacture of the apparatus, and “not to the date of importation, shipment, or sale”;
  • Reaffirming its decision to allow video programming providers and distributors to select either the rendering or pass through of captions to end users; and
  • Delaying a final decision regarding whether video clips (i.e., “excerpts of full length programming”) should be included within the scope of covered programming until more information is collected as part of another public notice that the FCC plans to issue within the next six months.

The CEA had requested that the FCC narrow the applicability of the closed captioning equipment requirements to cover only those devices intended by the manufacturer to receive, play back, or record IP video programming, rather than broadly applying the rules to any device with a video player.

In response, the FCC revised its definition of “apparatus” to make clear that “video players” requiring captioning capability include only those that display “video programming transmitted with sound.” The FCC declined to limit the requirement to only those devices intentionally designed to play back video programming, but clarified its rule and issued two class-based waivers excluding from the requirement equipment such as still digital cameras and baby monitors, which play back consumer generated images and not IP “video programming” as defined by the CVAA.

The following two classes of “apparatus” qualify for the waiver:

(i) devices that are primarily designed to capture and display still and/or moving images consisting of consumer-generated media, or of other images that are not video programming as defined under the CVAA and our rules, and that have limited capability to display video programming transmitted simultaneously with sound … and (ii) devices that are primarily designed to display still images and that have limited capability to display video programming transmitted simultaneously with sound.

The FCC also decided to delay the January 1, 2014 compliance deadline for DVD players that do not render or pass through closed captions. According to the Commission, that extension was granted to give the FCC more time to collect data regarding additional costs that might be imposed by adding IP captioning functionality to low-cost devices like DVD and Blu-ray players. The extension does not apply to other removable media players or to DVD players that already have the ability to caption.

Regarding the TV Guardian Petition, the FCC denied the Petition, which had requested that the Commission prohibit video programming providers and distributors from rendering captions where passing through captions is “technically feasible”, determining that the request was inconsistent with the language of the CVAA. The FCC also noted that the consumer electronics industry “coalesced around the use of HDMI, which permits the use of rendered captions but does not pass through closed captions, meaning that it only conveys captions when they have been decoded and mixed into the video stream.”

The FCC deferred a decision on the main thrust of the third Petition, filed by a number of consumer groups, which questioned why IP video captioning requirements only apply to “full-length programming” that appears on TV with captions and is then distributed via IP to end users substantially in its entirety. The coalition of consumer groups urged the FCC to expand the captioning requirement to also cover “video clips” containing less than a full-length program. The FCC is keeping the record open on this issue until more information is gathered on the captioning of video clips, including the difficulty of doing so, and the degree to which such captioning already occurs voluntarily.

Finally, in the Further Notice, the FCC asked for “further information necessary to determine whether the Commission should impose synchronization requirements on device manufacturers.” What the FCC is asking for here is additional information to determine whether to “require apparatus manufacturers to ensure that their apparatus synchronize the appearance of closed captions with the display of the corresponding video.” In the Report and Order, the FCC had declined to impose synchronization requirements on manufacturers, instead placing the obligation on video programming distributors and providers.

As noted, initial comments on the Further Notice are due September 3, 2013, with reply comments due on September 30, 2013. The issues raised in the proceeding are obviously complex, so those who wish to file comments should start preparing sooner rather than later.

Published on:

By

Last month, the FCC issued its latest annual Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) as well as a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) containing regulatory fee proposals for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. Those who wish to file comments on the FCC’s proposed fees must do so by June 19, 2013, with reply comments due by June 26, 2013. The NPRM proposes to collect just under $340 million in regulatory fees for FY 2013.

The FCC indicates that this year’s Congressional budget sequester reduced FCC salaries and expenditures by $17 million but that the sequester does not impact the collection of regulatory fees. According to the NPRM, this is because the sequester does not change the amount Congress required the FCC to collect in the FY 2012 appropriation (and continued in effect in FY 2013 by virtue of the Further Continuing Appropriations Act in 2013).
The NPRM seeks comments on adoption and implementation of proposals to reallocate the Agency’s regulatory fees based on the matters actually worked on by current FCC full time employees (FTEs) for FY 2013 to more accurately assess the costs of providing regulatory services to various industry sectors and to account for changes in the wireless and wireline industries in recent years. Understanding that a modification of its current fee allocation method based on FTE workload will result in significantly higher fees for some fee categories, the NPRM proposes to potentially cap rate increases at 7.5% for FY 2013.
The FCC’s NPRM also asks for comment on the following:

  1. Combining Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers (ITSPs) and wireless telecommunications services into one regulatory fee category and using revenues as the basis for calculating the resulting regulatory fees;
  2. Using revenues to calculate regulatory fees for other industries that now use subscribers as the basis for regulatory fee calculations, such as the cable industry;
  3. Consolidating UHF and VHF television stations into one regulatory fee category;
  4. Proposing a regulatory fee for Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) equivalent to cable regulatory fees;
  5. Alleviating large fluctuations in the fee rate for Multiyear Wireless Services; and
  6. Determining whether the Commission should modify its methodology for collecting regulatory fees from those in declining industries (e.g., CMRS Messaging).

In the FNPRM, the FCC seeks comment on the how to treat, for regulatory fee purposes, services such as non-U.S.-Licensed Space Stations, Direct Broadcast Satellites and broadband.
The FCC also notes that it is seeking to modernize its electronic filing and payment systems. As a result, beginning on October 1, 2013, the FCC will no longer accept paper and check filings for payment of Annual Regulatory Fees. What that means is that this year’s regulatory fee filing is likely the last time that regulatory fees can be paid without using electronic funds.
We will be publishing a full Advisory on the FY 2013 Regulatory Fees once they are adopted (likely this summer). You may also immediately access the FCC’s FY 2013 proposed fee tables attached to the NPRM, in order to estimate, at least approximately, the size payment the FCC will be expecting from you this fall.

Published on:

By

A few minutes ago, the FCC issued a Public Notice granting a thirty-day extension of the deadlines for submitting comments and reply comments in response to the FCC’s April 1, 2013 Public Notice seeking input on whether the Commission should make changes to its current broadcast indecency policies. Comments and reply comments were originally due on May 20 and June 18, 2013, respectively, but have now been extended to June 19, 2013 (comments) and July 18, 2013 (reply comments). The extension was granted in response to a Motion filed by the National Association of Broadcasters on April 26, 2013.

Scott Flick of our office posted a detailed analysis of the Public Notice early last month. To refresh your memory, the Public Notice (jointly released by the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau and General Counsel’s Office) was issued in response to FCC Chairman Genachowski’s request that FCC staff review the “Commission’s broadcast indecency policies and enforcement to ensure they are fully consistent with vital First Amendment principles.”

With respect to guidance for parties planning to file comments, the quoted language below from the Public Notice describes the matters on which the FCC is seeking comment:

  1. [W]hether the full Commission should … treat isolated expletives in a manner consistent with our decision in Pacifica Foundation, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 2698, 2699 (1987) (“If a complaint focuses solely on the use of expletives, we believe that . . . deliberate and repetitive use in a patently offensive manner is a requisite to a finding of indecency.”)?
  2. Should the Commission instead maintain the approach to isolated expletives set forth in its decision in Complaints Against Various Broadcast Licensees Regarding Their Airing of the “Golden Globe Awards” Program, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 4975 (2004)?
  3. As another example, should the Commission treat isolated (non-sexual) nudity the same as or differently than isolated expletives?

The Public Notice also states that parties are invited “to address these issues as well as any other aspect of the Commission’s substantive indecency policies.” As Scott pointed out in his analysis last month, this final question appears to open the door to a broader review of indecency doctrine than the FCC has engaged in for quite some time.

Given the controversy the FCC’s indecency policies have historically generated, you can expect to see plenty of comments filed on June 19 and reply comments on July 18 by parties on all sides of this issue. As the FCC moves toward new leadership with the departure of Chairman Genachowski, the FCC’s indecency enforcement policies could take some interesting turns.

Published on:

By

As our readers are aware, we did a great deal of reporting before and after the first-ever Nationwide Emergency Alert System (EAS) Test conducted on November 9, 2011. The purpose of that test was to assess the readiness and effectiveness of the system in the event of an actual national emergency. Broadcasters, as well as cable, satellite, and wireline providers across the country (EAS Participants), all took part in the test. For a quick refresher, see my previous posts on the test here, here, here, here, and here. Late this past Friday, the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau released a report summarizing the outcome of the national test entitled: “Strengthening the Emergency Alert System (EAS): Lessons Learned from the Nationwide EAS Test”.

As the FCC and FEMA have made clear on numerous ocassions, the national EAS test was not intended to be a pass or fail event, but was to be used to identify and address the limitations of the current EAS. The Report concludes that the national EAS alert distribution architecture is sound and that the national test was received by a large majority of EAS Participants and could be seen and heard by most Americans. The results of the test show that more than 80 percent of EAS Participants across the country successfully received and relayed the FEMA test message.

The Report also indicates, however, that there are a number of technical areas where the system can be improved. According to the Report, among the problems that impeded the ability of EAS Participants to receive and/or retransmit the emergency Action Notification (EAN) issued by FEMA, and of the public to receive it, were:

  • Widespread poor audio quality;
  • Lack of a Primary Entry Point (PEP) in an area to provide a direct connection to FEMA;
  • Use of alternatives to PEP-based EAN distribution;
  • The inability of some EAS Participants either to receive or retransmit the EAN;
  • Short test length; and
  • Anomalies in EAS equipment programming and operation.

As a result of its findings, the Report recommends that another nationwide test be conducted after the FCC commences a number of formal rulemaking proceedings seeking public comment on steps to improve EAS related to these and other shortcomings.

In its Report, the Bureau also recommends that, in connection with any future EAS testing, the FCC develop a new Nationwide EAS Test Reporting System to improve the electronic filing of test result data. The Report also encourages the Executive Office of the President to reconvene the Federal EAS Test Working Group to work with Federal partners and other stakeholders to use the results of the test to find ways to improve EAS and plan for future nationwide tests.

Despite the audio problems and other issues identified in the Report with respect to the nationwide EAS test, the first ever test appears to have achieved its goal of helping the FCC, FEMA, and EAS Participants identify areas where EAS can be improved in the event of an actual emergency. If the recommendations outlined in the Report are implemented by the FCC, the public will likely have a number of opportunities during upcoming rulemaking proceedings to provide their input to the FCC on ways to further improve the reliability of the nation’s EAS.

Published on:

By

This morning, the FCC released a Public Notice announcing that, commencing immediately and until further notice, it will no longer accept modification applications (or amendments to modification applications) from full power and Class A television stations if the modification would increase the station’s coverage in any direction beyond its current authorization.

The Public Notice also indicates that the FCC will cease processing modification applications that are already on file if the modification will increase the station’s coverage in any direction. Applicants with a pending modification application subject to the freeze are being given 60 days to amend their application to prevent an increase in coverage (or seek a waiver), thereby allowing those applications to be processed by the FCC. Modification applications that are not amended within that period will not be processed until after the FCC releases its order in the Spectrum Auction proceeding, and at that point will be subject to any new rules or policies adopted in that rulemaking that would limit station modifications.

With regard to Class A stations specifically, the FCC will also not accept Class A displacement applications that increase a station’s coverage in any direction. Class A applications to implement the digital transition (flash cut and digital companion channels) will continue to be processed as long as they comply with the existing restrictions on such applications.

The FCC states that the reason for putting modification applications in the deep freeze is that:

We find that the imposition of limits on the filing and processing of modification applications is now appropriate to facilitate analysis of repacking methodologies and to assure that the objectives of the broadcast television incentive auction are not frustrated. The repacking methodology the Commission ultimately adopts will be a critical tool in reorganizing the broadcast TV spectrum pursuant to the statutory mandate. Additional development and analysis of potential repacking methodologies is required in light of the technical, policy, and auction design issues raised in the rulemaking proceeding. This work requires a stable database of full power and Class A broadcast facilities. In addition, to avoid frustrating the central goal of “repurpos[ing] the maximum amount of UHF band spectrum for flexible licensed and unlicensed use,” we believe it is now necessary to limit the filing and processing of modification applications that would expand broadcast television stations’ use of spectrum.

So once again, television broadcasters are tossed into a digital ice age, unable to adapt their facilities to shifting population areas, which seems to be the polar opposite of what Congress intended in requiring that spectrum incentive auctions not reduce broadcast service to the public. Aggravating the situation is that, unlike some of the DTV transition application freezes, the FCC is not limiting this freeze to large urban markets where it hopes to free up broadcast spectrum for wireless broadband. Indeed, modification applications were already less likely in those heavily populated urban areas because of the existing spectrum congestion that makes modifying a TV station’s signal difficult.

As a result, the broadcasters most likely to be hurt by the freeze are those in more rural areas–areas that have ample available spectrum for broadcasting and broadband, and which the FCC has said are not really the target of its spectrum incentive auction. Those broadcasters will have to hope that the FCC is serious about considering freeze waiver requests. Otherwise, rural Americans will once again see improvements in their communications services delayed while the FCC focuses all its attention on securing more spectrum for broadband in urban population centers.

Published on:

By

Marking the end of a winter that has been way too long is an annual rite of Spring for the media industry–the National Association of Broadcasters’ Show in Las Vegas. This year’s Show is taking place from April 6th to the 11th at the Las Vegas Convention Center. The NAB touts the Show as “the world’s largest media and entertainment event covering the development, management and delivery of content across all mediums.” The growing technological and business diversity of the Show is reflected in the NAB’s additional description of the Show as being “home to the solutions that transcend traditional broadcasting and embrace content delivery to new screens in new ways.” That is certainly true, with the diversity of exhibitors covering every sector even tangentially related to media and content production.

Of course, for all that the Show itself is, one of the most compelling reasons to spend a few pleasant April days in Las Vegas is to reconnect with friends and colleagues in the industry, as well as meeting in person a lot of the people that you have previously known only by phone or email.

This year’s Pillsbury contingent includes six of our communications attorneys, including myself, Dick Zaragoza, Lew Paper, Scott Flick, Miles Mason, and Andrew Kersting.

If you see us at the Show, please stop and say hello. You can also reach out to us via email at the Show by clicking on the links above. They take you to our respective bios at Pillsbury, including email addresses.

If you are headed to the Show, we look forward to seeing you there. For those who won’t be there, I’ll be writing a post after the Show summarizing some of the highlights.

Published on:

By

After nine months of rumors and uncertainty as to where the FCC is headed after last summer’s indecency decision by the Supreme Court in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (which we discussed in this post), the FCC today released a very brief public notice that:

  1. Announces the FCC staff has disposed of over one million indecency complaints (which it states is over 70% of those that were pending at the FCC), “principally by closing pending complaints that were beyond the statute of limitations or too stale to pursue, that involved cases outside FCC jurisdiction, that contained insufficient information, or that were foreclosed by settled precedent.”
  2. Announces that the FCC will continue to actively investigate “egregious indecency cases.”
  3. Announces that it is opening up a new docket (GN Docket No. 13-86), and is seeking comments from the public in that docket as to whether the FCC should change its broadcast indecency policies, and if so, how. While not limiting the breadth of potential changes, the FCC specifically asks whether it is time to go back to the old policy of prosecuting on-air expletives only where there is “deliberate and repetitive use in a patently offensive manner,” or stick with the more recent policy of pouncing on a single fleeting expletive, the policy that led to the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision. The Public Notice also asks if the FCC should treat “isolated (non-sexual) nudity the same or different than isolated expletives?”
  4. Finally, emphasizing again the broad nature of the FCC’s proposed review, the Public Notice asks commenters “to address these issues as well as any other aspect of the Commission’s substantive indecency policies.”

The Public Notice indicates that comments will be due 30 days after the request for comments is published in the Federal Register, with reply comments being due 30 days after that.

While the timing of the Public Notice, just ahead of Chairman Genachowski’s (and Commissioner McDowell’s) announced departure from the FCC, is interesting, more interesting is the “spontaneous” look of the document. In an agency that can readily produce requests for comments that are hundreds of pages long, and on a subject that has produced reams of pleadings and precedent over several decades, the substantive portion of the Public Notice is but a few paragraphs long–a few paragraphs that open the door to a fundamental rethinking of the FCC’s approach to indecency.

The Public Notice therefore has the look of a document that was not long in the making, and which may have emerged as result of a departing Chairman beginning to move the ball forward for his successor. The process forward will likely be complex and arduous, and the ultimate result is anyone’s guess, but by at least launching the proceeding before his departure, Chairman Genachowski will absorb some of the political heat that could have otherwise fallen on his successor, while also challenging that successor to address an issue that has become a significant distraction and consumer of increasingly scarce FCC resources.

While also a result of its brevity, the lack of any “initial” or “tentative” conclusions by the FCC in the document gives the impression that the FCC may indeed be ready to commence a fundamental reexamination of indecency policy, and is not just going through the motions of collecting comments before proceeding on a largely predetermined route. It is not asking so much how it should proceed in light of the Supreme Court’s decision, but how it should proceed in general. For those who loudly proclaim that the FCC has failed in its duties as a “content cop”, as well as broadcasters struggling to figure out on a minute by minute basis what program content might cross the FCC’s invisible indecency line, a fresh look at the issue will be welcome. Whether this “reset” can resolve the many tough questions surrounding indecency enforcement is, however, another question entirely.

Published on:

By and

At the end of every quarter, TV stations across the land must electronically file with the FCC a Form 398–The Children’s Television Programming Report. However, stations attempting to do that filing for the first quarter of 2013 are discovering that the FCC’s online filing system for those forms ends with the fourth quarter of 2012. As a result, it is preventing many TV stations from preparing their electronic report for the first quarter of 2013, rejecting all efforts to select “First Quarter 2013” as the report to be filed.

At first, it appeared that the FCC had bought into the “Mayan Prophecy” that the world was ending in December 2012, marking the end of the Mayan (and perhaps the FCC’s) calendar. And, had the world actually ended in 2012, filing a Form 398 covering the first quarter of 2013 would have indeed ranked low on most broadcasters’ “to do” lists. However, with 2013 well under way, TV stations are now flummoxed as to how to get the FCC’s electronic filing system to allow the preparation and filing of a first quarter 2013 kidvid report.

Fortunately, there is an answer, but it requires a little background. We reported in a 2010 KidVid Advisory that the FCC had suddenly begun requiring stations to enter their FCC Registration Number and password as the final step before permitting a Form 398 to be filed. As it turned out, this was apparently the first step in creating a new FCC Form 398 filing system.

In July 2012, the FCC released what it termed an “alternate” link for accessing the Form 398 filing system and updated its user manual to indicate that the web address for filing the form is the alternate link. However, the FCC’s main Children’s Television Programming page on the Internet continues to show that the original link is the one to use for filing a Form 398, and until this quarter, that original link has continued to work correctly. Of course, most TV stations just have the original link bookmarked, and have no reason to visit the FCC’s website/user manual to see if the filing procedures have been changed. Adding to the confusion is the fact that following the original link does not generate a warning or error message, but takes you to the same filing page stations have been using for years. It is only when a station tries to create a report for first quarter 2013 that a problem arises.

As a result, the “alternate” link is not just an alternate any more, and must be used to file all post-2012 kidvid reports. So, from here on out, use this link for filing your kidvid reports: http://licensing.fcc.gov/KidVidNew/public/filing/submit_login.faces

Note also that, at the new link, you will have to provide your call sign, Facility ID, FCC Registration Number and Password to even be able to log into the system. This is all information you previously needed to file a Form 398, but you supplied it at the end of the filing process. Now, you can’t even get started without it. For TV stations that have been banging their heads against the wall trying to figure out why they can’t prepare, much less file, their Form 398, using the alternate link should solve that problem. It may be a small problem compared to the end of the world, but then the Mayans never had to deal with online filing.