RSS FCC Headlines
Published on:

By

As we all know, unsolicited spam email can be annoying and intrusive. In 2003, Congress enacted the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act to curb spam. As required by the Act, the FTC and FCC adopted rules that prohibit sending unwanted commercial messages without prior permission. Among other things, the CAN-SPAM Act makes it “unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission, to a protected computer, of a commercial electronic mail message, or a transaction or relationship message, that contains, or is accompanied by, header information that is materially false or materially misleading.”

On March 28, 2011, a U.S. District Court in California held for the first time that the CAN-SPAM Act’s restrictions on the transmission of unsolicited commercial e-mail extends beyond traditional e-mail to include communications to other electronic medium, including Facebook friends’ walls, news feeds, and home pages. As John Nicholson of Pillsbury’s Global Sourcing group describes in detail in a recent Client Alert found here, the ruling is the most expansive judicial interpretation so far regarding the types of messages that fall within the scope of the CAN-SPAM Act.

John’s Client Alert is definitely worth a read for companies using social media in marketing. As John points out, companies should verify that they (and any marketing services they engage) comply with CAN-SPAM’s requirements for commercial messages sent via social media platforms.

By
Posted in: Advertising
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

Ever since Time Warner Cable released an app that allows users to watch two or three dozen cable channels on iPads we’ve been barraged by press reports of litigation and plans of other multichannel providers to launch similar services. Cablevision has announced it’s launching a similar app that lets subscribers watch their entire channel lineup on an iPad.

Suddenly cable and satellite companies are rushing to review their programming and retransmission deals to figure out what rights they have obtained, while programmers frantically review distribution agreements to see what rights they may have given away. We can find a few lessons about retransmission consent agreements in the App Flap, but let’s save those for another day.

What this really comes down to is whether the iPad apps qualify as “cable system” distribution, Internet distribution, or something else. Most programmers (and a few careful broadcasters) specifically carve out Internet distribution when signing carriage agreements – existing deals cover distribution for in-home viewing over cable and DBS systems. Internet distribution rights are negotiated separately, if at all. But many broadcasters who signed MSO form retrans agreements may have given away a lot more than they intended to.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Last Fall, the FCC adopted final rules allowing Part 15 unlicensed Television Band Devices (TVBDs) to operate in “white spaces”, the slivers of unused spectrum in the television band. To find available slivers of spectrum, the TVBDs will consult a database that is intended to contain information about every use being made of TV spectrum throughout the United States. However, certain users of television spectrum have only until April 5, 2011, to ask the FCC to grant a waiver in order to be included in the interference protection database or risk debilitating interference.

Any facility, including a cable headend, satellite receive facility, TV translator, Class A television station, low power television station or broadcast auxiliary station, that picks up an over-the-air broadcast signal at a point located more than 80 kilometers outside the originating station’s protected contour must file a waiver request with the FCC by April 5, 2011 seeking to have that use included in the white spaces database and protected from interference.

At a later date, the FCC will allow users to register without a waiver those receive sites that are located within the 80 kilometer zone (but outside the station’s protected contour) for interference protection. They cannot do so now because the database is still being developed. In the meantime, waiver requests for locations located outside of the 80 kilometer zone must be filed now and should include the coordinates of the receive site, the call sign of the originating station received over-the-air, and an indication of how potential white space devices would disrupt existing service. According to the FCC, it will accept public comment on waiver requests prior to making a decision on whether or not to grant them.

As a result, any cable headend that has built a tower with a directional receive antenna to pick up particularly distant television station signals, or any broadcaster or TV translator that uses over-the-air signals or a UHF microwave backbone to connect a series of translator facilities, will be prevented from registering such sites outside the 80 kilometer zone unless they seek a waiver by the April 5 deadline. Unintended interference to a cable system’s ability to receive a television station’s signal could result in the television station being dropped from the cable system. Interference to a single link in a long microwave backbone could interrupt signal delivery to all sites further down the line.

While the 80 kilometer “no waiver” zone may seem large, one multiple system cable operator has already filed a waiver request with the FCC indicating that it has headends receiving over-the-air television signals outside that zone in eleven different locations spread across multiple states, including Alabama, Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota. Thus, if a station is being carried by a far off cable or satellite system, it would be wise for cable and satellite operators as well as TV licensees to double check how and where the TV station’s signal is being received. For TV signals being picked up over-the-air more than 80 kilometers from their protected contour, a waiver request now will be required to ensure continued interference-free signal delivery.

Although receive sites located within the 80 kilometer zone do not face the April 5, 2011 waiver deadline, they will still be affected by the implementation of the white spaces database. Because the data that will be used to populate the database will be taken from the FCC’s existing records, it is important that parties review the data in the FCC’s databases to make sure it is accurate to avoid potential interference from future white space operations.

In January, the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) conditionally designated nine companies as white-space device database administrators: Comsearch, Frequency Finder Inc., Google Inc., KB Enterprises LLC/LS Telcom, Key Bridge Global LLC, Neustar Inc., Spectrum Bridge Inc., Telcordia Technologies, and WSdb LLC. The FCC held a training session for these entities earlier this month. Thus, the rollout of these databases will soon be at hand. OET recently stated that it intends to “exercise strong oversight of the TV bands databases and administrators.” That said, parties should still exercise their own diligence in reviewing the FCC’s databases, registering receive sites, and applying for any needed waivers if they want to avoid interference problems down the road.

Published on:

By

I wrote last week about the FCC’s announcement that broadcasters must certify in their license renewal applications that their advertising contracts have, since March 14, 2011, had a nondiscrimination clause in them. Specifically, broadcasters must certify that their “advertising sales agreements do not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity and that all such agreements held by the licensee contain nondiscrimination clauses.” The good news from last week’s announcement was that the FCC chose to apply the advertising nondiscrimination certification (which was originally announced in 2008), prospectively, rather than announcing that stations would have to certify their contracts included such language since 2008 or 2009.

That was the good news, and what government giveth with one hand, it can taketh away with the other. Today the FCC released an FCC Enforcement Advisory and News Release emphasizing how seriously it intends to treat that certification. The FCC’s Advisory states that broadcasters unable to make that certification will need to “attach an exhibit identifying the persons and matters involved and explaining why the noncompliance is not an impediment to a grant of the station’s license renewal application.”

The Advisory goes on to state that “Licensees must have a good faith basis for an affirmative certification” and notes that “a licensee that uses a third party to arrange advertising sales is responsible for exercising due diligence to ensure that the advertising agreement contains the nondiscrimination clause and does not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.”

Lawyers are perhaps unique in their ability to acknowledge the validity of a legal requirement while still questioning the logic of it. Make no mistake–this new certification is the law and broadcasters need to make sure that they can truthfully make this certification at license renewal time. The goal itself is admirable. Indeed, as Univision’s Washington counsel during the time that it grew from only seven TV stations to 162 TV and radio stations, I saw first hand the challenges of persuading advertisers (and others) that Spanish-language viewers and listeners are an important group of consumers worthy of advertisers’ dollars.

However, as I noted in last week’s post, trying to use the FCC’s authority over broadcasters as a method to modify the conduct of advertisers (who are generally beyond the FCC’s authority) is a futile approach. Advertisers aren’t too worried about a broadcaster’s license renewal. As a result, the only one to be hurt here is the broadcaster, not the discriminatory advertiser.

The FCC can counter that preventing broadcasters from accepting ads of discriminatory advertisers ensures such advertisers will cease their discriminatory ad practices if they want air time. This assertion suffers, however, from two debilitating flaws. First, if the current FCC’s view is accurate that broadband,and not broadcasting, is the way of the future, then there will be plenty of non-broadcast venues for advertisers wishing to engage in discriminatory ad buys. Indeed, the FCC’s certification will not even prevent the same advertiser from making discriminatory ad buys in non-broadcast media while avoiding such discrimination on the broadcast side.

That brings us, however, to the bigger flaw in this approach, and that is the simple fact that clauses in a contract can generally only be enforced by the parties to that contract. As a result, a broadcaster can place the required nondiscrimination clause in its contract, and if the advertiser proceeds to purchase ads in a discriminatory manner (e.g., splitting its ad buying money among all of the broadcaster’s local radio stations except the one with the Spanish-language format), the FCC can’t really do anything about it. The only party in a position to enforce the nondiscrimination clause in the contract is the broadcaster, who will understandably be hesitant to spend precious resources suing an advertiser. There is no financial incentive to spend money on litigation, and there is obviously a huge disincentive for the broadcaster to sue a revenue source that can readily take its advertising dollars elsewhere (and who won’t care what happens to the broadcaster’s license renewal application).

Even today’s FCC Enforcement Advisory seems to overlook this, asserting that “a broadcaster that learns of a violation of a nondiscrimination clause while its license renewal application is pending should update its license renewal application so that it continues to be accurate.” However, whether an advertiser has proceeded to engage in discriminatory ad buying practices in violation of the contractual nondiscrimination clause would not necessarily affect the accuracy of the broadcaster’s certification that its “advertising sales agreements do not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity and that all such agreements held by the licensee contain nondiscrimination clauses.” The broadcaster could certainly volunteer to the FCC that it had discovered an advertiser discriminating, but the FCC has no authority to punish the advertiser, and punishing the broadcaster who uncovered the advertiser’s discriminatory efforts doesn’t make much sense. As a result, the new certification adds to the regulatory thicket surrounding broadcasters, but leaves discriminatory advertisers free to roam.

Published on:

By and

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:

  • Florida FM Translator Fined $13,000 for Unauthorized Operations
  • Latest Public Inspection File Violation Nets Upwardly Adjusted Fine
  • Failure to Monitor Inactive Tower Results in $6,000 Penalty

Failure to Operate as Authorized Costs Florida Broadcaster an Additional $4,000

A recent FCC Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”) for $13,000 against a Florida broadcaster serves as a costly reminder that stations must operate in accordance with the FCC’s Rules, and more notably, as specifically authorized in their station license. According to the NAL, the Florida broadcaster failed to heed a verbal warning from Tampa field agents that its station was operating beyond the technical parameters of its authorization. The NAL stated that the Tampa field agents, pursuant to an investigation and following two complaints, took field strength measurements on five separate occasions and visited the station’s transmitter site on two separate occasions over approximately 11 months between October 2009 and September 2010. Field measurements undertaken in October 2009 and early February 2010 indicated that the station was operating with a power level well in excess of its authorization in violation of Section 74.1235(e) of the FCC’s Rules, which states, “[i]n no event shall a station authorized under this subpart be operated with a transmitter power output (TPO) in excess of the transmitter certificated rating and the TPO shall not be more than 105 percent of the authorized TPO.”

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pity the post office. Even its federal brethren have abandoned it. Today the FCC announced that, with the beginning of the broadcast license renewal cycle fast approaching, it will not be sending its traditional postcard reminders to broadcast licensees. It did say, however, that it would email reminders to broadcasters for which it has email addresses in an effort to minimize the number of enforcement actions it will need to take against those failing to file on time. The base fine for a late-filed renewal is $3,000, but because most stations that miss the filing deadline have their license expire before they realize their mistake, an additional $4,000 fine for unauthorized operation (for a total of $7,000 per station) is nearly automatic.

While those of us following the FCC’s enforcement actions have noticed a fairly dramatic upward trend in the size of FCC fines (noted in an earlier post), the Media Bureau is to be commended for taking steps to assist broadcasters in meeting their filing obligations rather than just fining those that don’t.

To accomplish this, the FCC today released a Public Notice announcing the availability of its new license renewal form, discussing the changes found in it, and providing a link to the state-by-state schedule of license renewal deadlines. The idea is to make the information readily available to broadcasters, though not by way of their mailboxes. Make no mistake, however, as the Public Notice reminds us, that broadcasters are responsible for meeting their own filing deadlines, and cannot defend a failure to timely file by claiming that the FCC didn’t remind them.

More importantly, the Public Notice is not just a procedural announcement. The FCC took the opportunity to address a critical question regarding its new requirement that license renewal applicants certify that their “advertising sales agreements do not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity and that all such agreements held by the licensee contain nondiscrimination clauses.” This new certification was adopted as a way of preventing advertisers and ad agencies from engaging in “no urban/no Spanish” ad placement practices. In creating the certification requirement, the FCC once again used its authority over broadcasters to force a change in the conduct of those for which the FCC lacks jurisdiction (in this case, advertisers).

In an early February post, our own Dick Zaragoza raised a number of issues that broadcast license renewal applicants need to consider before making this new certification. An additional source of concern is that the FCC had not made clear how far back the certification must reach. The FCC adopted the requirement in 2008, but didn’t provide a specific date by which nondiscrimination clauses had to be incorporated into broadcasters’ advertising contracts. Many communications lawyers told their clients that the requirement had gone into effect in mid-2008, while others, including myself, noted that it could not go into effect until the FCC had taken some additional procedural steps to effectuate it, but when those steps would be completed was impossible to predict.

Thankfully, today’s Public Notice answers that three year old question, stating that the certifications must cover a period starting today, March 14, 2011, to the date a station files its license renewal application. Stations that successfully implemented this change anytime between 2008 and now will be able to make the necessary certification, and stations that were frozen by uncertainty need to implement it immediately or face the consequences at renewal time. While the license renewal process can be a stressful one, particularly for those who barely remember filing their last renewal application eight years ago, the Media Bureau today helped broadcasters by eliminating at least some of the uncertainty that can make it so stressful.

Published on:

By

As we reported previously, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in 2009 which requested comment on a number of proposals to modify its allotment criteria. In particular, the NPRM sought to restrict the ability of rural radio stations to move into Urbanized Areas. The FCC has released its Order in the proceeding, adopting some of its proposals to limit rural stations’ ability to move to larger communities, modifying its existing rules, and proposing new rules implementing a Tribal Priority.

Under Section 307(b) of the Communications Act, the FCC is required to ensure a “fair, efficient and equitable” distribution of radio services to the various states and communities in the country. In deciding where a new or modified radio station should be allotted under Section 307(b), the FCC uses a set of four standard “priorities,” as well as a Tribal Priority for Native Nations operating largely on Tribal Lands. The four standard priorities are: (1) First fulltime aural (reception) service; (2) Second fulltime aural service; (3) First local (transmission) service; and (4) Other public interest matters. Priorities (2) and (3) are considered equal. Where the Tribal Priority applies, it is considered between Priorities (1) and (2).

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

On March 3, 2011, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) setting forth proposed rules to implement the video description requirements contained in the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (“CVAA”), which became law in October 2010. The CVAA mandates that the FCC take a number of steps to ensure that new communications technologies are accessible to individuals with vision or hearing impairment, including reinstating the video description rules for television broadcasters that had been thrown out by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2002. The CVAA directs that the reinstated video description requirements apply to programming that is “transmitted for display in digital format” and authorizes the FCC to extend the video description requirements to stations and situations that were not covered by the prior rules. Accordingly, the FCC is using this NPRM to take a fresh look at the rules.

The Fifty Hour Minimum and Pass-Through Obligations

Video description, which is confusingly sometimes referred to as audio description, assists those who are blind or have impaired vision to view video programming by providing, during a pause in a program’s dialogue, a verbal description of the key visual elements being shown.

As was the case under the FCC’s former rules, all network-affiliated television stations (including non-commercial stations) must pass through video descriptions when the network provides them and the station has the technical capability to air them. For stations that have multiple broadcast streams, the FCC proposes to require the pass-through of video descriptions on each stream. The pass-through obligation also applies to multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”) that have the technical capability to pass through video-described programming on the channel containing the video-described programming. As noted below, the FCC is seeking comments on how it should determine whether a particular station or MVPD has the technical capability to pass through descriptions.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

On February 22, 2011, US District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the Southern District of New York issued a 59-page decision enjoining ivi TV, Inc. from streaming the programming of various network-affiliated television stations on the Internet without their permission. The judge’s opinion articulates a basic principle of copyright law — that the creator of the content holds a bundle of rights which, with very few exceptions, it alone controls. Therefore, even in this age of proliferating distribution platforms, the fact that the copyright owner has made its content available via a number of different technologies does not diminish its ability to control whether and how to make it available on a new platform. The case will likely yield more examination of this issue, as ivi TV has sought a stay of the injunction.

Background
ivi TV began Internet streaming of the signals of several network affiliated television stations located in Seattle and New York in September 2010, and thereafter announced plans to add stations from Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco in the future. It offered subscribers located throughout the United States the ability to receive these television signals via an Internet connection for a monthly fee. Subscribers downloaded a player, chose the signals to watch, and the signals were delivered in an encrypted form. In anticipation of the content owners’ lawsuit, ivi TV sought a Declaratory Ruling from a US District Court in Seattle that the company was not infringing the copyrights in the programming, but the court dismissed that case as an anticipatory filing. A consortium of television stations, the producers of programming shown on the stations, and Major League Baseball later commenced a lawsuit for copyright infringement in New York, seeking an injunction to prevent any further retransmissions of their content by ivi TV.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

More than two months after the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing preliminary steps to reallocate and reassign television broadcast spectrum for wireless broadband, the government machinery has finally announced comment deadlines: March 18 for initial comments and April 18 for replies. This is the first of several proceedings the FCC intends to pursue in its goal to repurpose broadcast spectrum.

The notice makes three proposals and asks a number of questions about each. It proposes:

  • To add new fixed and mobile service allocations to the TV bands and give them co-primary status;
  • To permit two or more stations to share a single 6 MHz channel; and
  • To take steps to improve the performance of broadcast signals in the VHF band.

Almost everyone interested in the topic of broadcast spectrum repurposing has a strong view, and opinions differ even among broadcasters. With station transactions at all time lows, some welcome the prospect of another possible exit. Those that don’t want to sell are worried about transition costs, being moved to less desirable channels, losing coverage area, or being coerced to sell by threat of hefty spectrum fees. Many broadcasters don’t know where they stand. For those, here are two things to keep in mind.

Timing. Regardless of what you read about timetables, it is extremely unlikely that auctions of any reclaimed broadcast spectrum will take place within the next three years. Congress has not authorized incentive auctions. Even if it does so this year, it will be later in the year, and the FCC will then have to adopt implementing rules. Only then can the FCC schedule an auction and can stations determine whether they want to sell. If Congress doesn’t permit incentive auctions, the FCC has other options, but those take time to develop too. Right now, there’s no coherent Plan B.
The FCC is breaking new ground here, and even without political pressures these are hard questions. They’ll take a lot of time and thought to resolve. Almost a year after the release of the National Broadband Plan, we still haven’t seen the model the FCC is using to figure out how broadcast spectrum can be cleared and stations repacked.

Apparently, the FCC is having a hard time finding daylight even without second-guessing by outsiders. Assuming everything goes smoothly for the FCC’s agenda, it’s conceivable auctions could take place in late 2014, with settlements and transition in 2015.
Eligibility and appeal. Most stations either won’t be eligible to participate in incentive auctions or the prospect won’t be very enticing. The FCC will almost certainly draw some bright lines. It might offer incentives only in the most densely populated areas, or it may preclude certain classes of stations from participating altogether. It might offer bigger incentives to higher band UHF stations, or it might offer better incentives to those stations, and it may preclude VHF or lower UHF stations from participating, or it may offer weaker incentives to them. Much depends on what the yet-unreleased “optimization” models show and what Congress does or does not authorize.
Among eligible stations, only a few are likely to find incentive payments to be attractive. At least today, even the most aggressive projections show spectrum shortages only in a handful of the most densely populated areas. It is not clear that the FCC will seek to clear broadcast spectrum in every market, and even if it does, auction proceeds (and thus, incentive payments) will be progressively lower as market size declines. In the 2007 auction of vacated TV spectrum, some markets commanded more than $3 per “MHz/pop” (one MHz covering one person), while others sold for about a tenth of that.
Except in the very largest markets, incentive payments probably won’t exceed the enterprise value of a profitable television station. Auction proceeds have to be split at least three ways. The U.S. Treasury will take its pound of flesh (Congress needs incentives too!) and transition costs will have to be paid. As an example, about two million people live in the Kansas City Metropolitan Statistical Area. Assuming a Kansas City station is credited with covering them all, auction of its 6 MHz channel at $1/MHz/pop would yield $12 million. A lot of this would be spent on whatever transition mechanism is used and the Treasury will keep a substantial portion of the remainder. Perhaps $1 million to $3 million would be available as an “incentive” payment to the station.
Of course, the FCC has time and means to create negative incentives. Stations that don’t sell may be moved to much less attractive channels, or forced to reduce power or coverage, or (if Congress approves) assessed substantial spectrum fees.
The FCC’s rulemaking notice doesn’t ask questions about these sorts of issues, but broadcasters should keep them in mind as they formulate their comments in response to the notice.