RSS FCC Headlines
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:

  • Antenna Structure Owner’s Failure to Act Results in $25,000 Fine
  • FCC Fines Microwave Licensee $15,000 for Late-Filed Renewal
  • AM Broadcaster Receives Reduced Fine for EAS Violation


FCC Fines Texas Antenna Structure Owner for Multiple Ongoing Antenna Structure Violations

In January 2010, a Houston Field Office agent responding to a complaint inspected a 253 foot antenna structure located in Yorktown, Texas. According to the Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”) issued by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), the antenna structure was unlit and unidentifiable at the time of inspection, in violation of Section 17.51 and Section 17.4 of the FCC’s Rules. The field agent later determined that the antenna structure owner had failed to notify (1) the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) of the lack of tower lighting, thereby violating Section 17.48 of the FCC’s Rules, and (2) the FCC of a change in ownership of the antenna structure, which violated Section 17.57 of the FCC’s Rules.

Following the initial inspection, in an effort to maintain public safety and avoid hazards to aircraft, the field agent requested that the FAA issue a Notice to Airman (“NOTAM”) about the tower’s lack of lighting. The field agent also contacted the antenna structure owner to discuss the violations discovered during the inspection. In a subsequent inspection, some eight months later, the field agent determined that none of the violations had been cured by the antenna structure owner. Again, the field agent contacted the FAA with a request to reissue another NOTAM regarding the unlit antenna structure.

Section 17.51 establishes that obstruction lighting must be functioning between sunset and sunrise. Section 17.4 requires antenna structure owners to display the ASR number in a “conspicuous place so that it is readily visible near the base of the antenna structure.” Section 17.48 requires antenna structure owners to notify the FAA in the event that a structure’s lights are malfunctioning or inoperable for more than 30 minutes. Section 17.57 establishes, among other things, that an antenna owner must immediately notify the FCC of any change in the ownership of the structure.

The base fines for the violations discussed above are $10,000 (lighting and FAA notification), $2,000 (displaying ASR) and $3,000 (failure to notify FCC of ownership change). Based on the antenna owner’s lack of responsiveness, the FCC upwardly adjusted the fines to $15,000, $4,000 and $6,000, for a total forfeiture of $25,000.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

No, the FCC has not instituted an early-filing program so licensees can get that pesky license renewal out of the way. Instead, in 2010 it cleaned up television license renewal applications that had been hanging around since the last renewal cycle, issuing nearly $350,000.00 in children’s television fines to some 20 licensees. So, like the year-end EEO self-assessment we recently reminded stations to undertake here, today we tee up a kidvid requirement that stations often overlook, but which the FCC does not.

The FCC’s rules require that television stations “publicize in an appropriate manner the existence and location of” their quarterly Children’s Television Programming Reports on FCC Form 398. While the FCC’s rules do not actually say that stations must publicize the existence of the reports on-air, the FCC’s staff has advised since the rule was adopted that some on-air announcements must be made to fulfill this “publicizing” obligation. The FCC’s enforcement actions bear out this admonition.

When confronted by the FCC, some broadcasters have argued that they fulfilled the “publicizing” obligation by placing the reports themselves on their website. Others have argued that they aired announcements publicizing the existence of their public inspection file (which contained the reports). None of these broadcasters liked the outcome of their encounters with the FCC. The FCC rejected the suggestion that posting the reports is an adequate substitute for publicizing their existence in the first instance or that advertising the location of the public inspection file is adequate to inform viewers that the Children’s Television Programming Reports will be found there. It is only where the broadcaster changed its practice and began airing announcements publicizing both the existence and location of the public file and noting that the Children’s Television Programming Reports are located in it that the FCC was satisfied.

So why is now a particularly good time to think about this? Many television broadcasters schedule a year-long contract in their traffic system as a mechanism for ensuring that announcements about the existence and location of the Children’s Television Programming Reports are regularly aired. However, as reflected in the FCC’s enforcement actions, many stations forget to “renew” those contracts at the beginning of a new year, or fail to reinstate the contracts after installing new traffic equipment. Also, stations sometimes overlook educating new employees about the requirement, which increases the likelihood that reinstatement of the spot schedule for the next year will be missed.

The problem is then compounded when stations continue to certify in their quarterly Children’s Television Programming Reports that they are airing the announcements when they are not. The result is that at license renewal time, stations discover too late that they failed to air the announcements for a considerable period of time, and falsely certified to the FCC that they had complied with the requirement.

Fines of $10,000.00 and even $20,000.00 have been levied for this violation. To avoid a similar fate, stations should take the time now to verify that they have renewed the spot schedule in their traffic systems, and are running the required announcements, with the required content, on a regular schedule. Renew that annual contract. You’ll be glad you did at license renewal time.

Published on:

By

Given the many distractions during the holiday season, I thought it would be a good idea to remind readers that January 10 represents a busy quarterly deadline for all radio and television stations. Below is a brief summary of the deadlines, as well as links to our Client Alerts describing the requirements in more detail.

Children’s Television Programming Documentation

All commercial full-power television stations and Class A LPTV stations must prepare and file with the FCC an FCC Form 398 Children’s Programming Report for the fourth quarter of 2010, reflecting children’s programming aired during the months of October, November, and December, 2010. The Form 398 must be filed with the FCC and placed in stations’ public inspection files by January 10, 2011.

In addition to requiring stations to air programming responsive to the educational and informational needs of children, the FCC’s rules limit the amount of commercial material that can be aired during programming aimed at children. Proof of compliance with the children’s television commercial limitations for the fourth quarter of 2010 must be placed in stations’ public inspection files by January 10, 2011.

For a detailed discussion of the children’s programming documentation and filing requirements, please see our Client Alert here.

Quarterly Issues Programs Lists

The FCC requires each broadcast station to air a reasonable amount of programming responsive to significant community needs, issues, and problems as determined by the station. All radio and television broadcast stations, whether commercial or noncommercial, must prepare and place in their public inspection files by January 10, 2011, a list of important issues facing their communities, and the programs which aired during the months of October, November, and December, 2010, dealing with those issues. For a detailed discussion of these requirements, please see our Client Alert here.

DTV Quarterly Activity Station Reports

Those television stations that have not yet completed construction or commenced operation of their final post-transition DTV facilities must continue the required general DTV Consumer Education Initiatives until they commence operation on their post-transition DTV facilities. Such stations will be required to file FCC Form 388 by January 10, 2011, providing the Commission with the details of the DTV Consumer initiatives that they performed between October 1 and December 31, 2010. For a detailed discussion of this filing requirement, please see our Client Alert here.

By
Posted in: Children & Media
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

A trend we see in FCC enforcement actions is the FCC attributing multiple rule violations to a single act or omission, and then peppering stations with multiple fines. This trend is confirmed in two EEO enforcement actions released in the waning hours of 2010. These cases demonstrate, among other things, why it is a good time for broadcasters to undertake the EEO self-assessment activities required by the FCC’s Rules.

The first of these recent cases resulted from a 2008 random audit of a six-station radio group in Joplin, Missouri. The second case arose from the 2005 license renewal applications of a four-station radio group located in and around Medford and Grant’s Pass, Oregon. Since the license renewal applications remain pending due to an unrelated complaint, the FCC was able to examine these stations’ EEO data from 2003 until 2009.

In each case, the stations relied solely on walk-ins, word-of-mouth, and employee and business referrals as the sources of interviewees for about 25% of their job openings. Based on this, the FCC found that the stations had failed to conduct any recruitment at all for these positions, as they had only used non-public recruitment sources which do not further the FCC’s goal of assuring that stations achieve broad outreach in recruiting. The Joplin stations had also aired generic on-air announcements about broadcast employment and working for the licensee company, but the FCC did not give them any credit for these announcements because they were not specific to a particular job opening. The FCC also found that the Oregon stations did not recruit broadly enough for nearly all of their remaining hires because they relied exclusively on either Internet-based referral sources or on advertisements on their own stations.

Each group of stations also had EEO paperwork and reporting problems. The Joplin stations listed the job title for seven hires as “Other” in an annual EEO public file report. The FCC said that since the EEO public file report was missing the required job title information, the stations’ public inspection files (where the reports are placed) were missing it as well.

Similarly, the FCC found the Oregon stations failed to retain records on the number and referral sources of interviewees for their job openings. As a result of this recordkeeping violation, the FCC said that the stations’ EEO public file report, and by extension, their public inspection files, were incomplete.

To top it all off, the FCC found that “[t]hese failures reveal a continuing lack of self-assessment” of the stations’ recruitment programs, creating yet another rule violation. In all, the Joplin stations were fined $8,000.00, of which $5,000.00 was for the failure to recruit for 25% of their openings, and three fines of $1,000 each were for the stations’ incomplete annual EEO public file report, their incomplete public files, and their failure to self-assess their EEO program. The Oregon stations were fined a total of $20,000, of which $16,000.00 was attributable to their failure to recruit for 25% of their vacancies and their failure to recruit broadly enough for nearly all other vacancies, and four fines of $1,000.00 each were for the stations’ failure to retain required records, failure to have a complete annual EEO public file report, failure to have complete public inspection files, and failure to self-assess their EEO program. All of the stations must, for the next three years, submit to the FCC for scrutiny copies of their annual EEO reports and copies of all job vacancies announcements, advertisements and other evidence of recruitment outreach for the year.

While the stations in these two cases were fined for not undertaking the required self-assessment of the recruitment portion of their EEO programs, broadcasters should remember that the FCC’s Rules also require licensees to regularly examine all of their employment policies to assure that they are not discriminatory. This means examining the processes by which stations recruit, hire, promote, fire, and compensate employees to be sure that they do not have a discriminatory impact.

So while you have the employment files out, and other employment issues like raises and promotions are fresh in your mind, take some extra time to review how you are making those decisions and their impact on your staff. While you’re at it, check the public file and station website to be sure your annual EEO public file reports are up to snuff as well.

Published on:

By

Earlier this month we posted our 2011 Broadcasters Calendar on CommLawCenter as well as on our Pillsbury web page. We have been annually publishing the Broadcasters Calendar, which contains much information regarding broadcast station deadlines and legal requirements, for as long as I can recall. It has always been one of our most popular publications, and I usually get calls beginning in early November asking when next year’s calendar will be available. The “easy to read” pdf version of the Calendar can be found here, and a text-searchable version is available here.

Even a brief review of the 2011 Broadcasters Calendar reminds us that 2011 will be a busy year for not just broadcasters, but for cable and satellite operators as well. October 1, 2011 is the deadline by which broadcasters qualifying for must-carry need to notify cable and satellite operators of their election between must-carry status and retransmission consent. Recent retransmission disputes once again remind us that retransmission negotiations and their associated revenue are critical to the future of broadcast television. However, the sheer volume of negotiations and carriage disputes likely to occur following the October 1 election deadline will almost certainly make this holiday season look tranquil by comparison.

Adding to the action will be continued efforts by the cable and satellite industries to draw Congress and the FCC into the fray, introducing legislative and regulatory uncertainties into an already complex negotiation process. Their chances for success will depend greatly upon how much disruption in carriage of broadcast programming occurs in 2011, and the public’s perception of who is at fault for that disruption. Regardless of the outcome of this particular Washington confrontation, look for 2011 to be the year where economics force cable and satellite providers to more tightly link the number of viewers a program service attracts with the amount they agree to pay for that service. Overpaying for niche cable networks that don’t pull in large numbers of viewers is so “last decade”.

2011 also marks the beginning of the FCC’s next eight-year license renewal cycle, with radio stations in DC, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia starting pre-filing announcements in April for their upcoming license renewal applications. The filing cycle will continue state by state until it concludes with television stations in Delaware and Pennsylvania running their last post-filing announcements on June 16, 2015.

However, many stations haven’t had their last license renewal application granted because of indecency complaints still pending against them. The FCC has pretty much ceased processing indecency complaints while it awaits guidance from the courts as to whether it can legally enforce the prohibition on broadcast indecency, and if so, how it will be allowed to do that. I have been told that there are literally hundreds of thousands of indecency complaints now pending at the FCC, so unless the courts do the FCC the favor of finding the prohibition on indecency completely unconstitutional, it will take the FCC years to sift through these complaints in an effort to apply any refined indecency standard announced by the Supreme Court.

It is therefore reasonable to predict that indecency complaints will continue to play a large role in the processing of upcoming license renewal applications. 2011 will hopefully be the year when the courts tell us exactly how large (or small) that role will be. If the prohibition on indecency survives this latest round of judicial scrutiny, broadcasters and the FCC can expect a lot of complaint investigations and litigation as both struggle with where the line on content is being drawn.

Of course there are numerous other events that will contribute to 2011 being one of the busiest years in memory for broadcasters. A rebounding economy is slowly lifting most boats in the broadcast industry, with the obvious exception being those that burned their critical assets for fuel during the lean times, and don’t have much boat left.

With a growing amount of money to fight over, the fights will begin in earnest (see “Retrans” above). Negotiations between the NAB and the recording industry over performance royalties will continue, and “performance tax” legislation will again rise in Congress with the same certainty that the slasher in a horror film returns for unending sequels.

Broadcasters and the FCC will also be implementing the latest generation of the Emergency Alert System in 2011, and the FCC will continue its efforts to repurpose broadcast spectrum for mobile broadband use, leading to new rules permitting multiple broadcasters to share a single channel, and potentially to legislation allowing participating broadcasters to share in the proceeds of broadband spectrum auctions. As with most of the items discussed above, there is both opportunity and peril for broadcasters here, and those that are inattentive risk missing the former and being battered by the latter.

Yes, 2011 will be a very busy year.

Published on:

By

While we await release of the text of today’s Net Neutrality order from the FCC, it strikes me as useful to take a step back and apply a broader perspective to what can be learned from the debate that led to it. While lawyers get a rush when they think they have come up with the perfect legal argument to support their client’s cause (and we’re fun at parties too!), those of us working in Washington have to concede that legal arguments are often secondary to the politics involved. Certainly, the FCC’s order will not be the last word in the Net Neutrality debate, with a number of prominent members of Congress already promising a legislative rebuke, and the near certainty of the courts being called upon to assess the FCC’s authority to adopt such rules.

In spite of the millions spent on lawyers and lobbyists on both sides of this issue, the result was in many ways preordained by the real champion in this debate, linguistics. Much of the battle was won when proponents summarized their position as being in favor of “Net Neutrality”, a term that is sufficiently innocuous yet catchy enough to crystallize the debate as being between those who want a neutral/fair apportionment of the Internet’s capabilities, and those who, well, don’t. Opponents were put instantly on the defensive, trying to explain why a neutral Internet wouldn’t be a good thing.

While other terms were also bandied about in the early days of the debate (like “broadband discrimination” or “traffic prioritization”), none had the simple positive ring (and alliteration) of Net Neutrality. “Internet Indifference” might have been a good candidate as well, but no one seems to have thought of it at the time.

Added to this linguistic head start is the fact that the concept itself is simply easier to explain in positive terms than in negative ones. Stories on the Washington Post’s website today described Net Neutrality as a regulation that “ensures unimpeded access to any legal Web content for home Internet users” and which marks “the government’s strongest move yet to ensure that Facebook updates, Google searches and Skype calls reach consumers’ homes unimpeded.” Based on that description, readers would be hard pressed to conclude that Net Neutrality is a bad thing, and much of the mainstream press used terms similar to the Post’s in describing today’s action by the FCC.

Taking the contrary position, there are two big problems with arguing that Net Neutrality is “an intrusive government interference into the management of broadband networks that will impede the evolution of new models of business on the Internet while requiring Internet innovators to first consider and navigate government regulations before implementing new Internet services.” First, it doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue like the Post’s description of Net Neutrality. Second, it requires several additional explanations of exactly how Net Neutrality regulations would have that effect. It isn’t necessarily obvious from the statement alone.

The point of this is not to debate the merits of Net Neutrality itself, but to note that taking the time to carefully craft and package a proposal before presenting it (to the FCC or any other part of the government, including Congress) frames the debate in your favor. It is not an irrefutable advantage, but claiming the linguistic high ground forces opponents to expend far more of their resources fighting their way uphill, while the proponent conserves its legal and political resources waiting at the top. Many opponents will falter before they reach the top, and those that do make it will be exhausted from the climb.

In the case of Net Neutrality, vast resources were arrayed on both sides of the debate, but the political and public popularity engendered by the phrase “Net Neutrality” and the easily understood arguments on its behalf proved to be insurmountable today. It is safe to say, however, that opponents of Net Neutrality regulations are already regrouping for their next charge in Congress and in the courts, and that today’s skirmish was merely the first of many to come.

Published on:

By

Members of the Communications Industry that don’t keep up with legal and political developments in Washington aren’t in the industry for long. That truism has been particularly apt in the past few months, starting with the President’s October signing of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 which, among other things, cleared the way for reinstatement of the FCC’s former Video Description rules for television broadcasters, extended closed captioning of video programming to the Internet, and required the FCC to examine methods of increasing the accessibility of emergency information.

Normally, the weeks before a congressional election and the lame duck session afterwards are not a fertile environment for communications legislation, which has a tendency to be controversial because of the stakes involved (can you say “net neutrality”?). However, the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, which was spurred to passage by a congressional desire to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, was merely the beginning.

The lame duck session has now generated several more pieces of successful legislation. Last week the President signed the first of these, the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act, which requires television stations to transmit at a consistent volume level (rather than make viewers lunge for their mute button at every commercial break). Congress followed the CALM Act with passage of the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, which is now awaiting the President’s signature. This legislation prohibits manipulation of caller ID information with intent to defraud or harm others.

Apparently building steam, Congress proceeded to adopt the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 this past weekend, which reduces the extent of interference protection that full power radio stations will receive from Low Power FM stations, thus clearing the way for many more LPFM stations to be wedged into the FM radio band. This legislation is also now waiting for the President’s signature.

So, is there something in the DC drinking water that has a lame duck Congress suddenly tackling communications issues as though “gridlock” was only a term from morning traffic reports? Maybe. But the truth is more complicated than that. With regard to the CALM Act, controversy about loud television commercials dates back decades. The FCC long ago considered adopting rules to prohibit such “variable volume” broadcasting, but concluded in 1984 that “due to the subjective nature of many of the factors that contribute to loudness, it would be virtually impossible to craft new regulations that would be effective.” However, the transition to digital television has made it far more feasible to craft and enforce objective technical standards for loudness, lessening somewhat broadcasters’ concerns that regulation would lead to free-roaming loudness police second-guessing a station’s engineering practices.

Similarly, the LPFM interference issue has been simmering for a decade, with a succession of bills trying and failing to eliminate the requirement that LPFM stations protect full power stations’ third-adjacent channels from interference. However, what finally put the Local Community Radio Act over the top was a legislative compromise that, among other things, assured full power broadcasters that LPFM will be categorized as a secondary service to full power stations. This means that full power broadcast stations can continue to modify their facilities to improve their audience reach without finding themselves blocked by the interference such a modification might cause local LPFM stations. In light of this and other modifications to the bill, broadcasters were able to offer their support for its adoption, finally breaking the longstanding impasse.

So what’s next? Well, Congress remains keenly interested in communications issues, as evidenced by the lively discussion (and legislative threats) surrounding the FCC’s upcoming net neutrality order. Broadcasters, however, are hoping that this lame duck session concludes quickly, leaving the Performance Rights Act and its goal of requiring broadcasters to pay royalties to the recording industry the subject of continued inter-industry negotiations, rather than the latest statutory mandate emerging from the twilight hours of the 111th Congress.

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:

  • Failure to Heed Warning by FCC Field Agent Costs Broadcaster $10,000
  • FCC Fines AM Broadcaster $6,000 for Excessive Nighttime Power Levels
  • AM Broadcaster’s Limited Disclosure of Contest Rules Nets $4,000 Fine

FCC Fines Pennsylvania Broadcaster $10,000 for Repeated Failure to Employ Adequate Personnel

In keeping with lasts month’s “meaningful management and staff presence” Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), the FCC again upwardly adjusted a fine, totaling $10,000, against a Pennsylvania broadcaster for repeated failure to maintain at least one management level and one staff level employee at the main studio during regular business hours as required by Section 73.1125 of the FCC’s Rules. At the time of the initial inspection by a local Enforcement Bureau Field Agent, the “main studio”, which was located within a church, was unattended and locked.

The FCC requires that licensees maintain a “meaningful management and staff presence” at a station’s main studio. Based on a 1991 FCC decision, the FCC defines “meaningful” as at least one management level employee and one staff level employee generally being present “during normal business hours.”

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

As we discussed in a previous post and separate Client Advisory, the FCC released a Public Notice to implement a provision of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) that requires the FCC to submit a report on in-state broadcast programming to Congress by August 11, 2011. The Public Notice was published in the Federal Register yesterday, which means that comments are due by January 24, 2011, with reply comments due by February 22, 2011.

As we discussed previously, the purpose of the FCC’s Report to Congress is to address a concern of some members of Congress that subscribers located in markets that straddle a state line may be unable to receive broadcast news and information from their own state because the local stations made available by cable and satellite providers are all located in the “other” state. According to the FCC, the report will: (1) analyze the number of households in a state that receive the signals of local broadcast stations assigned to a community of license located in a different state; (2) evaluate the extent to which consumers in each local market have access to in-state broadcast programming over-the-air or from a multichannel video programming distributor; and (3) consider whether there are alternatives to DMAs for defining “local” markets that would provide consumers with more in-state broadcast programming.

This proceeding is relevant to retrans because there have been some efforts on Capitol Hill to introduce legislation allowing cable and satellite operators to import the signals of television stations from another market. While the official description of this situation describes these subscribers as being deprived of news and information regarding their own state, the more pragmatic concern of such viewers it is argued is that they aren’t able to watch sports teams from their state as often as they would like. However, creating a legislative opportunity to import distant stations carrying such in-state sports (and other) programming would often mean importing a station that duplicates the network and syndicated programming of a local station already carried by cable systems and satellite providers in the market. Importing stations in this manner raises complex issues with respect to potentially siphoning off the local station’s viewers (and advertisers), undercutting the local station’s program exclusivity, and impacting the local station’s leverage when it commences retransmission consent negotiations.

For those who plan on filing comments or replies, keep in mind that the FCC has specifically asked for data to help it analyze the issues relating to the availability of in-state broadcast stations for consumers, including the proper “methodologies, metrics, data sources, and level of granularity” that should be used in its report to Congress. The FCC is also asking for specific information to identify counties and populations within given states that have limited access to in-state broadcast programming.

As a result of efforts currently underway on the Hill with respect to potentially allowing the importation of in-state but out-of-market signals, those interested in retransmission consent should continue to monitor this matter closely.

By
Posted in: Congress & Legislation
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By and

As we discussed in a post back in March, the FCC’s staff had just released its National Broadband Plan, which announced a controversial proposal to reclaim 120 MHz of spectrum from television broadcasters. Yesterday evening, the FCC moved this process forward by issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to open TV spectrum to use by fixed and mobile wireless facilities, including mobile broadband. We are in the process of preparing a detailed Client Advisory analyzing the FCC’s Notice for publication later today. However, for those that can’t wait, there are a number of big issues raised by the Notice.

First, the FCC proposes to give wireless broadband providers new primary allocations in the broadcast television spectrum. If adopted, this new rule would give fixed and mobile wireless users co-primary status throughout the entirety of the TV spectrum (as opposed to just in the upper-UHF band). Having primary status is important: it means non-primary services have to accept any interference from you, and you don’t have to worry about interference you cause to non-primary services (like low power television stations). If the FCC issues fixed and mobile wireless licenses in the TV band, and gives them co-primary status, then those wireless broadband providers would have the exact same interference protections as full-power TV stations enjoy today. As a result, full-power TV stations would be prevented from modifying their facilities if the modification would cause interference to a newly-licensed wireless operator. Regardless of which licensee was there “first”, co-primary status means that neither service can propose modified facilities if interference would be caused to the existing facilities of the other service.

Second, the FCC proposes to establish a legal framework allowing two or more broadcast stations, potentially including Class A and low power television stations, to voluntarily share a single six-megahertz channel. The Notice proposes to allow parties flexibility to decide for themselves how best to share the six-megahertz channel, and envisions more than two stations potentially sharing the same channel. According to the Notice, two sharing stations could each broadcast one primary HD stream, while more than two stations sharing a six-megahertz channel would each broadcast in Standard Definition (although note that the engineering community has been pretty vocal regarding losses in picture quality caused when two HD signals jockey for room in a single 6MHz channel). The FCC also proposes, regardless of the number of stations sharing a channel, that each of the full-power stations retain must-carry rights on cable and satellite systems for their primary program stream.

Finally, the Notice asks for comment on ways to improve VHF TV reception to increase the attractiveness of the VHF band to digital TV stations. The FCC recognizes that UHF spectrum is much more desirable for flexible digital TV service (as well as for mobile broadband) than VHF spectrum. In an effort to encourage increased use of VHF channels by digital broadcasters, the FCC asks for comment on proposals to increase the performance standards of indoor VHF antennas. The Notice also proposes to make technical changes to the FCC’s VHF service rules, including allowing VHF stations to operate at higher power than the rules currently permit. The FCC is also asking for any other ideas that might improve reception of digital VHF TV signals.

To say that these proceedings represent a big deal for broadcasters and wireless operators understates the meaning of both “big” and “deal”. These proceedings will lay out the framework for how all affected services will develop and interact with each other for the foreseeable future. They also represent the FCC’s continuing shift from dedicating spectrum to specific uses to allowing multiple services to share the same spectrum. While, if done correctly, shared spectrum use can increase spectrum efficiency, the etiquette of that sharing arrangement is a critical component of how the FCC, and the residents of that spectrum, proceed from here.

There is a maxim that “good fences make good neighbors.” In moving toward shared use, the FCC is proposing to tear down the fences separating spectrum users, and each of those users is about to learn more about their neighbors than they ever wanted to know. What rules the FCC adopts to protect each party’s flower bed from being trampled by its neighbors is going to be critically important. Keep a close eye on these proceedings, and on your flower bed.

By and
Posted in: Spectrum
Published on:
Updated: