RSS FCC Headlines
Published on:

By

Like many other FCC license holders, broadcast stations constantly navigate numerous laws and regulations while filing a multitude of reports and applications by required deadlines. Many of these are required quarterly, but some are annual, biennial, quadrennial, or octennial (once every eight years, and the only time I’ll get to use that word this year). While stations are usually very good about completing their quarterly reports, the less frequent reports require a special level of attention or they can be forgotten in the rush of business.

In the past few months, I have noticed a surge in calls from stations wanting to talk to a lawyer because they have belatedly discovered that they failed to create multiple reports over the past few years. I’ve received these types of calls regularly for more than two decades, but the accelerated pace of these calls definitely caught my attention. When a station calls the lawyer in a panic after making this discovery, the lawyer’s first job is to talk them down off the ledge. In the case of small station groups, you are often talking directly to the owner, who is rightly concerned about the direct financial impact of fines and license renewal challenges. With larger groups, it is often a GM worried about his or her future employment if the problem spins out of control. Fortunately, if addressed promptly, the damage can be greatly limited or avoided.

What is interesting, however, is that the common thread in nearly every one of these calls was the downsizing of the station employee “who did all that” before the problem commenced. While the recent “mega-recession” resulted in downsizing in nearly every industry, the precipitous drop in advertising revenues caused tremendous downsizing in the media industry. As downsizing usually requires that one person do the work formerly handled by multiple people, it is not surprising that a report that is required to be filed once a year, or only during odd-numbered years, gets lost in the mix. Of course, the loss of institutional memory is always a problem when an employee departs. However, the problem is intensified in a downsizing, where the departing employee is not too happy with the soon-to-be-former employer, and is probably not feeling very enthusiastic about training their successor.

As a result, while it is always wise to vigilantly monitor regulatory due dates and keep them on a multi-year calendar, it is equally important to ensure after a downsizing that there remains one employee who is clearly charged with ensuring that the required reports/filings are timely completed. You also need to ensure that employee has not just the responsibility of getting the job done, but the training and resources to make it happen. A top-notch conscientious employee who has no idea what an EEO Midterm Report is, and when that particular station’s report is due, is of little use.

Focusing a little bit of attention on that issue now will save you loads of distraction later when you try to undo the damage. Keep in mind that where a missed report may result in a fine, a missed license renewal application (the “once in eight years” filing for broadcasters) has caused the FCC to delete the station from its database and charge the licensee with illegal operation for the time it operated the station after its license expired. It’s best not to find that out firsthand.

Published on:

By and

This week saw generally positive news for television broadcasters on the broadband front. First, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC does not currently have authority to regulate the network management policies of Internet providers. Aside from the fact that the Court’s ruling challenged the FCC’s ability to require Internet providers to treat all network traffic equally, i.e., to apply “net neutrality,” the decision also calls into question key aspects of the FCC’s ambitious National Broadband Plan, many of which assumed the FCC had broad authority to regulate the Internet. Because the Court struck at the very heart of the National Broadband Plan, the Court’s decision may undermine other aspects of the plan, including its controversial proposal to reclaim 120 MHz of spectrum from television broadcasters that we discussed in a previous post.

Another shifting wind came in the form of Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, who publicly stated he does not believe there is going to be as great a spectrum shortage as the FCC predicts, and that “confiscating [TV] spectrum and repurposing it for other things, I’m not sure I buy into the idea that that’s a good thing to do,” and adding “I think the market’s going to settle this. So in the long term, if we can’t show that we have applications and services to utilize that spectrum better than the broadcasters, then the broadcasters will keep the spectrum.”

It is unclear whether the Commission will appeal the Court’s decision, and broadcasters still have a long way to go before they can breathe easier about their spectrum being repurposed for auction to wireless companies. Still, after being forced headfirst into a gale force national debate over the “best use” of their spectrum, any calming of those winds is certainly welcome.

While all this is good news for broadcasters, the FCC certainly isn’t giving up and going home. Just today, the FCC released its “Broadband Action Agenda” setting the timing for more than 60 rulemakings and other notice-and-comment proceedings, including a rulemaking involving broadcast spectrum reclamation scheduled for the Third Quarter of 2010. While the FCC’s authority over the Internet may be up in the air, it continues to exercise vast authority over broadcasters. One dark scenario (for everyone) is that the FCC rushes forward and reclaims broadcast spectrum, only to have its National Broadband Plan collapse before being implemented. In that situation, the damage to the public’s broadcast service would be done, the spectrum would still be auctioned, but likely with reduced demand (and excessive supply) driving down auction revenues for the government, and the public ending up no closer to the broadband nirvana envisioned by the FCC’s proposal.

Stay tuned, as this is a story that will be unfolding for quite a while.

By and
Posted in: Spectrum
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

Death, taxes, and ownership reports: all three are unavoidable, but broadcasters had a brief respite from the last one. That respite has now come to an end.

One of the joys of being a broadcast licensee is filing biennial ownership reports detailing the extended ownership structure of each station. These reports used to be called Annual Ownership Reports and were filed, appropriately enough, annually. In an effort to reduce the amount of paperwork flowing between licensees and the FCC, the requirement changed in 1999 from an annual to a biennial one. That created endless confusion, as any particular station’s filing deadline was generally dictated by where it was located. Radio stations in one state would file by April 1 of odd-numbered years, while radio stations in a different state would be required to file by June 1 of even-numbered years. In fact, even TV and radio stations in the same state were required to file in different years.

Because of exceptions to the general rule on filing deadlines (too boring to discuss here), even the FCC had difficulty determining whether a station had been properly filing its ownership reports on time. As a result, the FCC adopted new filing rules in May 2009 establishing November 1 of odd-numbered years as the national ownership report filing date for all commercial broadcast stations. It also introduced a new form requiring more detailed information than in the past, required formerly exempt entities to file reports, and required that the information be entered electronically and repeatedly into the FCC’s filing system for each attributable owner in the ownership chain.

Previously, licensees with complex ownership structures would create a single exhibit describing the complete ownership structure and other media ownership interests, which was then attached to the ownership report for every entity in the chain of ownership. Because the new electronic ownership report form would not allow such attachments, stations (well, let’s be honest; station’s lawyers) were required to reenter the data for each and every ownership report. The reports for even midsize station groups could take months to complete. Initially, the FCC postponed the filing deadline (twice!) to give licensees time to fill out the voluminous reports, but as the FCC’s electronic filing system started to whimper from the volume of data being entered, the FCC postponed the deadline until the form could be reworked to solve the worst of the problems. For those interested, you can read our advisories and alerts from the time here, here, here, here, here, and here (you begin to appreciate the scope of the problem!).

A few hours ago, the FCC announced that a revamped ownership report form is now available which resolves the repetitive data entry issue by incorporating a spreadsheet that, once filled out, can be copied into multiple ownership reports. With the availability of the new form, the FCC also announced that all commercial broadcast stations, including Class A and LPTV stations, must file their reports on the new form by July 8, 2010. For those interested in the details of the new Form 323 and spreadsheet, you can read our Client Alert on the new form, and ponder whether a similar eight month postponement of death or taxes might also be possible.

Published on:

By

The fact that you are reading this tells us that you have found your way to CommLawCenter.com, our effort to simplify the gathering of information and resources relating to the communications industry, particularly regarding its legal aspects. CommLawCenter is an effort to step outside the normal confines of law firm websites and memoranda to address breaking news more directly and quickly by bringing everything under one roof. In structuring the site, we have tried to make it as flexible as possible so that it can improve where possible and adapt where needed. As it grows, we hope that you become a part of it, contributing your thoughts and advice on its continuous refinement.

But first, a bit of background: the core of Pillsbury’s communications law practice is a group of attorneys who have practiced together for many years. Most of us began our practices at a communications law boutique named Fisher Wayland Cooper & Leader. Fisher Wayland, as it was popularly known, was founded in 1934 as one of the nation’s first communications law firms by Ben S. Fisher of the Federal Radio Commission – the predecessor agency of the FCC.

The creation of the Federal Communications Commission that same year marked a new approach by the federal government to regulating the rapidly expanding segments of the communications industry. Since that time, communications technologies have improved and multiplied at an amazing pace, with Fisher Wayland, and now Pillsbury, lawyers involved at every turn: the launch of FM radio, broadcast television, cable television, satellite distribution, cellular telephone service, space-based consumer entertainment technologies, and an explosion of Internet-based communications services in recent years. In recognition of this, USA Today once described Fisher Wayland as “among the most venerable” of communications law firms.

Times change, however, and nowhere is that more true than in the communications industry. As the industry moved toward integration and consolidation, communications law boutiques needed to provide an ever-broader array of services to these expanding clients, leading many of them to merge with large and diverse firms capable of tackling any legal issue imaginable.

Why are we telling you this? Well, it was ten years ago today that Fisher Wayland merged into Shaw Pittman Potts and Trowbridge, and five years ago today that Shaw Pittman merged into Pillsbury. The result is a truly national (actually, international) firm whose lawyers remember well that it is the personal relationships (and cool technology) that make communications such a personally rewarding field in which to practice. It is therefore fitting that we are launching CommLawCenter on this anniversary. From snail mail, to fax, to email, to web distribution, to this site, our efforts to keep clients and friends informed over the past 75 years have been an ever-evolving process. CommLawCenter will allow that audience to access our content more quickly and easily than ever before. We hope you will visit us regularly, and whether you look at it as Pillsbury v.2.0 or Fisher Wayland v.4.0, that you join us at CommLawCenter as we continue to explore what the next iteration of the communications industry will look like.

Subscribe to CommLawCenter.com

Published on:

By and

In the latest chapter of what seems like a never ending saga of the Commission’s effort to adopt new ownership rules, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently lifted its stay of the FCC’s revised cross-ownership rules adopted in 2007, which immediately allows the FCC to presume that common ownership of a daily newspaper and a broadcast station in the Top 20 television markets is in the public interest. The Court’s decision, for the first time since 1975, effectively allows the common ownership of a full-power broadcast station and a daily newspaper in the same geographic market.
In 2003, the Chairman Powell-led Commission undertook what was ultimately a highly controversial review of all of its broadcast ownership rules. With respect to newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule, the Commission concluded that newspapers and broadcast stations do not compete in the same economic market and that continuation of the cross-ownership ban made no sense except in the smallest markets. Before the re-write of the broadcast rules took effect, it was challenged by various parties in the Third Circuit. The Court, in the well-known Prometheus Radio Project decision, stayed the effectiveness of the re-written rules. Despite the stay, the Court actually agreed with the Commission that a blanket ban on broadcast/newspaper cross-ownership was no longer warranted, so the Court remanded the FCC’s ownership limits back to the agency for further justification.
In response to the Court’s order, the Commission in 2007, this time led by Chairman Martin, once again decided that a complete newspaper/broadcast cross ownership ban did not make sense. It fashioned a rule that presumed that waiver of the ban is waived in the public interest in certain limited circumstances. The FCC said that it would review combinations involving a daily newspaper and either one radio station or one television station in the Top 20 markets on a case-by-case basis, and presume that they were in the public interest, so long as, in the case of television/newspaper combinations, the television station was not a Top-4 ranked station, and at least 8 independent “major media voices” would remain in the market. Combinations in markets outside of the Top 20 would be presumed to not be in the public interest, unless a showing could be made that overcame the presumption.

Again, before that rule could take effect, it was appealed and the Third Circuit continued to stay it. When the leadership of the FCC changed again in 2009, the new Chairman Genachowski-led Commission told the Court that relaxation of the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban adopted by the previous Martin-led Commission does not necessarily reflect the view of a majority of the current Commission. The leadership also asked the Court to continue to hold off ruling on the Martin Commission’s version of the rule until this Commission could complete its Congressionally-mandated review of the broadcast ownership rules in 2010. Despite that request, the Court lifted its stay and ordered that initial briefs in connection with the Martin Commission revisions to its ownership rules be filed by May 17, 2010.

As a result, the FCC’s relaxed newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule adopted in 2007 is now in effect. Broadcast/newspaper combinations can now be reviewed and granted on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the standard described above. However, before trying to enter into a new cross-ownership combination, interested parties should keep in mind that the current Commission is on record as being wary of the Martin-era version of the rule, so any hope that the current Commission is in a hurry to review any proposed combos might be misplaced. They should also realize that the Martin-era rule is subject to the Third Circuit’s review, and that it is unclear precisely how, and when (if ever), this rule’s more than thirty-five year saga will end.

Published on:

By

March 2010
The next Children’s Television Programming Report must be filed with the FCC and placed in stations’ local Public Inspection Files by April 10, 2010, reflecting programming aired during the months of January, February and March 2010.

Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
As a result of the Children’s Television Act of 1990 and the FCC Rules adopted under the Act, full power and Class A television stations are required, among other things, to: (1) limit the amount of commercial matter aired during programs originally produced and broadcast for an audience of children 12 years of age and younger; and (2) air programming responsive to the educational and informational needs of children 16 years of age and younger.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The 2010 NAB Show in Las Vegas is fast approaching! Your Pillsbury attorneys, including Dick Zaragoza, Cliff Harrington, Scott Flick, Miles Mason, Laurie Lynch Flick, Paul Cicelski and Christine Reilly will be at this annual event, which takes place in just one month, from April 10th to the 15th. We look forward to meeting and talking with our clients and friends at the show. We will be staying at The Bellagio (702-693-7111), and if you plan to attend the NAB Show and would like to see us, please contact Julia Colish in our office. Ms. Colish can be reached via e-mail (julia.colish@pillsburylaw.com) or by telephone at (202) 663-8261.

We look forward to seeing you at the NAB Show.

By
Posted in: Radio
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

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

Introduction
Eight years after adoption of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (“BCRA”) of 2002, popularly known as “McCain-Feingold,” Congress’ and the FCC’s interest in political broadcasting and political advertising practices remains undiminished. Broadcast stations must insure that a broad range of federal mandates are met, providing “equal opportunities” to all candidates using the stations facilities, affording federal candidates for public office “reasonable access” and treating all candidates for public office no less favorably than the station treats its most favored advertisers. Accordingly, it is imperative that broadcasters be very familiar with what is expected of them in this regulatory area, that they have adequate policies and practices in place to insure full compliance, and that they remain vigilant to legislative, FCC, and FEC changes in the law.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled that the Copyright Royalty Board is constitutional. The decision ends for now a long-running controversy over the legitimacy of the CRB, which sets royalty rates that webcasters pay to copyright owners– rates that webcasters see as excessively high and a threat to the industry.

The CRB is comprised of three judges appointed by the Librarian of Congress. It meets once every five years to establish the royalty rates that webcasters must pay copyright owners when using their music on the Internet. In the past, the rates set by the CRB were decried by webcasters as excessive, which ultimately led to the passage of the Webcasters Settlement Acts of 2008 and 2009. Pursuant to these statutes, several classes of webcasters, including small commercial webcasters, microcasters, and noncommercial webcasters, have been able to negotiate settlement agreements with SoundExchange, which represents the copyright holders, and agree to rates that, while still unpopular with webcasters, are nonetheless lower than those set by the CRB.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

The Federal Communications Commission recently proposed revisions to its rules as part of its stated goal to “reform and transform the agency into a model of excellence in government.” As part of its goal, the FCC has released a Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) proposing to modify its ex parte communications rules, which govern the disclosure of communications with the commissioners and FCC staff when all parties to a proceeding are not present.

The NPRM’s proposed rule changes include the following:

  • requiring that a summary of every oral ex parte presentation be filed with the FCC, as opposed to just those presentations involving new information or arguments;
  • requiring that the filing summarize all data and arguments presented;
  • establishing a preference for electronic filing of notices of ex parte presentations; and
  • requiring faster electronic filing (within four hours) of notices of permitted ex parte presentations made during the “Sunshine Period” (the period, which typically begins a week before a public FCC meeting, during which outside communications are limited regarding items on the meeting agenda).

Continue reading →