CommLawCenter

Posted May 23, 2013

By Scott R. Flick and Paul A. Cicelski

May 2013

Pillsbury's communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month's issue includes:

• FCC Establishes New Enforcement Policy for Student-Run Noncommercial Radio Stations
• CB Radio Owner Receives Fine for Harmful Interference and Lack of Responsiveness

In a recent Policy Statement and Order, the FCC established a new policy for certain first-time violations of FCC documentation requirements committed by student-run noncommercial radio stations. The new policy allows such stations the option of entering into a Consent Decree with the FCC that includes a compliance plan and a "voluntary" contribution to the government that is smaller than the typical base fines for these violations.

In justifying its more lenient policy toward student-run stations, the FCC noted that such stations are staffed by a continually changing roster of young students lacking experience in regulatory compliance. In addition, such stations function without any professional oversight other than that provided by over-worked faculty advisors, and often operate with budgets so small that they are exceeded by even the base fine for a public inspection file violation. In the past, the FCC has issued numerous fines of $8,000-$10,000 to licensees of student-run stations, and with this new policy, the FCC recognizes that continuing to impose such fines could result in schools selling their stations altogether, as has indeed happened.

In the past, the FCC rejected arguments that fines on student-run stations should be reduced solely because the stations are run by students. The FCC has also typically rejected "inability to pay" arguments for these types of stations, and instead looked at the financial resources of the entire university or college, rather than the financial resources of the station, when assessing a fine. However, the FCC now concludes that allowing the cost of a first-time documentation violation to be reduced in exchange for a consent decree with a compliance plan will actually improve compliance with the FCC's rules. Specifically, the FCC believes that such compliance plans will assist in the training of students while contributing to the educational function of these stations.

In its Policy Statement, the FCC emphasized that the policy will apply only to student-run noncommercial radio stations where the station is staffed completely by students. Stations that employ any professional staff, other than faculty advisors, do not qualify. The policy is also limited to violations where a student-run station has failed to (a) file required materials with the FCC (e.g., an Ownership Report), (b) place required materials in the public inspection file, or (c) publish a notice in a local newspaper or broadcast an announcement on the air. This new policy will not change the FCC's forfeiture policies for any other type of violation or licensee.

Continue reading "FCC Enforcement Monitor"

Posted May 10, 2013

By Paul A. Cicelski

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.

Posted April 30, 2013

By Scott R. Flick and Paul A. Cicelski

April 2013

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:

• Assignment of Paired AM Stations Denied by the FCC
• Use of Illegal Cell Phone Jammers Leads to Fines in Excess of $125,000

FCC Denies Two Assignment Applications of Paired AM Stations

Early this month, the FCC issued two letters denying several assignment applications seeking to separately assign jointly-operated AM stations to different licensees, contrary to the FCC's rules.

In the 1990s, the FCC expanded the AM band frequencies and permitted AM licensees to operate both existing AM band stations and expanded band AM stations in order to improve the quality of the AM service. However, this dual operating authority was contingent upon the surrender of one of the two licenses within five years from the grant of the license for the expanded band station.

In September 1999, one of the licensees filed an assignment application to assign two paired AM band stations to a second licensee. The FCC granted this assignment application, but the receiving licensee only consummated the assignment of one of the two AM stations due to "environmental issues." Several years later, the two licensees filed several new assignment applications requesting FCC approval to separately assign the stations to new licensees, including one application in 2006 and two applications in 2012. In none of these applications did the licensees mention that the stations were part of a jointly-operated pair or that any additional special conditions might apply.

In its letters, the FCC denied all of the pending assignment applications and declined to grant a waiver of the FCC's rule requiring the surrender of one of the two licenses. In its decisions, the FCC stated that the grant of the applications would be contrary to the public interest and would "(1) constitute a further violation of a Commission-imposed processing policy; (2) bestow a further benefit on a party that knowingly engaged in such violation; (3) be unfair to those licensees that have returned one of the paired licenses; and (4) be inconsistent with the expanded band licensing principle that each licensee surrender one license at the expiration of the dual operating authority period." In other words, the FCC made clear that the only assignment application it would be willing to accept is one resulting in both AM stations being held by a single licensee.

Use of Cell Phone Jammers to Prevent Cell Phone Use during Working Hours Does Not Pay Off

The FCC has long kept a careful eye on the sale and use of illegal cell phone jamming devices that interfere with cellular communications. This month, the FCC continued to take action against the use of illegal cell phone jammers by issuing two hefty Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") against two companies, one in Alabama and one in Louisiana, both of which used several cell phone jamming devices at their worksites.

As described in the two NALs, each company purchased four cell phone jammers from various Internet sources (and a fifth jammer as a backup) and installed them throughout their worksites to prevent their employees from using cell phones while working. In both instances, agents from the FCC's Enforcement Bureau responded to anonymous complaints and inspected the worksites.

Using direction finding techniques, the agents discovered strong wideband emissions on the cellular bands and determined that the source of these emissions was from signal jammers.

The Enforcement Bureau agents then inspected the worksites and interviewed the managers of the two companies, both of whom admitted that they had purchased the jammers online and operated them at their worksites--one company for a period of two years and the other for a period of a few months. Both managers showed the agents the locations of the jamming devices and voluntarily surrendered them.

Sections 301, 302(b), and 333 of the Communications Act generally prohibit the importation, use, marketing, and manufacture of cell phone jammers because jammers are designed to impede authorized communications and can disrupt safety communications, such as 911 calls. Moreover, since the primary purpose of a jammer is to interfere with authorized communications, jamming devices cannot be certified and cannot comply with the FCC's technical standards for operation.

In response to the use of illegal jamming devices, the FCC issued substantial forfeitures to both companies. The relevant base forfeiture amounts are $10,000 for operating without FCC authorization, $5,000 for using unauthorized or illegal equipment, and $7,000 for interference with authorized communications. The base forfeiture for violations of the prohibition on signal jamming is $16,000 per violation or per day, up to a maximum of $112,500 for a single violation. For the company in Alabama that operated four jamming devices for a period of two years, the FCC found that the company committed 12 total violations, representing three violations for each of the four jamming devices in use. Thus, the fine would normally be $16,000 per violation, for a total fine of $192,000. However, since the company immediately surrendered the jamming devices and was cooperative with the Enforcement Bureau agents, the FCC reduced the penalty by 25% to $144,000. The FCC applied the same type of calculation to the company in Louisiana that operated four jamming devices for a period of a few months, resulting in a fine of $126,000 after a 25% reduction in the total fine amount. The FCC also ordered both companies to submit sworn written statements providing contact information for the sellers of the jamming devices and all information regarding the sources from which the jamming devices were purchased.

In addition, the FCC cautioned the companies that while the FCC chose not to impose separate forfeitures for the illegal importation of the jamming devices, the FCC has the power to impose "substantial monetary penalties" on individuals or businesses who illegally import jammers. The FCC further warned the companies and other individuals and businesses that the FCC "may pursue alternative or more aggressive sanctions, should the approach set forth [here] prove ineffective in deterring the unlawful operation of jamming devices."

Posted April 29, 2013

By Tony Lin

The FCC's revised rules for its Experimental Radio Services ("ERS") were published in today's Federal Register, and become effective on May 29, 2013 (except for several rules that contain new or modified information collection requirements, which require further approval by the Office of Management and Budget). These revised rules allow parties, including manufacturers, entrepreneurs, and students, to engage in a wide variety of experiments involving radio spectrum, including, for example, technical demonstrations, equipment testing, limited market studies, and development of radio techniques. The FCC's revisions streamline and modernize the ERS rules, allowing parties to more quickly develop new technologies and products for the marketplace.

One of the primary changes to the rules is the creation of three types of ERS licenses: (1) Program Licenses; (2) Compliance Testing Licenses; and (3) Medical Testing Licenses. An applicant for a license must demonstrate in its application that it meets the eligibility requirements, must provide a certification of radio frequency (RF) expertise or partner with another entity with such expertise, and must explain the purpose of its experiment. Each license has a term of five years and is renewable.

Under a Program License, the license holder is permitted to conduct an ongoing program of research and experimentation under a single authorization without having to obtain prior FCC consent for each distinct experiment or series of unrelated experiments, as would have been required under the FCC's prior rules. Eligibility is limited to colleges, universities, research laboratories, manufacturers of radio frequency equipment or end-user products with integrated radio frequency equipment, and medical research institutions. Authorized entities must provide a "stop buzzer" point of contact, identify the specifics of each proposed experiment in advance of the testing on a public web database established by the FCC, and post a report detailing the results of each experiment upon completion of the experiment (A "stop buzzer" point of contact is a person who can address interference concerns and cease all transmissions immediately if interference occurs).

A Compliance Testing License allows a test lab to conduct testing for FCC equipment authorizations. Such licenses are available to labs that are currently recognized for RF product testing as well as any other lab that the FCC finds has sufficient expertise to undertake such testing. Unlike a Program Licensee, a compliance testing licensee does not have to identify a "stop buzzer" point of contact, provide any notification period prior to testing, or file any narrative statement regarding test results. Testing is limited to those activities necessary for product certification.

The third type of experimental license is a Medical Testing License. This license allows an eligible entity to conduct clinical trials of medical devices (i.e., a device that uses RF wireless technology or communications functions for diagnosis, treatment, or patient monitoring). Only health care facilities (defined as hospitals and other establishments that offer services, facilities and beds for beyond a 24-hour period in rendering medical treatment, as well as institutions and organizations regularly engaged in providing medical services through clinics, public health facilities, and similar establishments, including government entities and agencies) are eligible for this type of experimental license. Medical devices tested under a Medical Testing License must comply with the FCC's Part 15, 18 and 95 rules. Authorized health care entities must provide a "stop buzzer" point of contact and also follow the same notice and reporting requirements as Program Licensees. A Medical Testing Licensee is required to file a yearly report with the FCC on the activity that has been performed under the license.

The FCC's other changes to its ERS rules include:

• consolidating all of the experimental licensing rules into Part 5 of the FCC's Rules;
• consolidating its rules regarding marketing of unauthorized devices;
• allowing demonstrations in residential areas of devices not yet authorized, so long as the relevant spectrum licensee is working with the device manufacturer;
• permitting, without an experimental license, the operation of devices not yet authorized, so long as the devices are operated as part of a trade show demonstration and at or below the maximum power level permitted for unlicensed devices under the FCC's Part 15 rules;
• allowing more flexible product development and market trials;
• standardizing and increasing the importation limit for devices that have not yet been authorized to 4,000 units; and
• codifying the existing practice of allowing RF tests and experiments conducted within an anechoic chamber or Faraday cage without the need for obtaining an experimental license.

Posted April 16, 2013

By John Hane

Recently, TVNewsCheck.com ran a short item noting that a large broadcast group (not a network owned and operated group) and a large multichannel video distributor (MVPD) successfully concluded carriage negotiations. There was no interruption of service. Given the successful outcome, I was surprised to see that someone posted a comment regarding the piece saying the deal illustrates why the FCC should tighten its broadcast ownership rules. No matter how many times I read comments of this sort, I am perplexed that people actually believe it's a good thing for the government to mandate that broadcasters be the underdogs in all major negotiations that impact the quality and availability of broadcasters' programming. If anything, government policy should encourage broadcasters to grow to a scale that is meaningful in today's complex television marketplace. Not one of the other major distributors makes its programming available for free.

If independent (non-O&O) broadcasters aren't permitted to achieve a scale large enough to negotiate effectively with upstream programmers and downstream distributors, you won't have to wait long see high cost, high quality, high value programming available for free to those who choose to opt out of the pay TV ecosystem. It's much better to have two, three or four strong competitors in each market, owned by companies that can compete for rational economics in the upstream and downstream markets, than to have eight or more weak competitors, few of which can afford to invest in truly local service or negotiate at arms-length with program suppliers and distributors.

For those who have not been paying attention, the television market has changed profoundly in the past 20 years. The big programmers and the big MVPDs have gotten a whole lot bigger. The largest non-O&O broadcast groups have grown too, but not nearly as much. Fox, Disney/ABC, NBCU and the other programmers are vastly bigger companies with incomparable market power vis-a-vis even the largest broadcast groups. The same is true of the large MVPDs, which together serve the great majority of television households.

There's nothing inherently bad about big content aggregators and big MVPD distributors. And anyway, they are a fact of life. Despite their size, each is trying to deliver a competitive service and deliver good returns for shareholders. That's what they are supposed to do, and in general (with a few exceptions) they serve the country well. But again, they are much, much larger than even the largest broadcast groups. If you believe that having a viable and competitive free television option is a good thing, that's a problem.

So in response to the suggestion that the FCC further limit the scale of broadcasters, I reply: why does the government make it so damn hard for the only television service that is available for free to bargain and compete with vastly larger enterprises that are comparatively unregulated?

Continue reading "Free TV Doesn't Mean Free Lunch"

Posted April 14, 2013

By Paul A. Cicelski

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.

Posted April 5, 2013

By Scott R. Flick

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.

Posted April 4, 2013

By Paul A. Cicelski

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.

Posted April 1, 2013

By Scott R. Flick

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."

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.

Posted March 29, 2013

By Scott R. Flick and Paul A. Cicelski

March 2013

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:

• Delay in Providing Access to Public Inspection File Leads to Fine
• FCC Fines Broadcaster for Antenna Tower Fencing, EAS and Public Inspection File Violations

This month, the Enforcement Bureau of the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL") in the amount of $10,000 against a Texas noncommercial broadcaster for failing to promptly make its public inspection file available. For the delay of a few hours, the Commission proposed a fine of $10,000 and reminded the licensee that stations must make their public inspection file available for inspection at any time during regular business hours and that a simple request to review the public file is all it takes to mandate access.

According to the NAL, an individual from a competitor arrived at the station at approximately 10:45 a.m. and asked to review the station public inspection file. Station personnel informed the individual that the General Manager could give him access to the public files, but that the General Manager would not arrive at the station until "after noon." The individual returned to the studio at 12:30 p.m.; however, the General Manager had still not arrived at the studio. According to the visiting individual, the receptionist repeatedly asked him if he "was with the FCC." Ultimately, the receptionist was able to reach the General Manager by phone, and the parties do not dispute that at that time, the individual asked to see the public file. During that call, the General Manager told the receptionist to give the visitor access to the file. According to the visitor, when the General Manager finally arrived, he too asked if the individual was from the FCC, and then proceeded to monitor the individual's review of the public file.

After the station visit, the competitor filed a Complaint with the FCC alleging that the station public files were incomplete and that the station improperly denied access to the public inspection files. The FCC then issued a Letter of Inquiry to the station, requesting that the station respond to the allegations and to provide additional information. The station denied that any items were missing from the public file and also denied that it failed to provide access to the files.

Continue reading "FCC Enforcement Monitor"

Posted March 26, 2013

By Scott R. Flick and Lauren Lynch Flick

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.

Posted March 25, 2013

By Paul A. Cicelski

As we have discussed at great length in the past, the FCC's rules require that certain video programming delivered online be captioned if the programming previously aired on television with captions. The rules kicked in on April 30 of last year, and all video programming that appeared on television with captions after that date is considered "covered Internet Protocol (IP) video" and will ultimately need to be captioned when being shown online.

The first step of the captioning phase-in occurred on September 30, 2012. Since that date, stations have been required to display captioning for prerecorded full-length programming delivered via IP if the programming was first aired on television with captions on or after the April 30 date noted above.

The second phase of the FCC's IP captioning rules begins March 30, 2013 (a Saturday), at which time the FCC's IP captioning rules require all live and near-live programming subject to the rules and shown on television with captions to be captioned when delivered online. The FCC's definition of "live" or "near-live" captures all programming performed simultaneously or recorded within 24 hours of its first transmission to a video programming distributor. Note that as long as they do not constitute "substantially all" of a full-length program, online video clips are currently exempt from the IP captioning rules.

As a result, the question we probably receive most often from clients about online captioning is: what exactly does the FCC mean by "substantially all" of a full-length program? It's a good question that lacks a precise answer. The FCC intentionally decided not to provide a specific threshold for the length or number of clips aired that would constitute "substantially all" of a program. According to the FCC, it did not see "any evidence that Congress sought to exclude only clips of a certain duration or percentage of the full-length program."

Parties should keep in mind, however, that the FCC will not allow them to game the system by simply "shaving" off a few minutes or brief segments of a full length program in order to avoid the IP captioning obligation. The FCC emphasized that "if there is clear evidence that an entity has developed a pattern of attempting to use video clips to evade its captioning obligations," the FCC may find that a rule violation has occurred.

There is of course more to come. The captioning requirements for "full length" and "live or near-live" programming are just the beginning of the new IP captioning obligations being implemented in the near future. The next deadline is coming up soon with the September 30, 2013 requirement that all pre-recorded programming that is edited for Internet distribution be captioned for online viewing. Also, don't forget there are separate captioning compliance deadlines for captioning of IP video programming that previously aired on television prior to the effective date of the rules, but that is shown again on television with captions after the effective date. Those phased-in captioning requirements are scheduled to take place between March 2014 and March 2016, with progressively shorter periods to caption the programming for IP video after it airs on television with captions.

As was the case with the original broadcast captioning rules, each phase-in "deadline" shrinks the amount of programming exempt from the online captioning requirement while requiring the distributor to tackle ever more complex captioning issues. IP captioning will therefore consume a growing portion of the attention of those posting broadcast video online. The big difference is that broadcast captioning was phased in over eight years (twelve years for Spanish language programming), whereas online captioning is being phased in on a much faster schedule.

Posted March 20, 2013

By Scott R. Flick

While in the works for a while, today's formal announcement by FCC Commissioner McDowell that he will be departing the FCC leaves a hole in the FCC's ranks that will be difficult to fill. In many regards, Commissioner McDowell was a throwback to an earlier time, both at the FCC and in Washington, in that his tenure was distinguished not just by his congenial nature, but by an abiding adherence to his regulatory principles, rather than to reaching a particular result. While I suspect he might bristle at being described as a "rational regulator", preferring instead to be known as a "devoted deregulator", Commissioner McDowell represented a common-sense approach to the communications industry and the business of regulating it.

Since the job of a lawyer is to obtain for a client the best result legally possible, you would think that lawyers would be big fans of the "predictable vote"--the commissioner whose policy positions are so embedded that there is little doubt as to where they will stand on any particular issue. And of course, if three of the five commissioners are on your side of an issue, that's a pretty warm and fuzzy place to be. The problem, however, is that for every time three of the five commissioners support your position, there will be a time when three of the five do not.

For that reason, an experienced lawyer will always prefer an inquisitive and open-minded regulator over an ideologue, even when it is an ideologue that agrees with you (today). While the independent-minded regulator will make you work to persuade them each and every time, the opportunity to persuade them is never foreclosed. If you fail to persuade them that your cause is just, then the failure is yours, and not just the result of an agency formalizing a preordained result.

Over the years, the FCC has been blessed with a number of commissioners that have been particularly good at compartmentalizing natural biases, and giving the parties before them a full and fair opportunity to make their case. Probably not coincidentally, many of these same commissioners have had both a healthy sense of humor and humility, putting those around them at ease and creating an environment conducive to an open and lively discussion of the issues. A final characteristic found among this select group--and helpful to anyone in Washington--is the ability to separate the advocate from the issue, recognizing that just because you disagree with the argument that the advocate must make today on behalf of a client doesn't diminish the advocate who, like the commissioner, is just trying to do their job to the best of their ability, and will have to make a different argument on behalf of a different client tomorrow.

Unfortunately, these characteristics are rarely those that will get you nominated by a President, or see you through a partisan confirmation process, so commissioners with all of these characteristics will inevitably tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Because of this, Commissioner McDowell will be missed by many who work at, and with, the FCC. In a town where some individuals have countdown calendars marking the number of days remaining in a particular government official's tenure, it is perhaps the ultimate backhanded Washington compliment that the most arresting part of Commissioner McDowell's departure announcement was where it noted he had been at the FCC for "nearly seven years." It's hard to believe it has been that long.

Posted March 13, 2013

By Richard R. Zaragoza

In response to a request by the Coalition for Broadcast Investment ("Coalition"), the FCC, through its Media Bureau, has invited the filing of comments on the question of whether the Commission should now be open to allowing non-citizens and foreign companies to hold more than a 25% equity interest in U.S. radio and television stations. The deadline for filing comments is April 15, with reply comments due by April 30.

The Coalition is comprised of national broadcast networks, radio and television station licensees, as well as community and consumer organizations. It is urging the FCC to publicly commit, going forward, to considering on their individual merits transactions proposing significant foreign investment in broadcast stations, rather than reflexively rejecting foreign ownership above the 25% mark, as the FCC has traditionally done when reviewing broadcast transactions.

But for the Commission's decades-old refusal to be flexible, the Coalition's request would not have been necessary as Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act states that a broadcast license will not be granted to "any corporation directly or indirectly controlled by any other corporation of which more than one-fourth of the capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens, their representatives, or by a foreign government or representative thereof, or by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country, if the Commission finds that the public interest will be served by the refusal or revocation of such license." The very language of the Act therefore indicates that alien ownership above the 25% mark will be permitted unless the FCC specifically finds that such foreign ownership would not, in the particular situation presented, serve the public interest.

Despite the language of the statute, the FCC has routinely declined to consider broadcast-related transactions proposing more than 25% foreign ownership of a broadcast parent company. The Coalition contends that, by considering the merits foreign ownership proposals in excess of the 25% mark, the FCC will encourage "access to additional and new sources of investment capital [which] will benefit the broadcast industry and American consumers by financing advanced infrastructure, innovative services and high quality programming; and by promoting the creation of highly skilled, well-paying jobs" as well as "provide new opportunities for minority businesses and entrepreneurs, whose access to the domestic capital markets has been limited...."

A clear statement by the FCC that it will now review, on the merits, radio and television transactions proposing significant foreign investment in U.S. broadcast stations should send a very constructive signal to the broadcast industry, to potential foreign investors and to U.S. investors looking to syndicate more of their capital needs offshore for U.S. broadcast investments. Such a new openness and flexibility on the part of the Commission will also serve to create a more equitable "access to capital" environment for broadcasters particularly in relation to other forms of media.

Future Commission actions publicly approving, disapproving and conditioning transactions proposing "plus 25%" foreign ownership will, over time, provide the necessary predictability that is so important for investment decision-making. Pillsbury has considerable experience in crafting FCC-friendly ownership/control structures for banks, companies and firms with foreign ownership that wish to invest in U.S. broadcast stations. Action by the Commission on the Coalition's letter will hopefully simplify and speed the heretofore painstaking process of balancing the return on investment objectives of foreign investors against the need to meet the letter and intent of the FCC's rules and policies with respect to foreign ownership of U.S. broadcast stations.

Posted March 7, 2013

By Paul A. Cicelski

As we all know, it's easy to complain about the Federal Government these days given the gridlock that currently exists on Capitol Hill, the Sequester, and the looming debt ceiling battle. But let's give credit where credit is due.

The FCC has revised its Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) audit letter for all broadcast licensees, and has eased the burden on respondents by eliminating the need to produce copies of each and every job vacancy notice that was sent out to every referral source, allowing stations instead to file only a representative copy of each job opening notice along with a list of the referral sources to which it was sent. In addition, the FCC has changed its audit letter to allow the submission of a single on-air job advertisement log sheet instead of requiring stations to provide multiple log sheets. The letter also states that stations are not required to provide copies of "applicants' resumes ..., company training manuals, posters, employee handbooks, or corporate guidebooks." While responding to an EEO audit remains a time consuming task, the FCC has at least taken a step in the right direction by better focusing the audit request on the most consequential materials.

The new version of the EEO audit letter was, as required by the FCC's rules, sent to randomly selected radio and television stations in the past few weeks. The FCC annually audits the EEO programs of approximately five percent of broadcast stations and has released the list of the stations subject to the most recent audit. All stations, whether targeted for this round of audits or not, should carefully review the FCC's sample audit letter, as it informs stations of what they will need to present when their time comes.

The FCC's EEO rules require broadcast station employment units with five or more full-time employees to recruit broadly and inclusively for all job openings, and require substantial recordkeeping, periodic reports to the FCC, and the placement of those reports in stations' public inspection files and on their websites. Broadcasters must also regularly analyze the results of their recruitment efforts to ensure that broad and inclusive outreach is being achieved and must keep detailed records of their recruitment outreach efforts to submit to the FCC in the event of an EEO audit.

For everything you ever wanted to know about ensuring compliance with the FCC's EEO rules, see our comprehensive and recently updated Client Advisory: "The FCC's Equal Employment Opportunity Rules and Policies - A Guide for Broadcasters."

The fact that stations will no longer need to provide multiple ad log sheets or the corporate materials described above will certainly make responding to an audit easier. That said, the FCC's EEO rules are, and will continue to be, a significant regulatory burden on broadcasters. While broadcasters will not be required to submit as much material to the FCC as part of an EEO audit, they will continue to be required to maintain records extensively detailing their job recruitment efforts. In addition, stations should take note that the FCC's Public Notice released with the new version of the EEO audit letter seems to indicate that in exchange for the reduced response burdens, the FCC is raising the bar and now expects stations to adopt a standard of "vigorous recruitment."

Still, despite concerns as to what the FCC means by "vigorous", it's nice to see that the FCC is moving in the direction of simplified audits in an effort to actually ease regulatory filing burdens on broadcasters.