Articles Posted in

Published on:

By

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:

  • Unenclosed and Unpainted Tower Leads to $30,000 in Fines
  • $20,000 Fine for Missing Issues/Programs Lists at Two Stations
  • Increased Fine for Intentional Interference and Unlicensed Transmitter Use

Multiple Tower Violations Result in Increased Fine

Earlier this month, a Regional Director of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau (the “Bureau”) issued a Forfeiture Order against the licensee of a New Jersey AM radio station for failing to properly paint its tower and enclose the tower within an effective locked fence or other enclosure.

Section 303(q) of the Communications Act requires that tower owners maintain painting and lighting of their towers as specified by the FCC. Section 17.50(a) of the Commission’s Rules says that towers must be cleaned or repainted as often as necessary to maintain good visibility. Section 73.49 of the FCC’s Rules requires “antenna towers having radio frequency potential at the base [to] be enclosed with effective locked fences or other enclosures.” The base fine for failing to comply with the lighting and marking requirements is $10,000, and the base fine for failing to maintain an effective AM tower fence is $7,000.

In March of 2010, agents from the Bureau’s Philadelphia Office inspected the licensee’s tower in New Jersey. The terms of the Antenna Structure Registration required that this particular tower be painted and lit. During their inspection, the agents noticed that the paint on the tower was faded and chipped, resulting in significantly reduced visibility. During their inspection, the agents also found that an unlocked gate allowed unrestricted access to the tower, which had radio frequency potential at its base. The agents contacted the owner of the tower and locked the gate before leaving the site.

In April of 2010, the Philadelphia Office issued a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) to the licensee for violating Sections 17.50(a) and 73.49 of the FCC’s Rules. The next month, in its response to the NOV, the licensee asserted that it inspects the tower several times each year and had been planning for some time to repair the faded and chipped paint and promised to bring the tower into compliance by August 15, 2010 by repainting the structure or installing white strobe lighting. The licensee also indicated that it had never observed the gate surrounding the tower be unlocked during its own site visits and noted that several tenants, each of whom leased space on the tower, also had keys for the site.

In November of 2010, agents inspected the tower again to ensure that the violations had been corrected. The agents discovered that the licensee had neither repainted the tower nor installed strobe lights and that now a different gate to the tower was unlocked. The agents immediately informed the licensee’s President and General Manager about the open gate, which they were unable to lock before leaving the site. The following day, the agents returned to the tower and noted that the gate was still unlocked. The agents again contacted the President, who promised that a new lock would be installed later that day, which did occur. At the beginning of December 2010, agents visited the tower with the President and the station’s Chief Engineer. The tower still had not been repainted, nor had strobe lights been installed. On January 7, 2011, the Chief Engineer reported to the FCC that white strobe lighting had been installed.

The Philadelphia Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) on October 31, 2011 for failure to repaint the tower and failure to enclose the tower with an effective locked fence or enclosure. In the NAL, the Philadelphia Office adjusted the base fines upward from the combined base fine of $17,000 because the “repeated warnings regarding the antenna structure’s faded paint and the unlocked gates . . . demonstrate[ed] a deliberate disregard for the Rules.” The Philadelphia Office proposed a fine of $20,000. In its response to the NAL, the licensee requested that the fine be reduced based on its immediate efforts to bring the tower into compliance with the rules and its overall history of compliance.

In response, the FCC declined to reduce the proposed fine because corrective action taken to come into compliance with the Rules is expected and does not mitigate violations. In addition, the FCC rejected the licensee’s argument that it had taken “immediate action” to correct the violations because the licensee was first notified about the chipped paint in March 2010 and did not install the strobe lights until January 2011. Finally, the FCC declined to reduce the fine based on a history of compliance because the licensee had violated the FCC’s Rules twice before. Therefore, the FCC affirmed the imposition of a $20,000 fine.

Fine Reduced to Base Amount for Good Faith Effort to Have Issues/Programs Lists Nearby

The Western Region of the Enforcement Bureau issued a Forfeiture Order against the licensee of two Colorado stations for failing to maintain complete public inspection files.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Few dates on the broadcasters’ calendar are easier to miss than the deadline for TV stations (and a few fortunate LPTV stations) to send their must-carry/retransmission election letters to cable and satellite providers in their markets. Because it doesn’t occur every year, or even every other year, but every third year, the triennial deadline can slip up on you if you don’t closely monitor our Broadcast Calendar. For those that haven’t been paying attention, October 1, 2014 is the deadline for TV stations to send their carriage election letters to MVPDs. The elections made by this October 1st will govern a station’s carriage rights for the three-year period from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017, and this will be the first set of election letters that stations must immediately upload to their online public inspection file at the FCC.

I noted in a post here three years ago that the impact of these elections is becoming more significant with each three-year cycle. In particular, that post focused on the fact that network-affiliated stations can no longer consider retrans revenue to be “found” money, but instead as revenue essential to both short-term and long-term survival. Short-term, in that stations must compete for programming and advertising against cable and satellite programmers that have long had two revenue streams–advertising and subscriber fees. Long-term, in that there was little doubt that networks were looking to charge affiliates more for network programming by taking an ever larger share of retrans revenue, and that it was only a matter of time before networks began selecting their affiliates based not upon past performance, but upon which station could bring the best financial package to the network going forward.

As we’ve learned over the past year in particular, that means not just negotiating the best retransmission deals possible, but sending an increasing portion of those revenues to the network. Wells Fargo analyst Marci Ryvicker, who will be one of our speakers at the 2014 Pillsbury Trends in Communications Finance event in New York next month, noted that pattern just a few weeks ago. Using CBS’s recent projections on the overall revenue it expects to receive from affiliates, she was able to calculate the monthly affiliate cost for CBS programming at $1.30 per subscriber by 2020. Add to that the station’s costs for negotiating retrans deals, as well as the increasing cost of producing local programming and securing attractive syndicated content, and it is clear that no network affiliate can afford to be cutting substandard retrans deals and hope to survive in the long term. MVPDs may grumble about those “greedy stations” during retrans negotiations, but generating the revenue necessary to retain the programming that attracts cable, satellite, and over-the-air viewers (not to mention advertisers) is not an optional activity for local TV stations.

The impact of this is not, however, limited to purely matters of retransmission. Yes, broadcasters can no longer afford to enter into amateur retrans deals that threaten to alienate their networks by providing below-market rates, or which sloppily authorize retransmission or streaming rights far outside the local broadcaster’s market (this mistake becoming even more consequential if the FCC moves forward in eliminating the network non-duplication rule). The bigger trend is that these economic forces are driving consolidation in the TV industry.

Building large broadcast groups allows co-owned TV stations the critical mass necessary to negotiate difficult retrans deals against the much-larger cable and satellite operators, and, where necessary, to withstand the economic impact of a retrans impasse when it happens. Similarly, larger TV groups are better positioned to negotiate the best possible programming deals with their networks (keeping in mind that “best possible” isn’t necessarily the same as “good”).

Single stations and small station groups routinely have to punch well above their weight by employing smart executives and counsel with deep experience in retrans negotiations to survive in this increasingly harsh environment. That is what makes the FCC’s prohibition earlier this year on certain joint retrans negotiations, as well as current efforts on Capitol Hill to broaden that prohibition, so perverse. By eliminating one of a small broadcaster’s best options for cost-effectively negotiating viable retransmission agreements, the government is pushing those broadcasters to sell their stations to a larger broadcaster (or some would say, to the government itself). In the current environment, a station that fails to sell to a larger broadcaster possessing the skill and mass necessary to effectively negotiate retransmission agreements risks losing its network affiliation to just such a station group, precisely because that group can frequently deliver better retrans results.

So as you send out your elections this year, keep in mind that while the election process itself hasn’t changed, what you will need to do afterwards has changed dramatically. More to the point, think hard about what you need to be doing with your retrans negotiations if you still want to be around in three years to send out that next batch of election letters.

Published on:

By

Broadcasters let out a small sigh of relief today when the FCC made clear there is no requirement that TV stations have private investigators on staff.

With TV stations’ political files now available online, three political activist organizations have been jointly filing complaints against TV stations alleging various errors and omissions in online public file paperwork relating to political ad buys by third-party advertisers. These three organizations, the Campaign Legal Center, Sunlight Foundation, and Common Cause, expanded their campaign (no pun intended) substantially in mid-July, when they filed complaints against a Washington, DC and a Portland, Oregon TV station. Rather than paperwork problems, however, these complaints claimed that the stations had failed to accurately disclose on-air the true identity of the sponsor behind certain “Super PAC” political ads. In both cases, the complainants asserted that their own research indicated the PACs were mostly or entirely funded by a single individual, and that the stations should have therefore identified that individual rather than the PAC as the sponsor of the political spot.

While there is ample precedent for requiring broadcasters to be comfortable that the sponsorship information in a political spot is accurate, the most recent complaints concerned broadcasters for two reasons. First, there apparently was no question that the PACs had indeed been the ones to write the check for the ads and were valid legal entities, so a TV station altering the sponsorship identification text to specify the station’s opinion as to who the “real” sponsor is raises numerous legal issues, not the least of which is that the station could well get it wrong. For example, it would be a pretty brazen station that would change the sponsorship identification on Microsoft ads to “paid for by Bill Gates” on the theory that Bill Gates was the main “person” behind the organization that wrote the check. Of course, in this example the station would be doubly wrong, as Bill Gates ceased being the largest shareholder of Microsoft in May of this year, demonstrating the risk a station takes in attempting to be the arbiter of who is “behind” an advertiser.

This example also demonstrates the second issue that concerned broadcasters about the complaints. If, in the absence of an obvious sham advertiser, broadcasters had an obligation to ignore the “name on the check” and attempt to discern the actual source of the check writer’s income, they would need a full-time staff of researchers doing nothing but verifying the structure of advertisers. In addition, the airing of political ads would be perpetually delayed while stations seek adequate certainty that they have discerned the true source of all ad funds.

The result would be a no-win situation for broadcasters, who would have to expend enormous resources trying to determine where an advertiser’s money comes from, and having done that, expose themselves to both private liability (from the advertiser who wasn’t credited as the sole sponsor of the spot, as well as from the individual who was) and regulatory liability (if the government disagrees with the licensee’s sponsorship conclusions).

Today, the FCC wisely avoided placing broadcasters in that conundrum, ruling in a letter decision that:

We conclude that the complaints do not provide a sufficient showing that the stations had credible evidence casting into doubt that the identified sponsors of the advertisement were the true sponsors. As the Commission has stated previously, “unless furnished with credible, unrefuted evidence that a sponsor is acting at the direction of a third party, the broadcaster may rely on the plausible assurances of the person(s) paying for the time that they are the true sponsor.” While the complaint against [the station] presented some evidence that station employees may have come across facts in the course of news reporting on political issues that could have raised questions in their minds concerning the relationship of NextGen Climate Action Committee and Tom Steyer, we exercise our discretion not to pursue enforcement in this instance, given the need to balance the “reasonable diligence” obligations of broadcasters in identifying the sponsor of an advertisement with the sensitive First Amendment interests present here.

While it is reassuring that the FCC moved quickly to reject the complaints, today’s action leaves the political sponsorship identification waters somewhat murky. In addition to the less than comforting “we exercise our discretion not to pursue enforcement in this instance” language, the FCC proceeded to state that “[o]ur approach might have been different if the complainants had approached the stations directly to furnish them with evidence calling into question that the identified sponsors were the true sponsors.” In using this language, the FCC suggests that the only problem with the complaints “might have been” that the complainants didn’t present their evidence to the stations while the spots were still airing so that the stations could have assessed the evidence at the time and decided whether to modify the sponsorship identification.

While that ruling is generally consistent with past FCC rulings, in that a broadcaster must be presented with “credible, unrefuted evidence that a sponsor is acting at the direction of a third party,” the FCC sidestepped the equally important issue of when a PAC’s sponsorship identification may be deemed adequate, or if PAC contributors must be listed instead. As a result, broadcasters are left wondering if a sponsorship identification will be second-guessed when 80%, 90%, 95%, 99%, or some other percentage of the sponsor’s income comes from one source. Similarly, what if only 50% comes from one individual, but the other 50% comes from another individual, and the two are say, brothers? Once again, broadcasters are being asked, on pain of liability, to make disclosure decisions for PACs that are more correctly the province of the Federal Election Commission.

Of course, the sponsorship identification requirement is not limited to political ads, and the flaws in the approach suggested by the complainants seem jarringly obvious when applied in the context of a business advertiser. For example, should ads for every Mom and Pop business disclose that the real sponsor is not the business, but Mom and Pop, who gave up their vacation this year in order for the business to be able to afford broadcast advertising? Similarly, if it is not the entity writing the check for advertising that is relevant, but the principal source of its income, shouldn’t all ads placed by defense contractors need to disclose the U.S. government as the actual sponsor of their ads?

On the other hand, if, as the FCC has suggested in past sponsorship decisions, the real issue is the identity of the decision maker for that advertiser, how could a broadcaster ever know that information with adequate certainty to reject the assurances of the advertiser and take on the liability of unilaterally changing sponsorship identifications in ads?

To be clear, no one is suggesting that a sponsor should be able to avoid on-air attribution by creating a phony front organization whose faux nature is obvious to all, including the broadcaster. However, a Political Action Committee is an entity legally recognized under the law, which is also regulated by law. If more information about its contributors is deemed a public good, Congress and the Federal Election Commission have the authority and the responsibility to take action to accomplish that result. In the absence of such action, the task should not fall to broadcasters by default.

Published on:

By

I wrote a post here in June on the FCC’s release of its proposed regulatory fees for Fiscal Year 2014. Normally, the FCC releases an order adopting the official fee amounts and the deadline by which they must be filed in early to mid-August of each year. This year, however, licensees were beginning to get nervous, as August was coming to a close and there had still been no word from the FCC as to the final fee amounts and how quickly they must be paid.

Fortunately, the FCC was able to get the fee order out this afternoon, on the last business day of August. Unfortunately, because the Public Notice of the release occurred on the Friday before a three day weekend, many licensees may miss that announcement. According to today’s Public Notice, full payment of annual regulatory fees for Fiscal Year 2014 (FY 2014) must be received no later than 11:59 PM Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 23, 2014. As of today, the Commission’s automated filing and payment system, the Fee Filer System, is available for filing and payment of FY 2014 regulatory fees. A copy of the Public Notice with the details is available here.

Also, as noted in a footnote to that Public Notice, “[c]hecks, money orders, and cashier’s checks are no longer accepted as means of payment for regulatory fees. As a result, it is the responsibility of licensees to make sure that their electronic payments are made timely and the transaction is completed by the due date.” Time to rack up those credit card frequent flyer miles!

Published on:

By

August 2014

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:

  • Nonexistent Studio Staff and Missing Public Inspection File Lead to $20,000 Fine
  • Failure to Route 911 Calls Properly Results in $100,000 Fine
  • Admonishment for Display of Commercial Web Address During Children’s Programming

Missing Public Inspection File and Staff Result in Increased Fine

A Regional Director of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau (the “Bureau”) issued a Forfeiture Order against a Kansas licensee for failing to operate a fully staffed main studio as well as for failing to maintain and make available a complete public inspection file.

Section 73.1125(a) of the FCC’s Rules requires that a broadcast station have a main studio with a “meaningful management and staff presence,” and Section 73.3526(a)(2) requires that a broadcast station maintain a public inspection file. In July of 2012, a Bureau agent from the Kansas City Office tried to inspect the main studio of the licensee’s station but could not find a main studio. Although the agent was able to find the station’s public inspection file at an insurance agency in the community of license, the file did not contain any documents dated after 2009. After the inspection, the licensee requested a waiver of the main studio requirement, which the FCC’s Media Bureau ultimately denied.

In May of last year, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) against the licensee. In the NAL, the Bureau noted that the base fine for violating the main studio rule is $7,000 and the base fine for violating the public file rule is $10,000. However, due to the over two-year duration of the public inspection file violation and the 14 month duration of the main studio violation, the Bureau increased the base fines by $2,000 and $1,000, respectively, resulting in a total proposed fine of $20,000.

In its response to the NAL, the licensee did not deny the facts asserted in the NAL. Therefore, the Forfeiture Order affirmed the factual determinations that the licensee had violated Sections 73.1125(a) and 73.3526(a)(2) of the FCC’s Rules. However, in its NAL Response, the licensee requested that the proposed fine be reduced because the licensee’s station serves a small market and it would face competitive disadvantages if it were required to fully staff the main studio.

The Bureau rejected the licensee’s request to reduce the fine based on an inability to find qualified staff because there is no exception to Section 73.1125(a)’s requirement of a main studio due to staffing shortages. The Bureau also pointed out that the licensee had no staff presence at the main studio for more than a year. The Bureau briefly entertained the idea that the licensee had intended to argue that it was financially unable to maintain a fully staffed studio; however, since the licensee did not submit any financial information with its response to the NAL, the Bureau dismissed the possibility of reducing the fine amount based on the licensee’s inability to pay.

The Bureau also rejected the licensee’s argument that maintaining a main studio would place the station at a competitive disadvantage because the licensee’s main studio waiver request was based only on financial considerations, which is not a valid basis for a waiver of the main studio rule. Moreover, the Bureau pointed out that even if the waiver had been granted and the licensee had then staffed the studio, corrective action after an investigation has commenced is expected by the FCC, and does not warrant reduction of cancellation of a fine. Therefore, the Bureau affirmed the fine of $20,000.

Automated Response to 911 Calls Leads to Substantial Fine

The Enforcement Bureau issued an NAL against an Oklahoma telephone company for routing 911 calls to an automated operator message in violation of the 911 Act and the FCC’s Rules.

Under Section 64.3001 of the FCC’s Rules, telecommunications carriers are required to transmit all 911 calls to a Public Safety Answering Point (“PSAP”), to a designated statewide default answering point, or to an appropriate local emergency authority. Section 64.3002(d) of the FCC’s Rules further requires that if “no PSAP or statewide default answering point has been designated, and no appropriate local emergency authority has been selected by an authorized state or local entity, telecommunications carriers shall identify an appropriate local emergency authority, based on the exercise of reasonable judgment, and complete all translation and routing necessary to deliver 911 calls to such appropriate local emergency authority.”
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The Federal Communications Commission recently adopted a Report and Order to streamline and eliminate outdated provisions of its Part 17 Rules governing the construction, marking, and lighting of antenna structures. According to the Commission, the goal was to “remove barriers to wireless deployment, reduce unnecessary costs, and encourage providers to continue to deploy advanced systems that facilitate safety while preserving the safeguards to protect historic, environmental and local interests.” The question, as Commissioner O’Rielly put it, is “why did it take nine years to get this item before the Commission for a vote?” While it was a long time in coming, the changes the FCC made will be mostly welcomed by tower owners across the country.

The need for changes to the rules was first raised in the FCC’s 2004 Biennial Ownership Review, and the FCC initiated a formal review of the antenna structure rules in 2010 in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The FCC’s goal in streamlining Part 17 of its rules was to improve compliance and enforcement while eliminating unnecessary and burdensome requirements for tower owners. The revised rules impact a number of regulations, and the hope is that the changes will also harmonize the FCC’s rules with the safety recommendations and rules of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). That said, in its update, the FCC made a point of removing from its rules references to FAA Circulars that the FCC has determined are out of date.

The primary changes to the rules that tower owners should be aware of are:

Antenna Structure Marking and Lighting Specifications. The Order updated the FCC’s rules to require that tower owners comply with the marking and lighting specifications included in the FAA’s “no hazard” determination for that particular tower, thereby making FCC and FAA regulations consistent in this area. The Order also emphasized that changes to marking and lighting specifications on an Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) require prior approval from both the FAA and the FCC. Importantly, the FCC specifically declined to require existing antenna structures to comply with any new lighting or marking requirements unless mandated to do so by the FAA.

Accuracy of Height and Location Data. The FCC noted in the Order that its prior rules did not define what kinds of “alterations” to an existing tower required a new registration and FCC approval prior to making those changes. The new rules are clear that FCC approval is required for any change or correction to a structure of one foot or greater in height, or one second or greater in location, relative to the existing information in the structure’s ASR form. The new criteria is the same as that used by the FAA for requiring a new aeronautical study and determination of “no hazard”.

Notification of Construction or Dismantlement. Tower owners are now required to notify the FCC within five days of “when a construction or alteration of a structure reaches its greatest height, when a construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, and when there are changes in structure height or ownership.” Under the prior rules, structure owners were given only 24 hours to provide notification to the FCC.

Voluntary Antenna Structure Registration. Under the FCC’s prior rules, tower owners were given the option to voluntarily register structures even when the FCC’s rules did not require registration. The new rules will still allow voluntary registration, but parties will be allowed to indicate that the registration is indeed voluntary, and they will not be subject to the Part 17 rules that apply to towers that are required to be registered (i.e., towers that exceed 200 feet or, for those located in close proximity to an airport, lower heights).

Posting of Antenna Structure Registrations. The new ASR posting requirement gives tower owners greater latitude regarding where they must post their Antenna Structure Registration numbers. The old rule required that the ASR number be displayed “in a conspicuous place so that it is readily visible near the base of the antenna structure.” As a result of the rule change, registration numbers can now be posted at the “closest publicly accessible” location near the tower base.

Providing Antenna Structure Registration to Tower Tenants. Tenant copies of ASRs will no longer need to be given to tenants in paper. Under the new rules, a link to the FCC’s website can be provided by mail or email.

Inspection of Structure Lights and Associated Control Equipment. The Order established a process allowing qualifying network operations center-based monitoring systems to be exempted from the existing quarterly inspection requirements that apply to automatic or mechanical control devices, indicators, and alarm systems used to ensure tower lighting systems are functioning properly. Specifically, systems with advanced self-diagnostic functions, an operations center staffed with “trained personnel capable of responding to alarms 24 hours per day, 365 days per year”, and a backup network operations center that can monitor systems in the event of failure, may be eligible for the exemption.

Notification of Extinguishment or Improper Functioning of Lights. The FCC’s rules require that when tower lights do go out, tower owners immediately notify the FAA so that the FAA can issue a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) to make aircraft aware of the outage. Parties are also required to notify the FAA when repairs have been completed so that the FAA can cancel the NOTAM. Under the new rules, tower owners are required to keep the FAA up to date and let the FAA know when repairs are expected to be complete at the expiration of each NOTAM (which last 15 days each). The good news is that the FCC clarified its rules somewhat, stating that lighting repairs must be completed “as soon as practicable”. Instead of adopting a fixed deadline for repairs to be made, the FCC will consider whether the tower owner has exercised due diligence and made good faith efforts to complete repairs in a timely manner.

Recordkeeping Requirements. Under the FCC’s prior rules, there was no specification regarding how long records of improper functioning needed to be kept. Under the newly adopted rules, the FCC requires antenna structure owners to maintain records of observed or otherwise known outages or improper functioning of structure lights for two years, and the records must be provided to inspectors upon request.

Maintenance of Painting. With regard to painting, the FCC adopted the FAA’s “In-Service Aviation Orange Tolerance Chart” as the standard for determining whether an antenna structure needs to be cleaned or repainted. The FCC did not say how often towers should be repainted or how close someone has to be to compare the colors on the chart with those on the tower. The FCC did say that placing the chart over a portion of the top half of the tower would give the best results, as that is where most of the wear and tear typically occurs.

The new rules will take effect thirty days after notice of the Order is published in the Federal Register (except for those provisions requiring Office of Management and Budget approval), which has not yet occurred. Despite the time it took to adopt new rules, the rule changes themselves are relatively straightforward, and tower owners should be sure to take advantage of the new rules when they take effect. It’s not every day we see less regulation from the FCC.

Published on:

By

For those who follow my speaking schedule on our CommLawCenter Events Calendar… wait, no one follows my speaking schedule? Disappointing. Well if you had, you would have known I was speaking on a pair of regulatory panels at the Texas Association of Broadcasters’ convention yesterday (incidentally, another great show this year from Oscar Rodriguez and TAB’s excellent staff).

On the first of those panels, with Stephen Lee of the FCC’s Houston Enforcement Bureau office, we discussed the FCC’s July 1st expansion of the TV online political file requirement to all TV stations. During that discussion, an audience member asked whether radio stations would someday have to put their public inspection files online as well. I noted that when the FCC moved TV public files online in August of 2012, it had indicated that it was starting with TV, but anticipated it would eventually consider moving radio public files online as well. However, in the two years since, the FCC has focused on working the bugs out of the online public file software and has not mentioned expanding the online requirement to radio.

Unknown to most, that changed unexpectedly about two hours after the panel, when the FCC released a Public Notice rapidly responding to a petition for rulemaking filed just six days earlier by the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause and the Sunlight Foundation. The petition asked that cable and satellite providers also be required to post their political files online. While broadcasters and those three organizations (who have filed more than a dozen complaints against TV stations for alleged online political file violations in the past few months) haven’t seen eye to eye on much in the past, this might be one requirement they can agree on, albeit for very different reasons.

While the original purpose of the political file was to ensure that candidates had the information needed to enforce their rights to equal opportunity and lowest unit rate for advertising, the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause and the Sunlight Foundation have sought to use it instead to track political spending by PACs, since that information is not available, at least in real time, from the Federal Election Commission. To make it easier for them to access this information, they demanded the FCC require that TV stations post their political files online. They have also urged the FCC to require TV stations’ political files be posted in a machine-readable format to make aggregating the information easier.

Broadcasters opposed those efforts, noting the burden of keeping the fast-changing political file up to date online, and the competitive concerns with posting sensitive ad rate data online for all the world to see. In particular, they found it competitively unfair that broadcasters were required to post their ad rate information online when competing cable and satellite providers were not.

The FCC agreed, and when it decided to require that TV stations post their public files online, it originally excluded the political file from that requirement, finding that uploading and updating the political file online would be too burdensome. However, after a change in personnel at the FCC, the agency reversed course and concluded that posting the political file online wouldn’t be burdensome after all.

Television broadcasters therefore likely welcomed yesterday’s Public Notice seeking comment on at least leveling the information playing field with cable and satellite. However, buried in the middle of the Public Notice, and completely unrelated to the petition for rulemaking on cable and satellite political files to which the Public Notice responds, is a single sentence sending chills down the collective spines of radio broadcasters:

“We also seek comment on whether the Commission should initiate a rulemaking proceeding to require broadcast radio stations to use the online public file, and on an appropriate time frame for such a requirement.”

While the need to first launch a rulemaking means that a radio online public file requirement would take at least some time to implement, it appears that it is indeed (spontaneously) back on the FCC’s agenda. With staffs that are typically much smaller than those of TV stations, radio stations would undoubtedly find an online public file requirement to be far more burdensome than it was for TV (not that TV stations found it to be a picnic either). If they don’t want to find themselves facing that very burden in the not too distant future, radio licensees will need to speak up in what most would have assumed is a completely unrelated proceeding. To the broadcaster who asked that question at yesterday’s panel, the FCC has quietly changed my answer.

Published on:

By

The FCC’s July 11, 2014 Order, concluding that clips of video programming shown by broadcasters are required to be captioned when delivered on the Internet, was published in the Federal Register this week. The rule specifically applies when a provider posts a video clip or video programming online that was first aired on television (“covered” Internet Protocol (IP) video). The FCC ultimately plans to expand its Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) captioning rules to cover all forms of video programming on the Internet.

As I have discussed many times previously, the FCC requires that certain video programming delivered online by television stations be captioned if that programming previously aired on television with captions. Some of my recent posts on the subject can be found at the following links: “FCC Seeks Greater Clarity on IP Video Captioning Rules”, “Second Online Captioning Deadline Arrives March 30”, and “First Online Video Closed Captioning Deadline Is Here”.

More recently, I noted that the FCC sought comment on information regarding whether it should remove the “video clip” exemption from its rules. The FCC’s final answer was “yes”. The rules will apply to video clips regardless of their content or length.

According to the FCC, the new rules are intended to accomplish the following:

  • Extend the IP closed captioning requirements to IP-delivered video clips if the video programming distributor or provider posts on its Web site or application a video clip of video programming that it published or exhibited on television in the United States with captions;
  • Establish a schedule of deadlines for purposes of the IP closed captioning requirements;
  • After the applicable deadlines, require IP-delivered video clips to be provided with closed captions at the time the clips are posted online, except as otherwise provided;
  • Find that compliance with the new requirements would be economically burdensome for video clips that are in the video programming distributor’s or provider’s online library before January 1, 2016 for “straight lift clips”, and January 1, 2017 for “montages”; and
  • Apply the IP closed captioning requirements to video clips in the same manner that they apply to full-length video programming, which among other things means that the quality requirements applicable to full-length IP-delivered video programming will apply to video clips.

In its Order, the FCC also established the following set of deadlines for providing captions based on the type of video clip shown:

  • January 1, 2016: for “straight lift” clips, which include a “single excerpt of a captioned television program with the same video and audio that was presented on television”;
  • January 1, 2017: for “montages”, which are defined as a single file containing “multiple straight lift clips”; and
  • July 1, 2017: for “video clips of live and near-live television programming, such as news or sporting events”, keeping in mind that there is a “grace period” of twelve hours to caption “live video programming” and eight hours to caption “near-live programming.”

As part of the item, the FCC also issued a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which proposes to extend the reach of the FCC’s captioning rules even further. Among other things, the Further Notice is specifically asking for comment regarding whether: (1) third party video programming providers and distributors should be subject to the closed captioning requirements; (2) the FCC should decrease or eliminate the “grace periods” for “live” and “near-live” programming; (3) application of the IP closed captioning requirements should be extended to “mash-ups”, which the FCC defines as files that “contain a combination of video clips that have been shown on television with captions and online-only content”; and (4) application of the IP closed captioning rules to “advance” video clips “that are first added to the video programming distributor’s or provider’s library on or after January 1, 2016 for straight lift clips or January 1, 2017 for montages, but before the associated video programming is shown on television with captions, and which then remain online in the distributor’s or provider’s library after being shown on television.”

Comments on the Further Notice are due October 6, 2014, and reply comments are due November 3, 2014.

As is often the case, the new closed captioning rules adopted by the FCC are complex and parties should make sure that they remain up to speed with the rapid pace of the ever evolving rules in this area. The Order and Further Notice demonstrate that the FCC appears far from satisfied with the many new closed captioning rules that it has already adopted in recent years and that there will undoubtedly be additional rules to deal with in the not too distant future.

Published on:

By

July 2014

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:

  • Multi-Year Cramming Scheme Results in $1.6 Million Fine
  • Violation of Retransmission Consent Rules Leads to $2.25 Million Fine
  • $25,000 Fine for Failure to Respond to FCC

Continued Cramming Practices Lead to Double the Base Fine

The FCC recently issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) against a Florida telephone company for “cramming” customers by billing them for unauthorized charges and fees related to long distance telephone service.

The FCC had received more than 100 customer complaints against the company. The complaints alleged that the company had continued to bill the customers and charge them late fees after they had paid their final bills and canceled their service with the company. The FCC opened an investigation in response to the complaints and issued a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) to the company in July 2011, but the company did not submit a timely response. The FCC issued an NAL in 2011 proposing a $25,000 fine against the company for its failure to reply to the LOI, and ultimately issued a Forfeiture Order fining the company $25,000.

Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (the “Act”) requires that that “[a]ll charges . . . in connection with . . . communication service shall be just and reasonable.” Prior decisions of the FCC have determined that placing unauthorized charges and fees on consumers’ phone bills is an “unjust and unreasonable” practice and is therefore unlawful.

The NAL provides information from 11 customer complaints detailing instances where customers attempted to cancel their service and continued to be charged late fees and other fees by the company. The FCC determined that the phone company did not have authorization to continue billing these customers after they canceled their service.

Although the FCC’s Forfeiture Guidelines do not provide a base fine for cramming, the FCC has settled on $40,000 as the base fine for a cramming violation. The NAL addressed 20 cramming violations, which would create a base fine of $800,000. However, the FCC determined that an upward adjustment of the fine was appropriate in this case because the unlawful cramming practices had been occurring since 2011, the company did not respond to the 2011 LOI, and there was a high volume of customers who received cramming charges. Therefore, the FCC increased the proposed fine by $800,000, resulting in a total proposed fine of twice the base amount, or $1.6 million.

Cable Operator’s Retransmission of Six Texas TV Stations Results in Multi-Million Dollar Fine

Earlier this month, the FCC issued an order against a cable operator for rebroadcasting the signals of six full-power televisions stations in Texas in violation of the FCC’s retransmission consent rules.

The cable operator serves more than 10,000 subscribers in the Houston Designated Market Area (“DMA”) in 245 multiple-dwelling-unit buildings and previously had retransmission consent agreements with the stations. However, those agreements expired in December 2011 and March 2012. The cable operator continued retransmitting the signals of those stations without extending or renewing the retransmission consent agreements, and the licensees notified the cable operator that its continued retransmissions were illegal. Subsequently, each licensee filed a complaint with the FCC.

In its May 2012 response to the complaints, the cable operator did not deny that it had retransmitted the stations without the licensee’s express written consent, but said that it had relied on the master antenna television (“MATV”) exception to the retransmission consent requirement. The cable operator noted that it had begun converting its buildings to MATV systems in November 2011 and had hoped to complete the installations before the retransmission agreements expired in December 2011, but did not complete the MATV installation until July 26, 2012.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

For those of you following our numerous posts on EAS matters over the years, a new chapter starts today. After participating in EAS summits and meetings for such a long time, it’s hard to disagree that working to improve emergency alerts for all of us is one of the more important items before the FCC. The EAS summits hosted to address improvements to the alert system have been very useful toward achieving that goal, and many thanks should go out to the state broadcasters associations, the FCC, FEMA, the National Association of Broadcasters, Capitol Hill staff, and many others for working hard to save lives in emergencies, realizing in particular the vital role that local broadcasters play in that effort.

Today, the FCC’s latest EAS NPRM was published in the Federal Register, which means that parties will have 30 days to file comments and an addition fifteen days for reply comments. Comments are therefore due on August 14, and reply comments are due on August 29.

The NPRM is highly technical, but the proposed changes to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules are a response to the nationwide EAS test held in November 2011. The FCC notes in the NPRM that since the national test, it has implemented CAP and the Wireless Emergency Alert system to standardize geographically-based alerts and interoperability among equipment. According to the Commission, the proposals in the NPRM are intended as first steps to fix the vulnerabilities uncovered in the national test.

A copy of the NPRM can be found here.

Lots of very specific questions are posed in the NPRM, but the principal proposals are:

  • The FCC proposes that all EAS participants have the capability to receive a new six zero (000000) national location code. The national test used a location code for Washington, DC, but many EAS units apparently rejected it as outside their local area. The FCC says that the proposal is intended to remedy this problem by providing a code that will trigger EAS units regardless of location.
  • The second major proposal is to amend the rules governing national EAS tests. The FCC proposes to amend the rules to create an option to use the National Periodic Test (NPT) for regular EAS system testing and seeks comment on the manner in which the NPT should be deployed.
  • The Commission is also proposing to require that all EAS Participants submit test reports on an electronic (as opposed to paper) form. The information in the electronic reports that identifies monitoring assignments would then be integrated into State EAS Plans. The FCC proposes to designate the EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS) as the primary EAS reporting system and to require that all EAS Participants submit nationwide EAS test results data electronically via the ETRS for any future national EAS test.
  • The NPRM also asks whether the FCC should require that emergency crawls be positioned to remain on the screen (and not run off the edge of the screen) and be displayed for the duration of an EAS activation.

Finally, although not a primary topic of the NPRM, the FCC proposes that a reasonable time period for EAS Participants to replace unsupported equipment and to perform necessary upgrades and required testing to implement the proposed rules be six months from the effective date of any rules adopted as a result of the NPRM.

The NPRM attempts to tackle some difficult technical issues and is a tough read. However, given what is at stake, and the challenges of implementing a more nationwide approach to EAS, it is worth the effort.