Articles Posted in

Published on:

By

With radio license renewals underway, TV license renewals starting soon, the TV repack chugging along, and a whole new set of deadlines for kidvid launching this year, there are a lot of 2020 deadlines that broadcasters must track and meet.

To help broadcasters accomplish that, Pillsbury has published a new edition of its Broadcasters’ Calendar each year for longer than anyone can recall. (This is the 33rd edition that I’ve personally contributed to.)

And it is a doozy. 2020 is one of the busier regulatory years in recent memory, making the recently published 2020 edition of the Pillsbury Broadcasters’ Calendar an essential tool for broadcasters. While the internet works well for monitoring breaking changes in regulations and deadlines, its tendency to focus your attention on each new change in isolation makes it a poor tool for broadcasters seeking to obtain the big picture and plan their year.

In particular, TV broadcasters will want to focus on the various deadlines related to children’s television. With the FCC’s new rules going into effect on January 21, 2020, broadcasters are entering into a rather complicated transitional period, and we held off on finalizing this year’s Broadcasters’ Calendar until all of those deadlines were set. That allows broadcasters to not only ensure they are meeting their modified January 10 obligations, but to see how those obligations mesh with the shift from quarterly to annual kidvid obligations.

There are sure to be plenty of surprises in 2020. Regulatory obligations that are already in place should not be one of them. We hope you find the 2020 Pillsbury Broadcasters’ Calendar a useful addition to your planning for the year ahead, and wish you a successful 2020.

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:

  • North Carolina FM Translator Station Hit With $2,000 Proposed Fine Over Primary Station Change
  • FCC Admonishes Georgia TV Stations for Insufficient Political File Disclosures
  • FCC Proposes Historic Fine Against Massachusetts Pirate Radio Operation

Carolina On My Mind: FCC Proposes $2,000 Fine Over Raleigh FM Translator’s Primary Station Confusion

A Raleigh FM translator briefly rebroadcast a station that was not its primary station and which was already being rebroadcast by another commonly-owned translator in the area.  In response, the FCC proposed a $2,000 fine for the licensee’s failure to notify the Commission or to provide any justification for such redundant operations.

An FM translator station rebroadcasts the signal of a primary AM or FM station on a different frequency.  Translators are often used to provide “fill in” service in poor reception areas due to distance or terrain obstructions.  Section 74.1251(c) of the FCC’s Rules requires an FM translator station to notify the FCC in writing if it changes its primary station.  Pursuant to Section 74.1232, an entity may not hold multiple FM translator licenses to retransmit the same signal to substantially the same service area without first demonstrating “technical need” for an additional station, such as a signal gap in the service area.

The Raleigh licensee originally applied for a construction permit to build facilities for an FM translator in July 2018 and shortly thereafter amended the application to change the translator’s proposed primary station.  The FCC’s Media Bureau granted the application a few weeks later.  After completing construction, the licensee filed, and the Media Bureau granted, a license for the translator.

Throughout this process, the licensee of a nearby low power FM station filed multiple petitions–one challenging the FCC’s grant of the construction permit, and a later one challenging the grant of the license itself.  Though the first petition was dismissed by the FCC as “procedurally defective”, the latter became the basis of an investigation into the new station.  The petitioner claimed that since initiating service, the new translator station had been rebroadcasting a nearby AM station rather than the FM station specified as the primary station in its construction permit application.  According to the petitioner, the translator only “returned” to its authorized primary station when the primary FM station began simulcasting the AM station.

The petitioner also asserted that the translator licensee failed to show any “technical need” to rebroadcast the AM station since the AM station was already being rebroadcast to substantially the same area by another translator licensed to an entity that was commonly-owned with the FM translator.

The FCC concluded that the new translator had violated its rules by failing to notify the FCC when it commenced rebroadcasting the AM station during its first month of operation.  The FCC further determined that the licensee should have first submitted a “technical need” showing to support this change due to the presence of the nearby commonly-owned translator station rebroadcasting the same programming.

As a result, the FCC issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability against the licensee, proposing a $2,000 fine.  While FCC guidelines set a base fine of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and a $4,000 base fine for unauthorized emissions, the Commission may adjust a fine upward or downward after considering the particular facts of each case.  Acknowledging the brief duration of the licensee’s violations and finding no history of prior offenses, the FCC proposed a total fine of $2,000.  Additionally, the Commission determined that the licensee’s actions did not raise a “substantial or material question of fact” regarding the licensee’s qualifications to remain a licensee, and affirmed its decision to grant the translator license application.

Political Ad Nauseum: FCC Admonishes Georgia TV Stations Over Political File Defects

In a recent Order, the FCC’s Media Bureau admonished the licensees of two Georgia television stations in response to complaints alleging violations of the FCC’s political file rules.  According to the FCC, the stations failed to sufficiently comply with record-keeping obligations in response to several political ad sales made in 2017.

Pursuant to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (often referred to as “BCRA” or the “McCain-Feingold Act”), broadcasters are required to keep and make available extensive records of purchases and requests for purchases of advertising time if the advertisement communicates a message relating to a “political matter of national importance”.  Section 315(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, which was amended by BCRA, states that ads that trigger such disclosure include those that relate to legally qualified federal candidates and elections to federal office, as well as “national legislative issues” of public importance. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The FCC announced the opening of a new filing window to modify pending applications proposing new digital Low Power TV and TV translator service in rural areas.  This filing window will permit applicants with long-pending applications who have subsequently been displaced by the Incentive Auction and the repacking process to submit amended proposals, subject to certain conditions.

In June 2009, the FCC announced a filing window for new digital LPTV and TV translator stations to serve rural areas.  The window opened on August 25, 2009, and the plan was for the FCC to permit similar new, non-rural proposals to be filed starting on January 25, 2010.  However, at the same time that the FCC was accepting applications for new rural LPTV and TV translator stations, it was also considering the adoption of the National Broadband Plan, which, inter alia, proposed to re-purpose a portion of the UHF television spectrum.  The FCC first delayed, and then cancelled, the “non-rural” filing window, and imposed a freeze on the filing and processing of the rural proposals.

As a result, there are now a significant number of pending applications for new LPTV and TV translator stations to serve rural areas that have been frozen since 2010.  The new filing window, which will be open between December 2, 2019 and January 31, 2020, will permit applicants to submit amendments that (i) specify a new digital channel in the revised TV band and/or (ii) propose a change in transmitter site of 48 kilometers or less.  The amendments must protect full-power, Class A television and LPTV/translator stations that have been licensed or that hold valid construction permits, along with any previously-filed applications for those services.  Moreover, any amendment must continue to qualify as a rural service proposal.

After the window closes on January 31, 2020, the FCC will provide mutually-exclusive applicants the opportunity to resolve conflicting proposals through settlement or engineering amendments.  If an engineering conflict cannot be resolved, the FCC will conduct an auction.  The FCC will dismiss all pending applications that do not submit an in-core amendment during the filing window.

Given the holiday season and the short turnaround on filing amendments, applicants with long-pending applications should move quickly to find a new channel and/or tower site that will permit the FCC to process their application.