RSS FCC Headlines
Published on:

By

In a not all that surprising development for those who monitor Chairman Carr’s pronouncements, the FCC’s Media Bureau today released a “Guidance on Political Equal Opportunities Requirement for Broadcast Television Stations” narrowing the programs found exempt from the Equal Opportunities requirement.  The clear target is appearances by candidates on the TV broadcast networks’ morning and late night interview programs.  Tellingly, while the Equal Opportunities requirement applies to both radio and TV stations, today’s Public Notice containing the guidance is directed only at “Broadcast Television Stations” (see the title above).

The Equal Opportunities requirement (often inaccurately called “equal time”) was created by Congress via Section 315(a) of the Communications Act of 1934.  This requirement was not only in the original statute as enacted in 1934, but the language was copied over from its predecessor statute, the Radio Act of 1927.  This 99-year-old provision requires that whenever a broadcast station has a political candidate appear on-air, the station must make comparable airtime available on comparable terms to all competing candidates that request it.  So if Candidate A buys a campaign spot, the station must sell comparable airtime at comparable rates to competing Candidates B, C, D, and E if they request it.  The true rub lies in the comparable rate part.  If the station grants free airtime to Candidate A, then B, C, D, and E are entitled to request free airtime as well.  As long as their request arrives within seven days of Candidate A’s appearance, the station must honor it (admittedly, I am simplifying a bit here).

Incredibly, from its original adoption in 1927 until 1959, the statutory language provided for no exceptions, so even a station airing a presidential news conference would trigger Equal Opportunities obligations if the President was running for reelection at the time.  The only reason this situation could persist for so long is that the FCC inferred an exception for newscasts in which a candidate appeared.  However, in 1959, the FCC reversed itself on even that, concluding that newscasts were not exempt.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has stated that decision “created a national furor, and it was feared that its strict application of the equal opportunities provision ‘would tend to dry up meaningful radio and television coverage of political campaigns.’”

In response, Congress reasserted itself, and in a matter of months amended the Communications Act to create exemptions where a candidate appears in:

(1) a bona fide newscast;

(2) a bona fide news interview;

(3) a bona fide news documentary; or

(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including political conventions and related activities).

In the early years after these exemptions were added, the FCC was rather begrudging as to which events it believed qualified as bona fide news.  In 1962, it ruled that the airing of candidate debates did not qualify for any of the exemptions, and in 1964, it ruled that candidate press conferences, even by the President, were not exempt from Equal Opportunities.  Almost comically, the FCC realized years later that the legislative history it had relied upon in making both these decisions referenced language that was stricken from the legislation before it was enacted.  As a result, the FCC reversed itself in 1975, adopting a broader interpretation of the exemptions.

In the years since, the FCC has specifically blessed a broad range of programs as containing bona fide news interviews, moving beyond traditional journalism programs like Meet the Press and Face the Nation to Donahue (1984), Entertainment Tonight (1988), the Sally Jessy Raphael Show (1991),  Jerry Springer (1994), Politically Incorrect (1999), Howard Stern (2003), and The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (2006).  Notably, the Communications Act only requires that a program fit into one of the four exemptions to be exempt from Equal Opportunities.  No pre-approval by the FCC is required.  However, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has noted in a different context, the FCC has “life and death power over” broadcasters, and it is therefore not surprising that stations would want a clear ruling from the FCC that a program is exempt before treating it as such.

Some early press articles have portrayed today’s action by the Media Bureau as “[t]he Federal Communications Commission told broadcasters late night and daytime talk shows are not exempt from the ‘equal time’ rule of the Federal Communications Act, meaning the talk shows will be required to provide political candidates equal opportunity for air time if their opponents sit down for interviews.”  That’s not quite right.  What the Media Bureau did today is more subtle, but equally consequential.  Late night and daytime talk shows that fit into one of the four exemptions will still qualify as exempt from Equal Opportunities because that is what the statute says and the FCC can’t overrule Congress.  Similarly, Congress didn’t require that broadcasters get prior approval from the FCC in order to treat a program as exempt, so the FCC can’t require that either.  What the FCC can do is make the life of a broadcast licensee airing an “unblessed” program miserable through its investigatory authority and control over broadcast license renewals and station sales, among other things.

That makes the dramatic aspect of today’s Public Notice the following two paragraphs from its last page (bold added):

“Concerns have been raised that the industry has taken the Media Bureau’s 2006 staff-level decision [regarding The Tonight Show] to mean that the interview portion of all arguably similar entertainment programs—whether late night or daytime—are exempted from the section 315 equal opportunities requirement under a bona fide news exemption.  This is not the case.  As noted above, these decisions are fact specific and the exemptions are limited to the program that was the subject of the request.

Importantly, the FCC has not been presented with any evidence that the interview portion of any late night or daytime television talk show program on air presently would qualify for the bona fide news exemption.  Moreover, a program that is motivated by partisan purposes, for example, would not be entitled to an exemption under longstanding FCC precedent.  Any program or station that wishes to obtain formal assurance that the equal opportunities requirement does not apply (in whole or in part) is encouraged to promptly file a petition for declaratory ruling that satisfies the statutory requirements for a bona fide news exemption.”

In other words, the Media Bureau has wiped the slate clean, making clear that no currently airing program should be considered exempt based on a prior FCC blessing, not even The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon because it is not The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (the latter being found exempt in 2006).

That means there are no safe harbors among these programs, and broadcast stations must either (1) treat such programs as exempt using their own best judgment and run the risk of being second-guessed by the FCC later, with appropriate penalties meted out, (2) seek a declaratory ruling for each program from the FCC, with the risk that any episodes aired without providing Equal Opportunities while awaiting such a decision could lead to FCC penalties if the FCC later concludes the program doesn’t fit into one of the statutory exemptions, or (3) treat every candidate appearance in every non-newscast program as triggering Equal Opportunities, and hand out airtime to competing candidates like candy.  Of course, all of these lead to the far more likely option 4: no candidate interviews aired outside of newscasts.  That hardly seems to be in the public interest, which is the guiding mandate of the FCC, much less consistent with the First Amendment.

On that last point, the Media Bureau’s words from its 2006 decision granting a safe harbor to The Tonight Show seem relevant (brackets omitted):

“The Entertainment Tonight ruling further states that ‘Congress did not note that bona fide news could be coverage of only certain substantive areas.’  It stated that the prospect of the Commission making determinations as to whether particular kinds of news are more or less bona fide ‘would involve unwarranted intrusiveness into program content and would be thus, at least suspect under the First Amendment.’  The ruling concludes that ‘so long as the program characteristics set out by Congress are met, our role is properly limited to determining whether a broadcaster was reasonable in deciding that a program fits within an exemption.  Our role is not to decide, by some qualitative analysis, whether one kind of news story is more bona fide than another.’

***

[W]e again note the Commission’s observation in Donahue: ‘it would seem elemental that Congress when adopting the news exemptions contemplated interviews with elected officials and candidates for elected office as newsworthy subject matter.’  As the Commission stated in Donahue, ‘Congressional intent is to defer substantially to the good faith news judgments of licensees.’”

How much deference remains to be seen.

Published on:

By and

Broadcasters’ next Quarterly Issues/Programs List (“Quarterly List”) must be placed in stations’ Public Inspection Files by January 10, 2026, reflecting information for the months of October, November, and December 2025.

Content of the Quarterly List

The FCC requires each broadcast station to air a reasonable amount of programming responsive to significant community needs, issues, and problems as determined by the station.  The FCC gives each station the discretion to determine which issues facing the community served by the station are the most significant and how best to respond to them in the station’s overall programming.

To demonstrate a station’s compliance with this public interest obligation, the FCC requires the station to maintain and place in the Public Inspection File a Quarterly List reflecting the “station’s most significant programming treatment of community issues during the preceding three month period.”  By its use of the term “most significant,” the FCC has noted that stations are not required to list all responsive programming, but only that programming which provided the most significant treatment of the issues identified.

Given that program logs are no longer mandated by the FCC, the Quarterly Lists may be the most important evidence of a station’s compliance with its public service obligations.  The lists also provide important support for the certification of Class A television station compliance discussed below.  We therefore urge stations not to “skimp” on the Quarterly Lists, and to err on the side of over-inclusiveness.  Otherwise, stations risk a determination by the FCC that they did not adequately serve the public interest during their license term.  Stations should include in the Quarterly Lists as much issue-responsive programming as they feel is necessary to demonstrate fully their responsiveness to community needs.  Taking extra time now to provide a thorough Quarterly List will help reduce risk at license renewal time.

The FCC has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the Quarterly Lists and often brings enforcement actions against stations that do not have complete Quarterly Lists in their Public Inspection File or which have failed to timely upload such lists when due.  The FCC’s base fine for missing or late Quarterly Lists is $10,000.

Preparation of the Quarterly List

The Quarterly Lists are required to be placed in the Public Inspection File by January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of each year.  The next Quarterly List is required to be placed in stations’ Public Inspection Files by January 10, 2026, covering the period from October 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

While there was much talk of broadcast deregulation at the FCC in 2025, the two big deregulatory changes of the past year were actually delivered by federal appeals courts.  Specifically, the Eighth Circuit’s elimination of the TV Big-4 duopoly rule, and Pillsbury’s own victory in a Fifth Circuit ruling that the FCC lacks authority to collect and publish on a station-by-station basis broadcast employee race, ethnicity and gender data via the fifty-year-old Form 395-B.  The first ruling opened the door to more competitive (and viable) TV station combinations, and the latter saved both radio and TV broadcasters many millions of dollars in compliance costs while also shielding them from online harassment by those finding fault with, or claiming news skew caused by, whatever mix of employee demographics a station happens to have.

So as we look ahead to 2026, all eyes are on the FCC in hopes that the talk of broadcast deregulation crystalizes into action this year.  For a list of potential targets for deregulation, look no further than Pillsbury’s just-released 2026 Broadcasters’ Calendar, outlining broadcasters’ major FCC and other filing deadlines for the year ahead.  Besides being a good reminder of important filing dates for stations across the U.S., the Calendar also serves as a reminder that no other form of media is regulated to such a degree as broadcasters, with fairly sizeable penalties for missteps, as Pillsbury’s monthly FCC Enforcement Monitor reminds us.

One prominent set of entries in the 2026 Broadcasters’ Calendar is the Quarterly Issues/Programs List requirement, which obligates stations to list issues relevant to their community in the past quarter and examples of programming aired to address those issues.  Once a major weapon in comparative license renewal hearings in which a challenger sought to demonstrate that a broadcaster’s license should not be renewed, and should instead be awarded to the challenger, time has passed them by.  First, Congress outlawed comparative license renewal challenges in 1996.  Second, the advent of digital video and audio recorders provide license renewal petitioners with far better and more comprehensive evidence of a broadcaster’s programming than any quarterly list.  For those with any doubts about this last point, you only need glance online to find videos of seemingly every program and newscaster gaffe ever aired by a station.

That makes the Quarterly Issues/Programs List one of the more challenging regulatory requirements to defend, as the only FCC actions related to them in recent decades has been to fine stations for failing to timely file them (base fine for a violation = $10,000).  For that reason, elimination of the Quarterly Issues/Programs List featured prominently in the many requests for broadcast deregulation filed in Chairman Carr’s Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding.  Whether such a change will come to pass depends heavily, however, on whether the FCC sees the lists as being relevant to Chairman Carr’s repeated calls to more aggressively enforce the FCC’s public interest mandate as it relates to programming.

Whether you view the 2026 Broadcasters’ Calendar as a handy regulatory roadmap for the year ahead, or as a reminder of all the regulatory obstacles that broadcasters, and broadcasters alone, must overcome to compete in an ever-expanding sea of unregulated media competitors, it is a useful document.  Make it your New Year’s resolution to spend some time with it.

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the 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 Issues Notice to Virginia Property Owner Over Pirate Radio Activity
  • Public Media Organization Enters into $86,400 Consent Decree Over False EAS Tones
  • Media Bureau Finds Broadcaster Did Not Violate Good Faith Negotiation Rules

FCC Warns Landowner Over Unauthorized Broadcasts on Its Property

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting to a Virginia property owner in Williamsburg, VA.  The Enforcement Bureau’s Columbia Office investigated the property after receiving a complaint about unlicensed FM broadcasts on 99.5 MHz.  On two separate occasions, April 1 and July 17, 2025, agents used direction-finding equipment to confirm that the transmissions were emanating from a restaurant located on the property.

FCC records indicated that no license had been issued for a broadcast station operating on 99.5 MHz at that location.  The Enforcement Bureau also determined that the transmissions exceeded the power limits permitted for unlicensed operation under Part 15 of its Rules.

Under the Preventing Illegal Radio Abuse Through Enforcement Act (the PIRATE Act), the FCC has the authority to impose substantial fines not only on the individuals directly responsible for unauthorized broadcasting, but also on property owners who knowingly and willfully allow such activity to take place on their premises.  The Notice warned the property owner that it could face penalties of up to $2,453,218 if the FCC determined that it continued to permit unauthorized pirate radio broadcasts from its property.

The Notice directs the property owner to respond to the FCC within ten business days and provide evidence that the unlicensed pirate radio broadcasts have ceased.  The Notice also requires the property owner to identify the individual(s) responsible for the pirate operation.  Finally, the Notice informs the property owner that a failure to respond may be treated as evidence of knowledge and consent to the illegal broadcasts for purposes of initiating subsequent FCC enforcement proceedings involving “significant financial penalties” against the landowner.

Public Media Organization Resolves False EAS Tone Violations With $86,400 Consent Decree

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a public media organization to resolve an investigation into the unauthorized transmission of Emergency Alert System (EAS) tones.  According to the Consent Decree, the organization distributed a program that included actual or simulated EAS tones to its 46 owned radio stations and approximately 500 affiliated stations, triggering violations of Sections 11.31 and 11.45 of the FCC’s Rules.  The Consent Decree includes an $86,400 civil penalty and a multi-part compliance plan.

The EAS is a national public warning system designed to deliver critical emergency information to the public, including weather alerts and AMBER alerts.  To preserve the integrity of emergency alerts, EAS tones may only be aired for specific uses, such as actual emergencies, authorized tests, and qualifying public service announcements (PSAs).  Section 11.45 of the FCC’s Rules strictly prohibits airing EAS tones or simulations thereof unless they are aired in connection with one of these uses.  The concern is that misuse of EAS tones will lead to accidental system triggers or the public becoming desensitized to the alert tones in an actual emergency, both of which threaten the effectiveness of the alerting system. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

 To close out 2025, the Space Bureau has conducted one last check of its open docket list, adding a final name to its packed post-President’s Day comment window.  An end of year Public Notice asks commenters to refresh the record on a five-year old rulemaking that proposes permitting non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellite systems to communicate with fixed earth stations mounted on moving platforms—known as Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs)—in additional frequency bands, including the 28.35–28.6 GHz band.  The proceeding, which followed in earnest on successive proceedings to expand ESIM availability across the Fixed-satellite service beginning in geostationary satellite orbit (GSO) and then in NGSO, has stagnated in recent years.

In 2020, the FCC tentatively authorized NGSO ESIMs in the 28.4-28.6 GHz band while deferring action on the 28.35-28.4 GHz portion of the band pending further study of out-of-band emissions vis-à-vis Upper Microwave Flexible Use Services (UMFUS) in the adjacent 27.5-28.35 GHz band.  Similar to other proceedings in the millimeterwave bands, the Bureau is requesting commenters update the record to provide any new or updated information or studies on the proposed emission limits, as well as the UMFUS and ESIM technologies deployed in their respective bands and any anticipated uses of these services.

Comments are due January 21, 2026; reply comments are due February 5, 2026.  Interested parties are advised that this proceeding is intended to run in parallel with—and does not duplicate the efforts of—the on-going Space Modernization or Facilitating More Intensive Use of Upper Microwave Flexible Use Spectrum rulemakings.  Any rules adopted in this proceeding shall be incorporated into the applicable rule section—Part 25 or Part 100—as and if applicable.

For more information about the above Public Notice, submitting comments, or NGSO satellite systems and ESIMs generally, please contact a member of Pillsbury’s Communications Practice Group.

Published on:

By and

The rapid expansion of the commercial space economy over the last decade has resulted in demand on spectrum far exceeding the Commission’s expectations at the time it devised and adopted its Upper Microwave Flexible Use Spectrum (UMFUS) sharing framework. At the same time, negligible adoption of millimeter wave bands by terrestrial services has upended the assumptions central to the framework and its constraints on earth station deployments in favor of 5G operations. As a result, the UMFUS framework quickly became an impediment to efficient use of millimeter wave spectrum and a barrier to the deployment of next-generation satellite systems.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Beginning January 1, 2026, the FCC’s audio description requirements will expand to commercial television stations affiliated with ABC, CBS, FOX, or NBC in 10 additional Nielsen Designated Market Areas (DMAs): Tyler-Longview (Lufkin & Nacogdoches), Sioux Falls (Mitchell), Fargo, Springfield-Holyoke, Lansing, Youngstown, Yakima-Pasco-Richland-Kennewick, Traverse City-Cadillac, Eugene, and Macon.  Audio-described programming is intended to make video programming more accessible to blind or visually impaired consumers by inserting “audio narrated descriptions of a television program’s key visual elements into natural pauses between the program’s dialogue.”

In October 2023, the FCC adopted the Audio Description Second Report and Order, which expanded the audio description requirements to (eventually) all television markets.  As set out in the Order, 10 additional DMAs will be phased in each year through 2035 until all DMAs are subject to the audio description rules.

Under Section 79.3 of the FCC’s Rules, stations subject to the audio description requirements must provide at least 50 hours of audio-described programming per quarter during primetime or children’s programming, and an additional 37.5 hours of programming per quarter aired between 6 a.m. and 11:59 p.m. local time.  The requirement applies to any of a station’s programming streams, whether primary or multicast, if the stream is affiliated with ABC, CBS, FOX, or NBC.

The next deadline, January 1, 2026, will apply to DMAs 111 to 120, with markets 121 to 210 phased in through 2035 according to the below schedule. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and
  • The FCC unanimously adopted an NPRM proposing a comprehensive restructuring and reform of its long-standing space and earth station licensing rules (Part 25).
  • The NPRM proposes to wholly replace its “Part 25 – Satellite Communications” rules with a new “Part 100 – Space and Earth Station Services” rule section.
  • Comments are due on January 20, 2026, with reply comments due by February 18, 2026.

In an effort to more effectively keep pace with and reduce the burdens on the rapidly evolving and expanding commercial space sector, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) unanimously adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing a comprehensive restructuring and reform of its long-standing space and earth station licensing rules (Part 25). With its breadth of scope and potential impacts across the space ecosystem, the NPRM also serves to highlight the key role the Commission will play in advancing the Trump administration’s broader objective to enhance American greatness in space and facilitate U.S. leadership and innovation.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

With a December 8 deadline to come into compliance with the FCC’s new sponsorship identification requirements for airing content connected to a foreign government, broadcasters have been racing to figure out how to comply in a practical way.  As previously discussed here and here, the new rule requires that broadcasters determine whether leases of airtime (including certain advertising) involve content that is provided, funded, or distributed by “governments of foreign countries, foreign political parties, agents of foreign principals, and United States-based foreign media outlets.”

Under the rule, broadcasters must document their completion of a number of required steps to determine if provided content has such foreign government connections, and if so, ensure disclosures are included in the content when aired, and place documentation of those disclosures in the Public Inspection File on a quarterly basis.

The challenge is not so much the airing of the disclosures themselves, but collecting the required paperwork from potentially thousands of advertisers to determine if any are connected to a foreign government.  Beyond the sheer paperwork and resources burden, broadcasters do not want to make it yet more difficult for advertisers to purchase broadcast airtime, particularly when those same advertisers can simply move their content to streamers or other online venues and skip the paperwork complexities entirely, whether connected to a foreign government or not.

The current version of the rule became effective on June 10, 2025, but on that date, the FCC extended the compliance deadline to December 8, 2025.  This gave broadcasters a six-month reprieve, but even with that added time, compliance remained a daunting proposition.

It was therefore with a sigh of relief that broadcasters learned this afternoon that the FCC has again moved the compliance deadline, this time to June 7, 2026.  This not only provides broadcasters with additional time to sort out a practical approach to complying with the new requirements, but keeps alive the hope that the FCC will use this added time to streamline these rather unwieldy requirements before next June.

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the 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 Extends Consent Decree After New “Issues” Arise
  • FCC Resolves Pirate Radio Investigation With 20-Year Consent Decree
  • Spurious Emissions Lead to Notice of Violation for FM Translator Licensee

Order Extends Consent Decree Obligations Through 2029

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau recently released an Order amending a 2024 Consent Decree with a nationwide business communications company extending the company’s compliance obligations by an additional year.  Under the amended terms, the company will now be required to file compliance reports through 2029 and report any noncompliance with the FCC’s rules or the Consent Decree during the now extended term within 15 days of discovery.  The Order did not assess any new fines, but incorporated the extended reporting period and updated several provisions of the original Consent Decree.  The FCC did not elaborate on the reasons it deemed the extension necessary, stating only that it was done “to resolve issues arising after adoption and release of the Consent Decree.”

As we discussed here in April 2024, the company agreed to the original Consent Decree to resolve an FCC investigation into its unauthorized control and operation of multiple private business radio licenses.  The investigation stemmed from the company’s acquisition of entities holding FCC licenses without prior FCC approval, along with continued operations under expired or improperly transferred authorizations.  To resolve the investigation, the company agreed to pay a $100,000 civil penalty, implement a multi-year compliance plan, and submit annual compliance reports to the FCC for four years.  Due to the additional “issues,” the four-year compliance plan is now a five-year compliance plan.

The important takeaway from this proceeding is that a consent decree does not mark the end of an investigatory encounter with the FCC, but is merely a waypoint.  The penalty for a repeated offense while the consent decree is still in effect can be substantial.  In addition, most consent decrees require the alleged violator to promptly report any new violations to the FCC, greatly increasing the likelihood that new violations will come to light (and of course concealing violations that a consent decree requires be promptly reported ramps up the risk of severe FCC enforcement action considerably).  So those who sign a consent decree thinking the worst is behind them need to make a concerted effort to ensure that there are no future violations as well, particularly during the term of the consent decree.  The enforcement process does not end when the “voluntary contribution” payment is made under a consent decree.  It continues quietly, through compliance reports, follow-up reviews, and, when needed, renewed enforcement action.

Massachusetts Pirate Radio Operator Agrees to Lengthy 20-Year Consent Decree

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau has entered into a Consent Decree with an individual operating a pirate radio station in Massachusetts.  Pirate radio operations are illegal under the Communications Act of 1934 and can interfere with licensed communications, posing a danger to the public by interfering with licensed stations carrying public safety messages, including Emergency Alert System transmissions.

The Consent Decree follows the FCC’s issuance of a $40,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in April 2024 for operating an unauthorized FM broadcast station without a license.  In the NAL, the FCC found that the individual had twice violated the FCC’s Rules, on June 6 and July 11, 2023, by operating an unauthorized radio station.  Under Section 511 of the Communications Act, the FCC may impose a fine against any person “who willfully and knowingly does or causes or suffers to be done any pirate radio broadcasting.” Continue reading →