Articles Posted in Congress & Legislation

Published on:

By

Earlier this month we posted our 2011 Broadcasters Calendar on CommLawCenter as well as on our Pillsbury web page. We have been annually publishing the Broadcasters Calendar, which contains much information regarding broadcast station deadlines and legal requirements, for as long as I can recall. It has always been one of our most popular publications, and I usually get calls beginning in early November asking when next year’s calendar will be available. The “easy to read” pdf version of the Calendar can be found here, and a text-searchable version is available here.

Even a brief review of the 2011 Broadcasters Calendar reminds us that 2011 will be a busy year for not just broadcasters, but for cable and satellite operators as well. October 1, 2011 is the deadline by which broadcasters qualifying for must-carry need to notify cable and satellite operators of their election between must-carry status and retransmission consent. Recent retransmission disputes once again remind us that retransmission negotiations and their associated revenue are critical to the future of broadcast television. However, the sheer volume of negotiations and carriage disputes likely to occur following the October 1 election deadline will almost certainly make this holiday season look tranquil by comparison.

Adding to the action will be continued efforts by the cable and satellite industries to draw Congress and the FCC into the fray, introducing legislative and regulatory uncertainties into an already complex negotiation process. Their chances for success will depend greatly upon how much disruption in carriage of broadcast programming occurs in 2011, and the public’s perception of who is at fault for that disruption. Regardless of the outcome of this particular Washington confrontation, look for 2011 to be the year where economics force cable and satellite providers to more tightly link the number of viewers a program service attracts with the amount they agree to pay for that service. Overpaying for niche cable networks that don’t pull in large numbers of viewers is so “last decade”.

2011 also marks the beginning of the FCC’s next eight-year license renewal cycle, with radio stations in DC, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia starting pre-filing announcements in April for their upcoming license renewal applications. The filing cycle will continue state by state until it concludes with television stations in Delaware and Pennsylvania running their last post-filing announcements on June 16, 2015.

However, many stations haven’t had their last license renewal application granted because of indecency complaints still pending against them. The FCC has pretty much ceased processing indecency complaints while it awaits guidance from the courts as to whether it can legally enforce the prohibition on broadcast indecency, and if so, how it will be allowed to do that. I have been told that there are literally hundreds of thousands of indecency complaints now pending at the FCC, so unless the courts do the FCC the favor of finding the prohibition on indecency completely unconstitutional, it will take the FCC years to sift through these complaints in an effort to apply any refined indecency standard announced by the Supreme Court.

It is therefore reasonable to predict that indecency complaints will continue to play a large role in the processing of upcoming license renewal applications. 2011 will hopefully be the year when the courts tell us exactly how large (or small) that role will be. If the prohibition on indecency survives this latest round of judicial scrutiny, broadcasters and the FCC can expect a lot of complaint investigations and litigation as both struggle with where the line on content is being drawn.

Of course there are numerous other events that will contribute to 2011 being one of the busiest years in memory for broadcasters. A rebounding economy is slowly lifting most boats in the broadcast industry, with the obvious exception being those that burned their critical assets for fuel during the lean times, and don’t have much boat left.

With a growing amount of money to fight over, the fights will begin in earnest (see “Retrans” above). Negotiations between the NAB and the recording industry over performance royalties will continue, and “performance tax” legislation will again rise in Congress with the same certainty that the slasher in a horror film returns for unending sequels.

Broadcasters and the FCC will also be implementing the latest generation of the Emergency Alert System in 2011, and the FCC will continue its efforts to repurpose broadcast spectrum for mobile broadband use, leading to new rules permitting multiple broadcasters to share a single channel, and potentially to legislation allowing participating broadcasters to share in the proceeds of broadband spectrum auctions. As with most of the items discussed above, there is both opportunity and peril for broadcasters here, and those that are inattentive risk missing the former and being battered by the latter.

Yes, 2011 will be a very busy year.

Published on:

By

While we await release of the text of today’s Net Neutrality order from the FCC, it strikes me as useful to take a step back and apply a broader perspective to what can be learned from the debate that led to it. While lawyers get a rush when they think they have come up with the perfect legal argument to support their client’s cause (and we’re fun at parties too!), those of us working in Washington have to concede that legal arguments are often secondary to the politics involved. Certainly, the FCC’s order will not be the last word in the Net Neutrality debate, with a number of prominent members of Congress already promising a legislative rebuke, and the near certainty of the courts being called upon to assess the FCC’s authority to adopt such rules.

In spite of the millions spent on lawyers and lobbyists on both sides of this issue, the result was in many ways preordained by the real champion in this debate, linguistics. Much of the battle was won when proponents summarized their position as being in favor of “Net Neutrality”, a term that is sufficiently innocuous yet catchy enough to crystallize the debate as being between those who want a neutral/fair apportionment of the Internet’s capabilities, and those who, well, don’t. Opponents were put instantly on the defensive, trying to explain why a neutral Internet wouldn’t be a good thing.

While other terms were also bandied about in the early days of the debate (like “broadband discrimination” or “traffic prioritization”), none had the simple positive ring (and alliteration) of Net Neutrality. “Internet Indifference” might have been a good candidate as well, but no one seems to have thought of it at the time.

Added to this linguistic head start is the fact that the concept itself is simply easier to explain in positive terms than in negative ones. Stories on the Washington Post’s website today described Net Neutrality as a regulation that “ensures unimpeded access to any legal Web content for home Internet users” and which marks “the government’s strongest move yet to ensure that Facebook updates, Google searches and Skype calls reach consumers’ homes unimpeded.” Based on that description, readers would be hard pressed to conclude that Net Neutrality is a bad thing, and much of the mainstream press used terms similar to the Post’s in describing today’s action by the FCC.

Taking the contrary position, there are two big problems with arguing that Net Neutrality is “an intrusive government interference into the management of broadband networks that will impede the evolution of new models of business on the Internet while requiring Internet innovators to first consider and navigate government regulations before implementing new Internet services.” First, it doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue like the Post’s description of Net Neutrality. Second, it requires several additional explanations of exactly how Net Neutrality regulations would have that effect. It isn’t necessarily obvious from the statement alone.

The point of this is not to debate the merits of Net Neutrality itself, but to note that taking the time to carefully craft and package a proposal before presenting it (to the FCC or any other part of the government, including Congress) frames the debate in your favor. It is not an irrefutable advantage, but claiming the linguistic high ground forces opponents to expend far more of their resources fighting their way uphill, while the proponent conserves its legal and political resources waiting at the top. Many opponents will falter before they reach the top, and those that do make it will be exhausted from the climb.

In the case of Net Neutrality, vast resources were arrayed on both sides of the debate, but the political and public popularity engendered by the phrase “Net Neutrality” and the easily understood arguments on its behalf proved to be insurmountable today. It is safe to say, however, that opponents of Net Neutrality regulations are already regrouping for their next charge in Congress and in the courts, and that today’s skirmish was merely the first of many to come.

Published on:

By

Members of the Communications Industry that don’t keep up with legal and political developments in Washington aren’t in the industry for long. That truism has been particularly apt in the past few months, starting with the President’s October signing of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 which, among other things, cleared the way for reinstatement of the FCC’s former Video Description rules for television broadcasters, extended closed captioning of video programming to the Internet, and required the FCC to examine methods of increasing the accessibility of emergency information.

Normally, the weeks before a congressional election and the lame duck session afterwards are not a fertile environment for communications legislation, which has a tendency to be controversial because of the stakes involved (can you say “net neutrality”?). However, the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, which was spurred to passage by a congressional desire to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, was merely the beginning.

The lame duck session has now generated several more pieces of successful legislation. Last week the President signed the first of these, the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act, which requires television stations to transmit at a consistent volume level (rather than make viewers lunge for their mute button at every commercial break). Congress followed the CALM Act with passage of the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, which is now awaiting the President’s signature. This legislation prohibits manipulation of caller ID information with intent to defraud or harm others.

Apparently building steam, Congress proceeded to adopt the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 this past weekend, which reduces the extent of interference protection that full power radio stations will receive from Low Power FM stations, thus clearing the way for many more LPFM stations to be wedged into the FM radio band. This legislation is also now waiting for the President’s signature.

So, is there something in the DC drinking water that has a lame duck Congress suddenly tackling communications issues as though “gridlock” was only a term from morning traffic reports? Maybe. But the truth is more complicated than that. With regard to the CALM Act, controversy about loud television commercials dates back decades. The FCC long ago considered adopting rules to prohibit such “variable volume” broadcasting, but concluded in 1984 that “due to the subjective nature of many of the factors that contribute to loudness, it would be virtually impossible to craft new regulations that would be effective.” However, the transition to digital television has made it far more feasible to craft and enforce objective technical standards for loudness, lessening somewhat broadcasters’ concerns that regulation would lead to free-roaming loudness police second-guessing a station’s engineering practices.

Similarly, the LPFM interference issue has been simmering for a decade, with a succession of bills trying and failing to eliminate the requirement that LPFM stations protect full power stations’ third-adjacent channels from interference. However, what finally put the Local Community Radio Act over the top was a legislative compromise that, among other things, assured full power broadcasters that LPFM will be categorized as a secondary service to full power stations. This means that full power broadcast stations can continue to modify their facilities to improve their audience reach without finding themselves blocked by the interference such a modification might cause local LPFM stations. In light of this and other modifications to the bill, broadcasters were able to offer their support for its adoption, finally breaking the longstanding impasse.

So what’s next? Well, Congress remains keenly interested in communications issues, as evidenced by the lively discussion (and legislative threats) surrounding the FCC’s upcoming net neutrality order. Broadcasters, however, are hoping that this lame duck session concludes quickly, leaving the Performance Rights Act and its goal of requiring broadcasters to pay royalties to the recording industry the subject of continued inter-industry negotiations, rather than the latest statutory mandate emerging from the twilight hours of the 111th Congress.

Published on:

By

As we discussed in a previous post and separate Client Advisory, the FCC released a Public Notice to implement a provision of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) that requires the FCC to submit a report on in-state broadcast programming to Congress by August 11, 2011. The Public Notice was published in the Federal Register yesterday, which means that comments are due by January 24, 2011, with reply comments due by February 22, 2011.

As we discussed previously, the purpose of the FCC’s Report to Congress is to address a concern of some members of Congress that subscribers located in markets that straddle a state line may be unable to receive broadcast news and information from their own state because the local stations made available by cable and satellite providers are all located in the “other” state. According to the FCC, the report will: (1) analyze the number of households in a state that receive the signals of local broadcast stations assigned to a community of license located in a different state; (2) evaluate the extent to which consumers in each local market have access to in-state broadcast programming over-the-air or from a multichannel video programming distributor; and (3) consider whether there are alternatives to DMAs for defining “local” markets that would provide consumers with more in-state broadcast programming.

This proceeding is relevant to retrans because there have been some efforts on Capitol Hill to introduce legislation allowing cable and satellite operators to import the signals of television stations from another market. While the official description of this situation describes these subscribers as being deprived of news and information regarding their own state, the more pragmatic concern of such viewers it is argued is that they aren’t able to watch sports teams from their state as often as they would like. However, creating a legislative opportunity to import distant stations carrying such in-state sports (and other) programming would often mean importing a station that duplicates the network and syndicated programming of a local station already carried by cable systems and satellite providers in the market. Importing stations in this manner raises complex issues with respect to potentially siphoning off the local station’s viewers (and advertisers), undercutting the local station’s program exclusivity, and impacting the local station’s leverage when it commences retransmission consent negotiations.

For those who plan on filing comments or replies, keep in mind that the FCC has specifically asked for data to help it analyze the issues relating to the availability of in-state broadcast stations for consumers, including the proper “methodologies, metrics, data sources, and level of granularity” that should be used in its report to Congress. The FCC is also asking for specific information to identify counties and populations within given states that have limited access to in-state broadcast programming.

As a result of efforts currently underway on the Hill with respect to potentially allowing the importation of in-state but out-of-market signals, those interested in retransmission consent should continue to monitor this matter closely.

By
Posted in: Congress & Legislation
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

Yesterday, a day in advance of the November 24th statutory deadline to adopt rules implementing the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act, the FCC released a flurry of STELA-related orders. STELA governs the satellite carriage of broadcast stations, and in particular, the importation of distant network stations, in local markets. Because STELA and its predecessor statutes lie at the nexus of communications and copyright law, they represent very complex and arcane matters that often leave even communications lawyers scratching their heads if they aren’t experienced in the area.

For those interested in the details of yesterday’s three Orders and the FCC’s request for additional comments, I recommend taking a look at our Client Advisory on the subject from earlier today. For the rest of the population, suffice it to say that the major impact of these orders for broadcasters is how they affect the ability of satellite operators to import a “significantly viewed” (“SV”) duplicating network signal into portions of a local market, thereby undercutting the local network affiliate’s ratings, ad revenue, and retransmission negotiations.

As detailed in the Client Advisory, of the FCC’s three Orders, one favors satellite operators by making it easier to import distant network stations into a market, while the other two favor broadcasters by limiting the proportion of satellite subscribers in a market that are eligible to sign up to receive a distant network station.

Of particular note is the FCC’s conclusion in one of the Orders that “because SV status generally applies to only some areas in a DMA and not throughout an entire DMA, we find it unlikely that an SV station could permanently substitute for a local in-market station, even in the provision of network programming to the market.” The FCC further stated that “because most viewers want to watch their local stations, we do not think that carriage of only SV stations would satisfy most subscribers for an extended time.”

That is a comforting conclusion for broadcasters, and probably an accurate one. However, it may be cold comfort for the local broadcaster in heated retransmission negotiations where the satellite operator threatens to import a duplicative network station into the market. Because of that, and despite the complexity of the law in this area, television station owners and satellite operators need to acquire a keen understanding of each other’s rights under STELA and the FCC’s related rules, or proceed at their own peril.

Published on:

By

Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission issued three Orders and a Public Notice designed to implement the new requirements of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA).

The FCC beat by one day the November 24, 2010 statutory deadline for adopting new rules governing several aspects of satellite operators’ carriage of television broadcast signals under STELA. The first of three Orders favors satellite providers by making it easier for them to import the signals of significantly viewed (“SV”) stations from neighboring markets into a station’s local television market. However, the other two Orders favor broadcasters in updating the procedures for subscribers wishing to qualify to receive distant network television stations from their satellite operator. Lastly, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comments and data for a required report to Congress regarding the availability of in-state broadcast stations to cable and satellite subscribers located in markets straddling state borders.

Significantly Viewed Stations Order
In this Order, the FCC concluded that, under STELA, a satellite subscriber must generally subscribe to the local-into-local package before it can receive the signal of an out of market station significantly viewed (over-the-air) in that subscriber’s area. Illogically, however, the subscriber does not have to receive the signal of the local affiliate of the same network as the imported SV network station. The subscriber’s receipt by satellite of any local station is all that is needed. The FCC stated that its interpretation means that, where a local affiliate is not carried during negotiation of a retransmission consent agreement, the satellite carrier can provide certain subscribers with network programming from an SV network station in a neighboring market.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

By Richard R. Zaragoza

Talk about being in a tough spot. Members of Congress are urging the FCC to broker an agreement between Cablevision and Fox in their ongoing retransmission consent dispute. Cablevision’s subscribers in the impacted areas are worried that the contractual dispute will not end any time soon and the FCC is obviously concerned with the consumer disruption. But what can the FCC actually do? The answer is, not much, and it appears to be doing all it can at the moment.

As a matter of longstanding policy, the FCC has generally refused to get involved in private contractual disputes between companies it regulates. And as we discussed in a previous post, with respect to retransmission consent, the FCC does not have the authority under the Communications Act to force Cablevision and Fox to come to an agreement or to require interim carriage while the parties continue to negotiate.

In other words, the FCC’s hands are largely tied. FCC Chairman Genachowski as recently as last night issued a press release again urging the parties to reach a deal, but absent evidence of a lack of good faith negotiating tactics by the parties, there is little more that he or the FCC can do.

In order to help Cablevision’s subscribers figure out what to do, the FCC has issued a Consumer Advisory that explains what’s going on with the dispute and provides suggestions that may be at a Cablevision subscribers’ disposal. The Advisory is called “What Cablevision Subscribers Should Know About Receiving Fox-Owned Stations WNYW (NY), WWOR (NJ) & WTRF (PA)”, and the document provides an excellent informational resource for any pay-TV subscriber who might be affected by the expiration of a retransmission consent agreement. In my view, the Alert also strongly suggests that subscribers in such circumstances generally have a number of viable alternatives so that they can continue to view their favorite television stations.

The Alert makes it clear that Cablevision may carry the Fox station signals and their programming only if Cablevision and Fox reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Importantly, the Alert also makes clear that subscribers to Cablevision have a number of alternatives to allow them to continue to view the Fox stations and their programs by using other pay-TV providers such as AT&T, DIRECTV, DISH Network, RCN and Verizon FIOS, or viewing the stations over-the-air using a digital television set or an analog TV set connected to a digital-to-analog converter box (using an appropriate antenna in either case). In short, because a number of viewing options are available to the public, no one is prevented from continuing to watch the stations just because Cablevision and Fox have been unable to reach a mutual agreement on the terms of an extension or renewal of their carriage agreement.

The FCC’s Alert was issued in the midst of calls from Members of Congress, U.S. Senators and others that Cablevision and Fox be ordered to submit to binding arbitration. By the FCC’s action in publishing the Alert, the Commission signals that it does not have the authority either to command agreement between these private parties or to force them into arbitration. The Alert also supports the view that such action is not needed to protect the public because competition from other pay-TV providers, as well as free over-the-air access via indoor or outdoor antennae, assure the public of the continued availability of affected stations and their programming.

Published on:

By

Last week, Congress passed the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (the “Act”) which, among other things, reinstates the FCC’s former Video Description rules for television broadcasters, extends closed captioning of video programming to the Internet, and requires the FCC to examine methods of increasing the accessibility of emergency information. The President signed the bill today, October 8, 2010.

The Act is designed to update the Communications Act to account for the many new technologies available in today’s marketplace and to assure that they are accessible to persons with hearing or vision impairment. The Act outlines a decade-long timetable for the submission of various reports by a new advisory committee to the FCC, and then by the FCC to Congress, and the implementation of further regulations based on the findings of those reports. When fully implemented, the Act will require that specific amounts of digital television programming contain video descriptions, that certain video programming distributed via the Internet contain closed captions, and that consumer electronics devices contain features to promote accessibility and be hearing aid compatible. We have summarized the Act’s requirements in three phases below.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Having spent a good portion of last week on the road and on conference calls talking about the latest Performance Tax developments, I heard a lot from broadcasters on the subject. For those blissfully unaware of this legislative battle, the recording industry has been seeking a financial parachute from broadcasters to help slow the rate of its descent into an economic abyss. The irony of course is that if illegal music downloads on the Internet are what has caused the recording industry’s plunge, reaching out to drag broadcasters into the abyss with them merely weakens an ally in the battle to protect content from illegal distribution over the Internet.

Famously dubbed a performance “tax” by broadcasters, the legislation sought by the recording industry would require broadcasters to pay royalties to the recording industry for playing music on-air. Beyond the obvious short term benefit of royalty checks from broadcasters that choose to retain a music-based format, the recording industry hopes the passage of a U.S. law requiring such royalties for broadcasts in the U.S. will cause foreign countries to release royalties already being collected for airplay of U.S. artists in those countries. Unfortunately, because most of the record companies are now foreign-owned, much of that money, along with royalties paid by U.S. broadcasters, would wind up in foreign hands, undercutting any argument for this “found money” being an economic benefit in the U.S. All of the royalty funds would come from the U.S., but only a portion of those funds would stay in the U.S. However, one would hope that at least some of those royalties, if they do come to pass, would actually reach the U.S. artists responsible for creating the music that the recording industry has been selling and reselling to us over the years.

Broadcasters have been successful in blocking Performance Tax legislation because of good grass roots efforts to remind Congress that radio promotes the sale of music at no charge to the record labels or to the artists that have ridden radio airplay to fame (and whose records and concert tickets continue to sell because of radio airplay). The long, sordid history of payola — the record labels’ efforts to curry airplay via cash and other payments to radio station programmers — supports broadcasters’ proposition that the “value” of radio airplay exceeds any “costs” it imposes on the recording industry.

It was therefore with great surprise that many radio broadcasters heard last week that negotiating teams for the two industries were floating a multi-part proposal to resolve the legislative impasse — a compromise that would require, for the first time, that artist (as opposed to songwriter) royalties be collected on broadcast airplay of music. While the proposal has some attractive features for broadcasters (most importantly the inclusion of FM receiving chips in cellphones), I got an earful from broadcasters absolutely incensed at the notion of promoting music and concert sales, and then being charged for doing it.

If any member of Congress thinks that “radio promotes music sales” is just a broadcaster talking point for meetings, encountering a broadcaster last week would have decisively corrected that impression. Some broadcasters I talked to had such a visceral reaction to the very concept of such payments that it didn’t matter to them what the beneficial points of the proposal were. For them, it was as if someone had told them to “pay the ransom to the kidnappers and hope for the best.” Some appreciated that it could be the pragmatic thing to do to put the issue behind them, but still found the very concept reprehensible. To be sure, there is money involved and that can sway a person’s thinking. However, a number of the broadcasters I spoke with were so fundamentally opposed to the concept that they would reject the idea even if other parts of the proposal actually resulted in more money coming in from the proposal than going out.

I understand that perspective, but lawyers are trained to assess the options, and to assist their clients in choosing the best option for that client. Often, but not always, the “best” option is the one most economically beneficial to the client. Here, some broadcasters are not interested in the economics, but in the unfairness of being forced to pay a performance royalty as any part of the package. Despite that, all broadcasters should give the compromise proposal a careful look, if only to sharpen their understanding of the numerous issues in play and how they might affect the future of radio broadcasting. There are any number of reasons why the proposal might not gain momentum, or even be possible given the dynamics of Washington, and I hope to address those in a future post. For now, radio broadcasters should suppress the instinct to reflexively ignore it, and instead talk to their colleagues and counsel about the issues this proposal raises for their future, and for the future of their industry.

Published on:

By

The FCC is moving quickly to implement the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA). STELA is the latest law to extend and update the original Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1998, allowing direct to home satellite carriers to deliver the signals of local television stations to subscribers. The Commission has commenced two rulemakings which, because Congress gave the FCC a deadline of November 2010 to wrap up its proceedings and adopt implementing rules, have very short comment periods.

The first proceeding deals with satellite carriers’ ability to import distant, but significantly viewed, television signals into a local station’s television market. The FCC’s proposals could result in an increase in importation of significantly viewed signals by satellite providers. Therefore, stations should familiarize themselves with their rights concerning significantly viewed signals. Comments in this proceeding are due on August 17 and Reply Comments are due on August 27. An in-depth analysis of this proceeding can be found in our Client Advisory.

The second proceeding deals with the method by which the FCC determines whether a subscriber is eligible to receive the imported signal of a distant network-affiliated station. The FCC is examining both its computerized predictive model for determining whether a particular household is “served” by the local station, as well as its methodology for making actual on-site signal strength measurements. Where a satellite subscriber seeks to receive the signal of a distant network-affiliated station, the FCC’s predictive model is used to assess whether the subscriber can receive the local network affiliate over the air. A household that is found to be “served” by the local affiliate is generally not eligible to receive the imported signal of an out of market affiliate of the same network. However, the subscriber can challenge the results of the FCC’s predictive model by seeking an on-site measurement of the local station’s signal.

STELA directs the FCC to update its predictive methodology to account for the completion of the nationwide transition to digital television, as well as to make specific modifications to the definition of “unserved” households. Comments in this proceeding are due on August 24 and Reply Comments are due on September 3. A detailed discussion of the FCC’s proposals in this proceeding can be found in a second Client Advisory released today.

By
Posted in: Congress & Legislation
Published on:
Updated: