Articles Posted in Must-Carry/Retransmission Consent

Published on:

By

On February 22, 2011, US District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the Southern District of New York issued a 59-page decision enjoining ivi TV, Inc. from streaming the programming of various network-affiliated television stations on the Internet without their permission. The judge’s opinion articulates a basic principle of copyright law — that the creator of the content holds a bundle of rights which, with very few exceptions, it alone controls. Therefore, even in this age of proliferating distribution platforms, the fact that the copyright owner has made its content available via a number of different technologies does not diminish its ability to control whether and how to make it available on a new platform. The case will likely yield more examination of this issue, as ivi TV has sought a stay of the injunction.

Background
ivi TV began Internet streaming of the signals of several network affiliated television stations located in Seattle and New York in September 2010, and thereafter announced plans to add stations from Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco in the future. It offered subscribers located throughout the United States the ability to receive these television signals via an Internet connection for a monthly fee. Subscribers downloaded a player, chose the signals to watch, and the signals were delivered in an encrypted form. In anticipation of the content owners’ lawsuit, ivi TV sought a Declaratory Ruling from a US District Court in Seattle that the company was not infringing the copyrights in the programming, but the court dismissed that case as an anticipatory filing. A consortium of television stations, the producers of programming shown on the stations, and Major League Baseball later commenced a lawsuit for copyright infringement in New York, seeking an injunction to prevent any further retransmissions of their content by ivi TV.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

For many television stations, network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity protection are a distant memory. With the ever-increasing number of non-broadcast programming services available to cable operators, the number of distant station signals imported by cable and satellite into local markets has fallen dramatically. As a result, many local television stations are no longer vigilant in sending out network non-duplication or syndicated exclusivity notices. Recent developments arising in retransmission consent negotiations, however, make clear that television stations need to be more diligent than ever in making sure that they send out timely notices, and that the notices conform to all FCC requirements.

Recently, Smith Media (Smith) was unable to reach agreement with Time Warner Cable (TWC) regarding retransmission consent for the signals of several network-affiliated stations owned by Smith, so TWC dropped a number of Smith stations from its channel line-ups. Then TWC began to import distant network-affiliated station signals into the markets where it lost access to the Smith network-affiliated stations. It appears that Smith had not kept its network non-duplication notices up to date, opening a window in which TWC could avoid the exclusivity which Smith would normally have been able to enforce through its network contracts.

TWC threatened to do the same thing during its dispute with Sinclair Broadcast Group (Sinclair). While the Sinclair dispute appears to have been settled without its stations being dropped by TWC, an impasse in negotiations would have tested its non-duplication protection rights.

As noted in a recent trade periodical, not all broadcasters have been diligent in perfecting their non-duplication rights in recent years. Television station licensees facing retransmission consent negotiations should carefully review their non-duplication protection notices to ensure that they conform to FCC requirements. The notice rules are complex, and it may be advisable to review them with your counsel.

Because non-duplication notices must be sent to multichannel video program distributors within 60 days of execution of a network affiliation agreement, it may already be too late to cure a failure to give timely notice. In such a case, the station operator should consider contacting their network to amend or enter into a new network affiliation agreement in order to obtain updated network affiliation rights, thereby triggering a new 60-day notice period.

The Smith and Sinclair disputes raise two other important issues for television broadcasters. First, it appears that the reason that TWC could import distant network signals into Smith’s markets is that the standard TWC retransmission consent agreement permits the carriage of the station being retransmitted by any TWC system anywhere, not just within the station’s home market. It is advisable that all stations review the content of their retransmission consent agreements carefully, and, at least in the future, be sure to limit carriage rights to their own market, and perhaps to areas in which they are significantly viewed or have historically been carried.

Second, the other issue which came to light is that TWC has entered into an agreement with the FOX Network which allows TWC to carry a direct feed of FOX Network programming for a period of up to one year when a local FOX affiliate refuses to grant TWC consent to retransmit its signal. This could substantially reduce the local broadcaster’s leverage in retransmission consent negotiations, and is certain to be a major topic of discussion between network affiliate organizations and their networks.

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

Below is the text of our 2011 Broadcasters’ Calendar, which lists deadlines that broadcasters should be aware of for 2011. If you would prefer to read the PDF version of the calendar, it can be found here.

Items of Note in 2011

1. Applications for Renewal of License: June 1, 2011 is the first filing date of the three-year period during which the licensees of all commercial and noncommercial AM, FM and FM Translator stations throughout the United States and its territories will be required to file their applications for renewal of broadcast station license. Licensees in the television services will commence this process in 2012. The date on which a station’s application is due depends on the state or territory of its community of license. All licensees should familiarize themselves now with the dates associated with this important filing, including the dates on which public notice announcements must air in advance of the renewal filing; the filing date itself, which is approximately four months before the date of license expiration; and the dates on which post-filing announcements must air.
2. Biennial Ownership Report Filing Requirements for Commercial Radio and Television Stations: Licensees of commercial, full-power radio and television stations as well as Class A television and low power television stations should be ready to file their biennial ownership reports on FCC Form 323 by the new, uniform filing date of November 1, 2011. While these licensees may have filed a biennial report as recently as the summer of 2010, that report fulfilled the reporting obligation for the period that ended on November 1, 2009. Only because of difficulties with the FCC’s electronic filing system was the November 1, 2009 deadline ultimately extended to July 8, 2010.

Continue reading →

By
Posted in: Children & Media
Published on:
Updated:
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

In the heat of the battle raging over carriage of various Fox networks on Cablevision’s systems, Randy May, the founder and chief intellect of the Free State Foundation, has weighed in on the retransmission consent debate (available here). I read his comments with interest, because Randy often provides insightful observations on important telecommunications policy issues, and I care about retransmission consent.

I was disappointed. The paper only rehashes the cable television party line.

Surprisingly, Randy suggests that broadcasters’ exercise of retransmission consent rights should be scrutinized and possibly regulated even more. One would have to dig pretty deep to find the last time Randy advocated solving a problem by throwing more government at it.

The party line Randy endorses goes something like this: broadcasters get special privileges from the government with respect to signal carriage, which give them a retrans “negotiating advantage.” Retransmission consent negotiations don’t happen in a free market goes the argument. The solution? Broadcasters’ retransmission rights should be even more regulated than they are already.
Randy cites two “advantages” broadcasters supposedly enjoy in retrans negotiations: (1) must-carry and (2) program exclusivity. The cable industry party line is a little tortured, coming, as it does, from interests subject to a small fraction of the regulatory umbrella that shadows broadcasters. These are the same companies, after all, that argue government should stand back and let broadband carriers treat Internet traffic as they will.

The party line is also completely wrong about the carriage rules.
First, the existence of must-carry sometimes harms, but never helps, broadcasters that elect retransmission consent. Broadcasters must claim their retrans rights once every three years through a technical and exacting election process. If they make a mistake, they risk having to give away their signals for free. Cable companies routinely use this against broadcasters in retrans negotiations.

By definition, any broadcaster engaged in retransmission consent negotiations has forfeited its must-carry rights. It’s either-or. Each broadcaster makes its election once every three years — same election for all overlapping cable operators, no cherry-picking. If you elect retrans, you have no guarantee of being carried at all and no option to revert to must-carry if negotiations break down.

Must-carry benefits some broadcasters, no doubt. But it doesn’t confer any advantage on a broadcaster that elects retransmission consent. The cable/DBS/telco party line suggests that must-carry gives broadcasters a retrans advantage, but it never identifies what that supposed advantage is. Randy doesn’t explain the advantage either. There is none.
Second, the program exclusivity rules impose huge burdens on broadcasters. Start with the unregulated baseline: producers and distributors are free under the law to agree to exclusive distribution territories. The broadcast networks and affiliates, if they wanted to, could agree that each affiliate has unfettered nonduplication protection throughout its DMA. That would be a free market.

But this is anything but a free market: even if broadcasters purchase exclusivity rights, they may not enforce those rights except within limited, FCC-defined areas. If you doubt me, just read the notes to the network nonduplication and the syndicated exclusivity rules. And this is a bargaining advantage? A reason to pile more rules on broadcasters?
Having read hundreds of Randy’s usually insightful postings over the years, I’m disappointed to see him republish boilerplate cable industry advocacy. His comments run counter to the Free State Foundation’s guiding principles and lack Randy’s trademark sharpness and passion. More to the point, they bizarrely suggest that the government somehow does broadcasters a favor by limiting their free market rights.

Published on:

By

The U.S. Supreme Court today announced that it is declining to hear Cablevision’s challenge to the must-carry rules, letting stand a Second Circuit ruling upholding the validity of the 1992 rules. Approximately 40% of broadcast stations rely on must-carry to ensure carriage on their local cable systems, with the remainder electing to negotiate retransmission terms for carriage. A closely divided Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the must-carry rules over a decade ago, but Cablevision sought to argue that things have changed since the days of cable monopolies, and that the rules can’t be justified in a world where cable now competes with satellite and other providers for subscribers. However, the real change that Cablevision was banking on was the change in the composition of the Court, with two of the five justices that voted to affirm must-carry in 1997 having left the court, and a third affirming vote, Justice Stevens, having now announced his impending retirement.

Cablevision therefore had reason to think that its appeal, which in many regards was just a “do over” of the earlier unsuccessful challenge, had a chance with the Court’s new mix of justices. What is interesting, and reassuring for broadcasters, is that for the Supreme Court to agree to hear an appeal requires the votes of only four justices, rather than a majority of the nine justices. Declining to hear the appeal means that not even four justices, much less a majority of the court, were interested in reviewing the Second Circuit’s affirmation of the must-carry rules.

So what does that mean? Well, a true optimist from the broadcasters’ perspective would hope it means that three or less justices question the validity of the must-carry rules, and that future appeals will have a very uphill battle to claim five votes in favor of overturning the rules. An optimist for the cable industry would argue that a lot of factors go into determining whether the Court should grant certiorari, only one of which is the likelihood of a resulting decision reversing the lower court. The truth, of course, lies somewhere in the middle, and we may never find out whether the Court’s decision to deny certiorari was a hard-fought internal battle over the merits of the appeal, or merely a simple vote where the justices expressed no appetite for revisiting the issue for any number of reasons.

In the meantime, must-carry remains the law of the land, and it will likely be a while before another appeal can work its way up through the system to reach the Supreme Court. As a result, broadcasters relying on must-carry rights can breath a sigh of relief, at least for now.