Articles Posted in Television

Published on:

By

As reported previously, FEMA, along with the FCC and NOAA, will conduct the first nationwide Emergency Alert System (EAS) Test on November 9, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern. The EAS has never been tested on a national level. Needless to say, it is important for EAS Participants to educate the public in advance of the test so as to avoid panic when the test airs.

The FCC and FEMA have produced public service announcements (PSAs) to increase public awareness of the test. The National Association of Broadcasters recommends that all EAS Participants air one or more of these PSAs, starting at least a week prior to the test, and then increase the frequency of the PSAs as the November 9 deadline draws near. Video and audio PSAs that can be used to educate the public are located on the FCC’s National EAS Test website.

In addition, the National Alliance of State Broadcasters Associations and the NAB have put together very useful EAS websites here and here that can greatly assist EAS Participants in conducting the national test. The NAB has put together a checklist that provides tips to ensure that EAS equipment is ready for the test, and outlines specific actions EAS Participants should take before and after the test. Also, FEMA has put together a just released “EAS Best Practices Guide” that provides helpful information for improving the effectiveness of EAS going forward. On the day of the test, stations should follow the procedures set forth in the FCC’s soon-to-be-released new EAS Handbooks, and disregard prior versions of the Handbooks.

The FCC is currently in the process of completing an electronic EAS reporting system to allow EAS participants to electronically report on their experience in participating in the national test (what went right and what went wrong at their facility). As soon as it becomes available, the FCC is encouraging EAS Participants to log in and populate the system with as much “pre-fill” information as possible in advance of the test so as to facilitate the rapid submission of reports by EAS Participants once the test has concluded.

While EAS Participants are not required to submit their EAS test reports electronically, the FCC is encouraging electronic filing to provide the FCC with “real time results” from the test. As soon as practicable following the test, the FCC is urging EAS Participants to let the FCC know whether they (1) received the Emergency Action Notification and (2) if required to do so, were able to rebroadcast the test. Within 45 days following the test, all EAS Participants must provide a comprehensive and detailed diagnostic report to the FCC on the results of their participation in the test. This mandatory report can be filed either electronically or on paper.

Perhaps the most important action EAS Participants can take beyond educating the public (and hopefully state and local officials) in advance of the test, is to make sure that their EAS equipment is functioning properly and is actually attended by someone when the national test message is received on November 9. While the equipment is designed to automatically receive and retransmit test messages, nothing beats having someone there to monitor the process and ensure the test is relayed smoothly.

Stay tuned for further details on the test as they become available, including a discussion of the soon-to-be-operational FCC national test filing database and the not-yet-released EAS Handbooks to be used during the national test. Both should be made public any day now.

Published on:

By

Both TV and radio stations are learning that medical marijuana can give you a bad headache. However, everyone, including the Department of Justice, currently seems uncertain as to the long-term prognosis for stations that aired medical marijuana ads. As I wrote here last week, leading to a number of articles on the issue in trade press and around the web this week, it is clear that the DOJ has abandoned any pretense of taking a restrained approach to the natural conflict between state laws permitting medical marijuana and federal laws prohibiting it as an illegal drug. The question I had raised back in May, and focused on in last week’s post, was whether the threat to media running medical marijuana ads had moved from theoretical to imminent.

When the DOJ sent letters to the landlords of medical marijuana dispensaries last week telling them to evict their dispensary tenants or risk imprisonment, forfeiture of their buildings and confiscation of all rent collected from those dispensaries, it became clear that media collecting ad revenues for promoting the sale of medical marijuana could just as easily be in the DOJ’s crosshairs. What I found interesting about the reaction to last week’s post, however, was an assumption by many that this is a radio-only issue, and that television stations “did not inhale” medical marijuana ad revenues these past few years. However, the first (and as far as I know, only) medical marijuana complaint pending at the FCC was lodged against a large market network TV affiliate.

The DOJ apparently doesn’t see it as a radio-only matter either. When the issue was raised by a reporter this week, U.S Attorney Laura Duffy caused a stir by announcing that her next target is indeed medical marijuana advertising, noting that she has been “hearing radio and seeing TV advertising” promoting the drug.

The good news for media in general is that, unlike the FCC, the DOJ is less concerned about past conduct, and more interested in reducing future medical marijuana advertising (and thereby reducing future medical marijuana sales). It was therefore in character when Ms. Duffy announced that her first step would be notifying media “that they are in violation of federal law.” The DOJ followed a similar approach in 2003 when it sent letters to broadcasters and other media threatening prosecution of those running ads for gambling websites on grounds that those media outlets were “aiding and abetting” the illegal activities. You can read a copy of the letter here. I note with a bit of irony that one of the arguments made by the DOJ in the 2003 letter is that stations should not be airing ads for online gambling “since, presumably, they would not run advertisements for illegal narcotics sales.”

While the DOJ later pursued some media companies for running ads for online gambling, including seizing revenue received from those ads, its efforts were principally aimed at making an example of those who failed to “take the hint” from the DOJ’s 2003 letter. It seems likely that the DOJ will follow a similar path with regard to medical marijuana ads, focusing primarily on putting an end to the airing of such ads as opposed to pursuing hundreds of legal actions against those who previously aired them.

Also providing at least a small sense of relief for media are more recent statements from the office of Ben Wagner, one of (along with Laura Duffy) California’s four U.S. Attorneys, indicating that he is not currently focusing on medical marijuana advertising. While that could obviously change at any time, it does suggest that any action against media for medical marijuana advertising is at the discretion of the individual U.S. Attorney, and not an objective of the DOJ as a whole.

If the DOJ remains true to its past practices, then broadcasters and other media can likely avoid becoming a target for legal action by ceasing to air medical marijuana ads now. Pursuing individual media outlets is resource-intensive for the DOJ, and raises some thorny legal issues. More to the point, there is little to be accomplished by such actions if media outlets have already stopped airing the ads.

With regard to the FCC, however, broadcasters are not so lucky. Unlike the DOJ, which can choose whether to pursue an action against a media outlet, the FCC will likely be forced to address the issue both in the context of adjudicating complaints against broadcasters for airing medical marijuana ads, and in considering whether a station’s past performance merits renewal of its broadcast license. Given the classification of marijuana as an illegal drug under federal law, and particularly in light of the government’s other attacks on components of the medical marijuana industry, it will be difficult for the FCC to avoid confronting the issue, even where a station stopped airing the ads years ago. As a result, print and online media outlets may be able to get the marijuana advertising out of their systems fairly quickly, but broadcasters could be suffering legal flashbacks for years to come.

Published on:

By

Spoiler alert: Tomorrow I’ll be participating in a webinar (with Tom Larsen of Mediacom and Sarah Barry and Robin Flynn of SNL Kagan) to discuss and debate whether the FCC will adopt new retransmission consent rules and whether rules are needed at all. If you want to be surprised at my comments, don’t read this post!

The debate so far has been characterized by a lot of rhetoric. True facts, when they are presented, usually lack context. For example, it is true that broadcast signal carriage rates are rising fast. But the multichannel pay providers attribute those rising rates to “greed”. It’s a safe bet that the real reasons for rising retransmission fees are more complex than that. There are plenty of greedy people in all sectors of for-profit commerce, but few have the ability to raise rates at will. Market forces have a way of curbing irrational demands.

What we have is a debate about whether the government should adopt new regulations governing private transactions that take place in the very complicated television distribution marketplace. Lost in the debate is any meaningful description of what that marketplace looks like today and how it came to this point. Tomorrow I’ll describe the marketplace and explain why it is permitting retransmission rates to rise. I doubt I’ll change anyone’s mind about whether retransmission rates should rise. But I hope an explanation of the market forces that are causing them to rise will nudge the debate in a more constructive direction.

And now for the spoilers. Is retransmission consent reform needed? As an advocate for broadcasters, I surely think not. But my many years of experience in both broadcast and multichannel pay television (I haven’t always been a lawyer) tell me the same thing. Rising rates reflect market forces adjusting compensation to better reflect relative value. Rates won’t rise at the current pace forever, and if they manage to exceed the underlying value of broadcast carriage rights, the market will drive those rates back down. Consumers aren’t hurt by rising retransmission rates. They are hurt when prices they pay for services are greater than the underlying value of the service. I can make a persuasive case that rising retransmission consent rates will, given time, result in lower cable and satellite bills.

Will the FCC adopt new rules curbing the flexibility of broadcasters in retransmission consent negotiations? The buzz in Washington is that it won’t. I don’t think the FCC would impose new rules even if it had the legal authority to do so. Many at the FCC understand the complexities of the television distribution market, and they understand that meddling in one small part of that market will inevitably have unintended consequences, harming consumers and competition in ways that would outweigh any hoped for benefits from new regulations.

If you’re interested in knowing more on this topic but can’t join the webinar tomorrow, please drop me an email and I’ll send a copy of my slides.

Published on:

By

In what became one of our more heavily circulated posts, I wrote a piece back in early May entitled “Will Marijuana Ads Make License Renewals Go Up in Smoke?” It noted that the Department of Justice was showing signs of abandoning its “live and let live” policy toward medical marijuana producers and dispensaries operating in compliance with state laws.

Because advertising by such dispensaries had become a significant revenue source for broadcasters in states where medical marijuana was legalized, the DOJ’s about-face placed broadcasters in an awkward position. While medical marijuana may be legal under state law, it has never been legal under federal law. This means that broadcast stations, which the law deems to be engaged in an interstate activity, and whose livelihood depends on license renewal by the FCC, are an easy target for a Federal Government intent upon suppressing the sale of medical marijuana. The takeaway from my post was that stations should think long and hard before accepting medical marijuana ads.

It became clear this morning that it was time to do an update on the subject when an article from the Denver Post came across my desk noting that “the last bank in Colorado to openly work with the medical-marijuana industry — Colorado Springs State Bank — officially closed down the accounts of dispensaries and others in the state’s legal marijuana business over concerns about working with companies that are, by definition, breaking federal law.” Like broadcasters, the banking industry is heavily regulated by the Federal Government, and it appears that Colorado bankers have collectively concluded that, despite the large sums of money involved, it is not worth the risk of dealing with medical marijuana dispensaries and incurring the wrath of the feds.

That development alone should concern broadcasters airing medical marijuana ads. However, late today, word got out that the DOJ, through its four U.S. Attorneys in California, sent letters threatening medical marijuana dispensaries in California with criminal charges and confiscation of their property if they do not shut down within 45 days. Of particular interest to broadcasters (and any other media running medical marijuana ads), these letters were sent not just to dispensaries, but to their landlords, effectively telling the landlords to evict their tenant or risk imprisonment, forfeiture of their building and confiscation of all rent collected for the period the dispensary was in business.

The DOJ’s willingness to threaten those who are not engaged in the sale of medical marijuana, but who merely provide services to those who are, should raise alarm bells for media everywhere. If landlords who collect rent from medical marijuana dispensaries are at risk, media that collect ad revenues from promoting the sale of medical marijuana could just as easily be in the DOJ’s crosshairs. More to the point, the Federal Government is in a much better position to exercise leverage over the livelihoods of broadcasters than over California property owners not engaged in any form of interstate activity.

Colorado bankers have apparently already reached a similar conclusion, and the DOJ’s stepped-up campaign in California against medical marijuana removes any doubt for broadcasters and other media as to which way the federal winds are now blowing. You can expect a heated legal and political battle between the states and the Federal Government over the DOJ’s efforts to nullify state medical marijuana laws. While that battle ensues, broadcasters and other media will want to do their best to stay out of the line of fire.

Published on:

By

This October has more than its share of filing deadlines for broadcasters to worry about. Of course, it is the end of the quarter, so broadcasters should be prepared for their routine quarterly filings. Additionally, certain states will have EEO and noncommercial ownership filing obligations. This year is also a radio license renewal year and a triennial must-carry/retransmission consent election year for television stations. All in all, there are a number of deadlines to keep track of, so read on.

October 1 (weekend)

  • Must-Carry/Retransmission Consent Elections: Deadline for commercial full power television stations to notify by certified mail all cable and satellite providers in their markets of their election between must-carry and retransmission consent for the next three-year period. More information on this election can be found here. Noncommercial stations must make requests for carriage, as they do not have retransmission consent rights.
  • EEO Public File Reports: Deadline for radio and television station employment units with five or more employees in the following states to prepare and place in their public inspection file, and on their website if they have one, their annual EEO Public File Report: Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Missouri, Oregon, and Washington, as well as American Samoa, Guam, Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin Islands.
  • FCC Form 323-E: Deadline for the following noncommercial stations to electronically file their biennial ownership report on FCC Form 323-E: Radio stations licensed to communities in Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington, as well as American Samoa, Guam, Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin Islands, and television stations licensed to communities in Iowa and Missouri.
  • Pre-filing Renewal Announcements: Date on which radio stations licensed to communities in Alabama and Georgia must begin airing their pre-filing license renewal announcements. The remaining announcements must air on October 16, November 1 and November 16.
  • License Renewal Filing: Deadline for radio stations licensed to communities in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands to electronically file their license renewal applications. These stations must also commence their post-filing renewal announcements to air on October 1 and 16, November 1 and 16, and December 1 and 16.

October 10 (holiday)

  • Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists: Deadline for all radio, full power television and Class A television stations to place their Quarterly Issues/Programs List in their public inspection file.
  • Children’s Television: Deadline for all commercial full power and Class A television stations to electronically file FCC Form 398, the Children’s Television Programming Report, with the FCC and place a copy in their public inspection file. These stations must also prepare and place in their public inspection files their documentation of compliance with the commercial limits in programming for children 12 and under.

October 23 (weekend)

  • License Renewal Documentation: Date on which radio stations licensed to communities in North and South Carolina must place in their public inspection file documentation of having given the required public notice of their August 1st license renewal filing.
Published on:

By

October 1, 2011 marks the triennial deadline for full power television stations (and a few lucky qualifying LPTV stations) to send their written must-carry or retransmission consent elections to each of the cable and satellite providers serving their market. The elections made by this October 1st will govern a station’s carriage rights for the three-year period from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014, and the impact of these elections will be far more significant for individual TV stations than any made before.

To understand why, keep in mind that in the early days of must-carry/retransmission consent elections, the lack of local competition among cable providers allowed them to take a “my way or the highway” attitude toward television broadcasters. As cable subscribership soared, and local cable providers faced little or no competition for subscribers, broadcasters had little choice but to make their programming available for retransmission. Because cable providers were in a position to refuse to pay cash for retransmission rights, the largest broadcasters were limited to negotiating for non-monetary compensation (e.g., obtaining carriage for an affiliated program service, which led to the launch of Fox News, among others). Smaller broadcasters typically did worse, as they had a weaker negotiating position and little need for non-monetary compensation like guaranteed carriage of a non-existent second channel. These were the days before digital multicasting made such additional local channels at least plausible.

Faced with these challenges, many stations just elected must-carry, which guaranteed cable carriage while avoiding the need to engage in prolonged negotiations likely to result in little gain. That all changed with the arrival of satellite television providers, who provided competition to cable, and more importantly, needed local TV signals to take market share from cable providers. Both of these developments were critical to creating a free market for the retransmission of broadcast programming. First, because they lacked cable’s monopoly position, satellite providers were willing to pay cash to obtain the broadcast programming that would allow them to compete for subscribers. Second, as subscribers left cable for satellite, cable providers suddenly had to compete for subscribers, and couldn’t do it without ensuring continued access to local broadcast signals.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Paul A. Cicelski

As I reported last month, my colleague Dick Zaragoza and I filed a Petition with the FCC asking for a further extension of the deadline for EAS Participants to implement the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) standard for the Emergency Alert System (EAS).

We filed the Petition on behalf of representatives of all EAS Participants, which included the State Broadcasters Associations, representing all fifty States and the District of Columbia, the National Association of Broadcasters, the Broadcast Warning Working Group, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the American Cable Association, National Public Radio, the Association of Public Television Stations, and the Public Broadcasting Service. Today, the FCC released an Order agreeing with the need for an extension and changing the CAP deadline from September 30, 2011 to June 30, 2012.

The extension means that the thousands of EAS Participants across the country now have additional time to acquire and install the equipment needed to become CAP-compliant. In its Order, the FCC agreed with the arguments made in the Petition by the broadcast and cable industries that a later deadline was necessary in light of the regulatory uncertainty that remains regarding what is necessary for CAP compliance, particularly because the FCC’s EAS Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (released in May and which we reported on here) will undoubtedly lead to significant EAS rule changes that could alter the requirements for EAS Participants in a way that would impact the manner in which they will go about buying, installing, testing and operating new CAP-compliant EAS equipment. In short, the extension will enable EAS Participants to review and adapt to the final rules adopted or altered in the EAS proceeding.

According to the FCC’s Order, the extension is warranted because “until the Commission has completed its rulemaking process, it cannot meaningfully impose a deadline by which EAS Participants must be able to receive CAP-formatted alerts.” The Commission further stated that no one “can comply with section 11.56 yet, because the Commission has not finalized all the key technical specifics necessary for receiving CAP-formatted alerts” and that it is “unlikely that the Commission can address all of the issues raised in the Third FNPRM and ensure that the corresponding Part 11 rule amendments are adopted and effective prior to the current September 30, 2011 deadline.” Primarily for these reasons, the FCC extended the deadline to allow “adequate time to evaluate the impact of any changes to Part 11 before being required to comply with regulations the full impact of which cannot yet be known.”

On another positive note, the Commission’s extension of the CAP-compliance deadline may allow the first-ever National EAS Test scheduled by FEMA and the FCC (set for November 9, 2011) to run more smoothly. The hope is that, as argued in the Petition, the extension of the CAP-compliance deadline until June of next year will allow participants in the scheduled November 9, 2011 National EAS test to focus on the success of that test instead of being concerned with the functioning of newly-installed EAS equipment. For those interested in more background on the National EAS test, we previously reported on it here and here). With this most recent extension of the EAS CAP deadline, we hope we will be able to later report that the national test went smoothly.

Published on:

By

For those of you who remember the sense of relief you felt as a kid when you forgot to study for a test and later found out that class was cancelled, the FCC is giving you a chance to enjoy that feeling again. Despite the fact that annual regulatory fees were due yesterday, September 14, 2011, the FCC announced late today that the filing deadline is being extended until 11:59 pm ET tomorrow, September 16, 2011.

That may be a relief to many, as this year the FCC did not send out individual notices of the fee filing deadline to licensees, meaning that the number of licensees who forgot to file is likely higher this year than is typically the case. However, that is not the reason for the extension. Those who waited until the last minute to file their fees discovered that the FCC’s electronic filing system was struggling under the load. Because of this, the FCC decided to grant the extension to make sure no one can complain that they tried to file on time but were prevented by the system from meeting the filing deadline. In other words, there’s no excuse for missing the filing deadline now!

Because regulatory fees paid by check must reach the FCC’s lockbox in St. Louis by the deadline, the more practical way of meeting the new deadline is through the use of a credit card for payment. Fees received after the deadline are subject to the automatic 25% late fee.

Published on:

By

In an uncertain economy, obtaining financing for business transactions can be a challenge. It can be even more challenging for FCC licensees, since FCC rules prohibit granting a security interest in an FCC license. Because lenders want an enforceable lien on all of a borrower’s assets, when those assets include FCC licenses, agreements must be structured carefully to give a lender all of the economic benefits of holding a security interest in the FCC license, without taking a security interest in the license itself.

The standard approach has been to provide the lender with a security interest in the “proceeds” of a license sale. That approach was called into question last October after a decision by the Colorado Bankruptcy Court (In re Tracy), which held that a security interest in the proceeds of an FCC license does not survive bankruptcy. While many communications lawyers saw this decision as an aberration, and the New York Bankruptcy Court (In re Terrestar Networks) rejected it outright in reaching an opposite conclusion last month, just a few days after that New York decision, on appeal, the Colorado U.S. District Court affirmed the reasoning in Tracy, once again opening the issue to debate.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Yesterday, the reinstatement of the FCC’s “video description” rules finally became official with their publication in the Federal Register. It has been a long time coming, given that the rules were originally created by the FCC in 2000. In short, the reinstated rules require large-market broadcast affiliates of the top four national networks, and cable/satellite systems (MVPDs) with a large number of subscribers, to provide programming with video descriptions to their viewers.

“Video description” is defined by the FCC as the “insertion of audio narrated descriptions of a television program’s key visual elements into natural pauses in the program’s dialogue with the goal of making video programming more accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired.” The FCC’s original adoption of the rules in 2000 was challenged by the Motion Picture Association of America, among others, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In its 2002 decision, the Court vacated the FCC’s rules, holding that the FCC had “insufficient authority” to enact such rules.

In a very slow but deliberate response to the Court’s decision, Congress gave the FCC explicit authority to adopt video description rules in the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (TCCVAA), which became law in October of 2010. As we reported previously here, the TCCVAA mandated that the FCC take a number of steps to ensure that new communications technologies are accessible to individuals with vision or hearing impairment, including reinstating the video description rules that had been vacated by the D.C. Circuit.

As required by Congress, the FCC issued an Order late last month announcing the reinstatement of its video description rules. According to the FCC, the most important aspects of its reinstated rules are:

  • Full-power affiliates of the ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox networks located in the top 25 television markets must provide 50 hours of video-described prime time and/or children’s programming each quarter;
  • MVPDs that operate systems with 50,000 or more subscribers must provide 50 hours of video-described prime time and/or children’s programming each quarter on each of the top five non-broadcast networks that they carry; and
  • All broadcast stations affiliated with any network (including non-commercial stations) and all MVPD systems must pass through video descriptions contained in programming that they distribute as long as they have the technical capability to do so. “Technical capability” means having all the necessary equipment except for items that would be of minimal cost.

The TCCVAA also requires the FCC to eventually expand the broadcast requirement to the 60 largest markets, and the Commission has designated July 1, 2015 as the date when ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox affiliates in markets 26-60 (based on the Nielsen market rankings as of January 1, 2015) will be required to provide video description on 50 hours of prime time and/or children’s programming each quarter.

While the video description rules will technically become effective on October 8, 2011, the FCC indicates that broadcast stations and MVPDs will not be required to begin full compliance with the rules until July 1, 2012. Even though July 2012 sounds like the distant future now, broadcasters and MVPDs should acquaint themselves with the new rules as soon as possible. The FCC’s Order reinstates dozens of rule provisions, some of which are highly technical and will require significant effort on the part of broadcasters and MVPDs to ensure that they can comply in time or obtain waivers where necessary.