The Commission has acted to restore the UHF discount used to calculate audience reach in connection with determining compliance with television ownership limits. The national ownership cap currently limits the number of stations one owner may control to those which reach no more than 39 percent of national television households (with reach defined as the number of households in a station’s DMA). In adding up the number of households reached nationwide by a particular owner’s TV stations, for a station which operates on a UHF channel, half of the households in its DMA are not included in the total count.
On April 20, 2017, the FCC announced two new developments for NCE stations. First, the FCC stated that it will no longer require the officers and board members of NCE stations to obtain FCC registration numbers (“FRNs”), a process which requires individuals to disclose personal information such as social security numbers. NCE station officers and board members may instead opt to use “special use” FRNs (which do not require disclosing personal information to the Commission) when filing their ownership reports. The Commission will continue to require NCE stations to submit the gender, race, and ethnicity of their officers and board members. Continue Reading
Do you know what FCC filing deadlines are coming up in early May through early June? We do. Note our list is not comprehensive, and other proceedings may apply to you. Please do not hesitate to contact FHH if you have any questions. Continue Reading
Regular readers of our “Memorandum to Clients” publication are an astute and well-read bunch (probably because they read the “MTC”). So we’re guessing that you are generally aware of our usual publication schedule and plan your lives accordingly. That’s why we want to get ahead of any potential concern this month by telling you that our May edition will be coming out a few days late.
We are using those few extra days to ensure that the May edition of MTC includes a rundown of what happens at the NAB Show in Las Vegas (running April 22-27), in addition to the usual monthly news and insight you have come to expect. You should expect to receive your Memo to Clients around the week of May 8.
If any of our readers are going to the NAB Show, look for these FHH attorneys, who will be there as well:
And remember: always split Aces and Eights and insurance is for suckers…
The FCC has always been kind to people who tinker with radio equipment, whether teenagers blowing out their parents’ fuses (that was us) or manufacturers’ research labs (maybe you). Licenses in the Experimental Radio Service allow work with radio transmitters that don’t otherwise meet FCC standards.
The problem with these experimental licenses was that most variations in transmitter characteristics required a new or modified license. They are not expensive and the FCC issues them reasonably fast (at least by federal agency standards), but still, nobody likes the paperwork and the delays.
The FCC put in a fix four years ago, but it has only just now taken effect. Continue Reading
With the release of the Incentive Auction Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice (affectionately known as the “CCR”), the FCC officially draws the spectrum Incentive Auction to a close. The CCR is a must-read for TV broadcasters and wireless carriers alike. It announces broadcast and wireless winning bidders, sets deadlines and timetables for filings, and provides buildout benchmarks relevant to both broadcasters and wireless companies to convert the new 600 MHz band to wireless use. Of particular interest to FHH broadcast clients is the setting in motion of the Post-Incentive Auction Transition (“Repack”), starting with a 90-day scramble to file construction permit applications and relocation expense reimbursements for repacked stations which ends on July 12, 2017. LPTV stations also will be impacted by the channel reassignment and will need to prepare for displacements starting this fall. Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth PLC is ready to guide you through this process – give us a call.
On March 29, 2017, the FCC released a Public Notice providing instructions to full power and Class A television broadcasters and Multi-Channel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs) on receiving incentive and/or reimbursement payments following the closure of the Incentive Auction. The Public Notice stated that, in order to receive payments, winning bidders in the reverse auction (i.e., broadcasters that successfully bid to relinquish some or all of their spectrum rights) must submit an FCC Form 1875 (Reverse Auction Payments), and broadcasters and MVPDs eligible to receive reimbursement payments from the Television Broadcaster Relocation Fund for costs incurred during the reverse auction and repacking process must submit an FCC Form 1876 (Reimbursement Payments). While the application processes are similar for Reverse Auction and Reimbursement Payments, payment recipients may receive their disbursements at different times depending on the type of payment for which they are eligible. In addition, while the Public Notice did not announce a deadline for reimbursement payees to file Form 1876, entities receiving Reverse Auction Payments must file their Form 1875 by no later than 20 days after the FCC releases its public notice closing the auction (currently expected in early to mid-April).
(Court also compares Internet Radio to Terrestrial Under State Law)
A Georgia Supreme Court decision on a narrow issue relating to the use of pre-1972 sound recordings creates an interesting new topic for discussion in this area, even as the holding in this case is itself necessarily limited to Georgia.
The case is iHeartMedia v.Sheridan, et al. It is the latest in a long line of cases in which owners of copyrights in sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972 have asserted state-law rights in those recordings against broadcasters and internet streaming services. We’ve written about this issue in the context of several cases that have been brought in California, Florida, and New York over the past few years (for the most recent summary of where the biggest cases stand, check out this post from February 17, 2017 about a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruling in favor of SiriusXM). Continue Reading
On March 23, 2017, the FCC enacted an Order to modernize its rules and regulations governing the 800 MHz Cellular Service band in order to encompass modern wideband mobile broadband service technologies such as LTE. The FCC stated that the movement away from the outdated command-and-control regulatory paradigm, originally created for commercial mobile services using narrowband technologies, to a flexible use model for the band would ease administrative burdens, reduce barriers to innovation and investment, and allow mobile broadband providers to provide service to the public more efficiently.
Specifically, the FCC implemented reforms of the 800 MHz Cellular Service band’s rules in the four following areas:
Cellular Power Rules – The FCC adopted new power rules for Cellular services based on power spectral density (PSD) metrics utilized in other spectrum bands for mobile broadband services. The new PSD limits for Cellular service are as follows: (1) 400 W/MHz ERP in non-rural areas, and 800 W/MHz in rural areas, without a power flux density (PFD) requirement; and (2) higher limits – up to 1000 W/MHz ERP in non-rural areas, and up to 2000 W/MHz ERP in rural areas (Higher PSD Limits). The FCC stated that the new Cellular power rules would enable mobile broadband providers to operate more efficiently in the 800 MHz spectrum without regard to usage of narrow or wideband technology.
Co-Existence with Public Safety Systems – The FCC also adopted safeguards to protect public safety operations from the increased possibility of unacceptable interference as a result of increased usage of wideband technologies by Cellular service providers. These safeguards include: (1) a one-time advance notification requirement for operations at high PSD limits; (2) PFD limit for a seven-year transition period “for Higher PFD limits”.; (3) convening a public forum to improve co-existence in the 800 MHz band; and (4) retaining Part 22’s existing interference resolution rules. The FCC admitted that usage of PSD and PFD limits are incomplete measures for mitigating interference with public safety systems, and that other measures would be explored in the future.
Consistent Treatment with Other Flexible Use Spectrum – In an effort to streamline administrative burdens and adopt more efficient regulatory compliance obligations for service providers operating in the 800 MHz band, the FCC conformed the band’s technical rules to those used in similar flexible use spectrum including rules related to: power measurement, out of band emissions, field strength, and discontinuance of operations. The FCC stated that conforming the 800 MHz band’s technical requirements with those of other flexible use spectrum would enable Cellular service providers to be more competitive in deploying new mobile broadband technologies.
Elimination of Unnecessary Rules and Regulatory Burdens – In an effort to spur the transition from legacy to broadband technologies used in the 800 MHz band, the FCC eliminated several rules and regulatory burdens for service providers. First, the FCC eliminated the requirement that providers file a minor modification application for any change to cell site that resulted in a reduction of service area coverage. Second, the FCC repealed the domestic coordination requirement for Cellular service providers deploying devices with a frequency re-use factor of one (e.g., CDMA, and certain LTE deployments). Finally, the FCC deleted certain provisions governing international coordination requirements that were deemed unnecessary or redundant.
Lastly, as part of the March 23rd decision, the FCC also issued a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comments on the removal of other Part 22 provisions related to Station inspection requirements, retention of Station authorizations, and EEO complaint reporting. The FCC proposed the elimination of these provisions on the grounds that they were outdated, costly and burdensome, and/or placed Cellular licensees at a disadvantage compared to other wireless services. Interested parties may file comments on the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (WT Docket No. 12-40) thirty days after publication in the Federal Register, and reply comments are due sixty days after publication.
Should you have any questions regarding this article or the proceeding, please feel to contact Keenan Adamchak.
Your phone rings. You look down at your phone, which reads “IRS.” You answer. “Hello?” There’s a pause. Then, in an automated tone, you hear this: “This call is to inform you that the IRS is filing a lawsuit against you. To get more information about this case file, please call immediately on our department number (202) 470-2565. I repeat (202) 470-2565. Thank you.”
Does this sound familiar to you? If not, perhaps you’ve been lucky and have escaped being one of the over 10,000 victims of this scam in which sellers pretend to be representing the IRS and claim the called party owes back taxes, but I’m sure you’ve received something along these lines:
Phone rings. This time, you don’t recognize the number, but it’s a local one so you pick up. “Hello?” Pause. “Hello?” you repeat. Then, again in that awful automated tone, you hear this: “Hi, this is Rachel from Card Services calling about your credit card account. It appears that you are now eligible for a significantly lower interest rate on your account. However, this offer is about to expi…” [Click]. You hang up.
These are called robocalls, and attempts at controlling their deleterious effects are no new endeavor. Unfortunately, they haven’t been so successful. Robocalls and telemarketing calls are the top source of consumer complaints received by the FCC, with U.S. consumers having received an estimated 2.4 billion robocalls per month in 2016. Continue Reading