A couple of weeks ago we reported that several petitions for reconsideration had been filed relative to last April’s changes to the rules governing the 5 GHz unlicensed band. The FCC’s notice concerning those petitions has now made it into the Federal Register, which means that the deadlines for filing oppositions and replies have now been set. If you’re inclined to oppose any (or all) of the petitions, you’ve got until August 14, 2014. Replies will be due by August 25.
No need to read the post; the headline says it all.
A recent item in in our series of posts on the FCC’s novel spectrum-management proposals for the 3550-3650 MHz band (and possibly 3650-6700 MHz as well) told you the reply comment date was … well, it doesn’t matter what we told you, because the FCC has now extended the reply comment date to August 15.
Resume your vacation.
Webinar on new filing interface for Form 477 to be held on August 6; FCC releases link to Form 477 filing resources.
As we reported last month, the new Form 477 filing interface implemented as part of the Commission’s expansion of the Form 477 Data Program goes live on July 31. And as the FCC promised, additional Form 477 guidance – consisting of several web pages with instructions, resources, system guides, background information – is now available to prospective filers on the FCC’s website. (Cautionary note: While the FCC has indeed set up potentially useful web pages, it has included on those pages a number of links that are not yet live, at least as of the date the availability of those pages was first announced. The Commission assures one and all that those links will be updated before the new interface goes live on July 31.)
The Commission also promised an instructional webinar after the launch. True to its word, the FCC has announced that the promised webinar has been scheduled to occur on August 6, 2014 from 2:30-3:30 p.m. (ET). You can attend the real deal at the FCC’s Meeting Room in Washington, or you can watch it live over the ether at http://fcc.gov/live. Stay-at-home viewers will be given the opportunity to email questions in to the presenters during the show.
Video Division forfeiture order shows flexibility, but not necessarily in a good way
One thing you can say about the FCC: If they think they’ve caught a licensee in a violation, they can be persistent in their efforts to impose penalties for that violation. Whether those efforts are entirely consistent with the law is another question entirely.
With respect to any fine it issues, the Commission must consider the relevant statute of limitations. FCC forfeitures are subject to two separate such statutes. First, under Section 503 of the Communications Act, it can levy forfeitures for actions going back to the beginning of the current license term or one year, whichever is earlier.
Once the Commission has issued its formal “forfeiture order”, a licensee can simply ignore that order. If the Commission wants to collect the fine in the face of such licensee inaction, it must convince the Department of Justice to sue the target licensee in federal district court. But a second, separate, statute (28 U.S.C. § 2462) says that law suits to enforce penalties must be started within five years of “the date the claim first accrued”.
A recent forfeiture order reflects the Video Division’s awareness of that latter limit and at least one way the Division has devised to try to sidestep it.Continue Reading...
Uncertainty created by upcoming TV repacking brings call for uniform, blanket extension.
If you’re holding onto a construction permit for an unbuilt digital low power television (LPTV) or TV translator station, listen up. The Advanced Television Broadcasting Alliance (ATBA) has asked the FCC for a blanket extension (or rule waiver) – to September 1, 2015 – to complete construction of such stations. And the Media Bureau has now requested comments on ATBA’s proposal (which was filed last February).
Although all full power television stations had to convert to digital operation in 2009, in 2011, in 2011 the FCC extended the deadline for existing LPTV stations to terminate analog operation until September 1, 2015. That date was set as the expiration for all construction permits for flash cut from analog to digital on the same channel, or for digital facilities on a different channel (companion stations). But the FCC denied requests for similar relief for holders of construction permits for new digital LPTV stations. Instead, the construction deadlines for such permits were left at their original dates (i.e., three years from their issuance), which meant that some such permittees face a deadline prior to September 1, 2015. Demonstrating that this was not just some inadvertent bureaucratic oversight, the Commission denied a request for reconsideration of the decision not to extend such permits.
ATBA, whose Executive Director is Louis Libin, is one of two groups currently representing LPTV interests before the FCC. The other is the LPTV Coalition, headed by Mike Gravino.Continue Reading...
Commission invites preliminary comments on 18-month old petition for establishment of new class of FM station.
A proposal to shoe-horn in another class of FM station between existing Classes A and C3 has taken a small but at least observable step ahead. We wrote about the proposal back when it first walked in the door at the FCC in January, 2013. Essentially, the idea is that the FM spectrum could be put to more efficient use if a new class of station – proposed ominous name: Class C4 – were to be established with maximum ERP of 12 kW and maximum antenna height of 100 meters.
The latest – actually, to this point, the only – indication of progress? The Commission has released a public notice formally identifying the petition for rulemaking (now dubbed “RM No. 11727”) inviting interested folks to file “statements opposing or supporting” the petition within 30 days, i.e., by Monday, August 18, 2014.Continue Reading...
Back in April we reported on the adoption of service rules to govern AWS-3 service on 65 MHz of repurposed spectrum, and then last month we noted the publication of the FCC’s action in the Federal Register. As longtime CommLawBlog readers know, Federal Register publication of such things starts the time for filing petitions for reconsideration (which are due within 30 days of publication) and petitions for judicial review (due within 60 days of publication. And sure enough, according to an FCC public notice, two parties have indeed filed for reconsideration.
Trimble Navigation Limited and Deere & Company – two members of the GPS Innovation Alliance – filed a joint petition asking for more stringent limits on AWS-3 emissions into radionavigation satellite system spectrum. Meanwhile, Engineers for the Integrity of Broadcast Auxiliary Services Spectrum also sought reconsideration. Their complaint: in its decision the FCC appears to have completely ignored their comments regarding the FCC’s decision to move Department of Defense operations into the 2 GHz TV Broadcast Auxiliary Services band.
Interested parties will be permitted to comment on either of both of these petitions. The deadline, however, won’t be set until the FCC’s public notice shows up in the Federal Register. Ordinarily, the comment period in such situations is abbreviated, so if you are interested, be sure to check back here for updates.
As comments pile up in the Open Internet proceeding, straining the FCC’s systems, a post on the Commission’s blog got us thinking about transparency.
On July 14, 2014 – the day before the original deadline for initial comments in the Open Internet (a/k/a Net Neutrality) proceeding – in the spirit of transparency the FCC’s Chief Information Officer took to the Commission’s blog to tout the agency’s ability to track the numbers of comments flooding in over the transom. According to a couple of files linked in his post, the Commission had received nearly 170,000 Net Neutrality comments submitted electronically through ECFS (the FCC's online filing system), and another 442,000 or so by email. Those numbers are a moving target, though, and the target is only moving up: according to a post on ArsTechnica, by 11:00 a.m. on July 15, the tally was up to about 670,000.
It will doubtless go well beyond that, once ECFS comes back to life. The ArsTechnica post indicates that ECFS had crashed; our own observations here in the CommLawBlog bunker lent credence to that report, although the FCC conceded only that the “overwhelming surge” in traffic has “ma[de] it difficult” for some folks to file. As a result, the deadline for filing Net Neutrality comments has been extended to “midnight Friday, July 18”. (BTW – we confirmed with the FCC that they mean 11:59 p.m. (ET) on July 18.)
Keeping track of the influx of comments is presumably useful at some level, and the FCC’s ability to do so – apparently even on an hour-by-hour basis – is to be commended. But that ability is of, at best, secondary interest. When Katrina struck New Orleans, local residents may have been interested in precisely how much water was coming over the levees, whether by the minute or the hour or the day. But they were certainly more interested in how that water, however much water there was, was going to be disposed of.
Which brings us to some back-of-the-hand calculations.Continue Reading...
As we reported last week, the FCC is looking into a number of possible changes to the Emergency Alert System (EAS) in the wake of the first-ever nationwide test of the system conducted in November, 2011. The Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now been published in the Federal Register. As a result, we can now report that the deadline for comments is August 14, 2014 and the deadline for reply comments is August 29. Comments and replies can be submitted electronically at this site; use Proceeding No. 04-296.
FCC answers some questions on next phase of CAF, but raises new questions about the CAF Phase II and Mobility Fund Phase II Auctions
If we go just by the title of the FCC’s most recent action in the Connect America Fund (CAF) docket, the FCC accomplished quite a bit in one fell swoop. The lengthy (108 pages!) document is entitled “Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Seventh Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.” Phew! (Let’s just call it the CAF Recon Order for short.) That just about runs the gamut of possible FCC actions, so we should expect a lot for our money. And, to a large extent, we got it.
The CAF Recon Order is a follow-on to the FCC’s massive and comprehensive attempt in 2011 to radically reform the entire regime of universal service funds (“USF”) and intercarrier compensation that has ruled the telecom landscape for a generation. That effort, grandiosely but not inaccurately dubbed the “Transformation Order” by the FCC, took an axe to the carrier-to-carrier rates and USF that previously paid for the high costs of completing long distance calls to rural areas of the country. Many prices paid by long distance telephone companies and wireless carriers, along with some previously available USF, were reduced, consolidated or eliminated over a period of a few years, and provisions that might have incentivized some operators to over-invest in upgrading their networks were eliminated. The availability of USF was eliminated as unnecessary for situations where, without reliance on USF, comparable service had been deployed.
The “transformation”, while dramatic, has proven to be less than permanent in a number of respects.Continue Reading...
Federal Register publication also establishes deadlines for reconsideration, appeal, of spectrum screen Report and Order.
CORRECTION!!! In this item as originally posted, we reported that the full text of the FCC’s spectrum incentive auction Report and Order, FCC 14-50, had been published in the Federal Register. That was incorrect. What appeared in the Federal Register was the related Report and Order, FCC 14-63, concerning the updated spectrum screens adopted in anticipation of the incentive auctions. We wrote about that latter order here. While the two orders are obviously related, they are also obviously separate and distinct, and – to put it bluntly – we messed up this time. While the deadline dates described in our original post are accurate, they apply only to the spectrum screen decision and not to the spectrum incentive auction Report and Order. We have revised the post accordingly. We apologize for this error.
Last June the Commission released its order adopting new spectrum screens in advance of the spectrum incentive auction. We reported on that order last month. The FCC’s spectrum screen Report and Order has now been published in the Federal Register. As a result, we now know that the rules adopted by the Commission are set to take effect on September 9, 2014.
Anyone who wants the FCC to rethink any part of the Report and Order has until Monday, August 11, 2014, to file for reconsideration. (The niceties of the recon drill may be found here.) Anyone who wants to take the matter straight to one of the courts of appeals has until September 9.
And anybody in that latter category who has his or her heart set on having the appeal heard by a particular Circuit will have to comply with the rules governing the judicial lottery procedures. Those rules kick in when petitions for review of a single order are filed in multiple Circuits. In that event, the determination of which Circuit gets to hear the appeal is made by lottery conducted by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In order to get your preferred Circuit into the drum from which the lucky Circuit will ultimately be drawn, you have to file your petition for review within 10 days of July 11 (i.e., by July 21) and, also by July 21, you have to have a paper copy of the petition bearing the “received” stamp of the court delivered to the General Counsel’s office at the FCC. (Here’s a helpful guide about all this prepared by the FCC’s Office of General Counsel.)
Does the FCC really care about your input on a mandatory online filing requirement for the Forms 499? We’re not entirely sure.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that “[e]liminating . . . unjustified reporting and paperwork burdens” is a “high priority” of the current Administration. Perhaps, but OMB also reports that, in 2011 Americans spent an estimated 9.14 billion hours filling out Federal government forms.
According to a recent notice published in the Federal Register pursuant to the hilariously named Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the FCC is looking to streamline the reporting burdens of Forms 499-A and 499-Q by eliminating one filing requirement (“the third-party disclosure requirement” – whatever that means… more on this below) and ditching paper filing in favor of mandatory online electronic filing for Forms 499-A and 499-Q. So, thankfully, the FCC may be embracing the Administration’s supposed priority.
Or maybe the FCC just got tired of trying to squeeze new boxes and lines onto the paper forms whenever requirements change.
In any case, other than the extremely vague PRA notice, we know nothing about the proposed changes because the FCC hasn’t released any other information about them. So filers have no way of knowing how the new requirements may be implemented or whether the changes will actually reduce reporting burdens.Continue Reading...
The new Form 477 filing interface goes live on July 31.
Last year we reported on the Commission’s expansion of the Form 477 Data Program, which collects information from broadband and voice service providers. Because of the new “information collection” components, the expansion could not fully take effect until approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The FCC has now published notice in the Federal Register announcing OMB’s final approval of the new Form 477 protocols. As a result, all the rules comprising the Form 477 Data Program are now in effect and the FCC is ready to collect its data through a new filing interface.
And about that new interface. According to a recent Public Notice, the newly developed Form 477 filing interface – originally set to go live on July 31 – must be capable of collecting and processing data “securely and efficiently”. Of course, being a new system (and developed by the government), one would anticipate a few technical difficulties at the outset. To account for potential issues, the FCC has shifted the Form 477 filing window by 30 days – where it would typically run from July 1 to September 1, this year it will run from July 31 to October 1, 2014.
To assist filers with the new system, the Commission also plans to march out a number of resources – updated web pages, instructions, systems guide, and frequently asked questions – before July 31. It’s also planning to present an “instructional webinar”, but don’t look for that until sometime after the filing window opens. Unfortunately, there’s no mention of an Android or iPhone app.
More information on the revised Form 477 data collection can be found on the FCC’s website.
Comsearch wraps up tests, FCC invites comments.
The FCC has asked for comment on white space database tests recently conducted by Comsearch. Comsearch’s test report can be found here.
It’s been about three and a half years since Comsearch (and eight other database administrator wannabes) got the initial nod from the FCC. But things have moved slowly since then. The original group of nine was eventually expanded to ten when Microsoft arrived late to the party, and most recently to 11 when Google tossed in a "major modification" to its previously-approved system. Before any administrator can be finally approved, its proposed system has to be tested, and the test results must be made available for public comment. Only four of the 11 systems have made it all the way through to final approval thus far. One other (LS telcom AG) has finished its testing but still hasn’t gotten the FCC thumbs up.
Our CommLawBlog entry reporting the commencement of Comsearch’s tests may be found here.
Comments on the Comsearch test report are due by July 8, 2014 and reply comments by July 15.
For background on the databases and what they do, see this article.
Test Finished; Comments Sought
Frequency Finder Inc.
Google Inc. II
LS telcom AG
Key Bridge Global LLC
Spectrum Bridge Inc.
From our "Gee, haven't we heard this before somewhere?" file
If you happened to read our post from a month ago, you already know that the effective date for the new attribution rules relative to TV joint sales arrangements is June 19, 2014. The Media Bureau has now confirmed that in a public notice.
The Bureau’s notice sheds no new light on anything. Au contraire, it confirms our previous observations that: (a) the new filing requirements relative to the TV JSA rules are not yet effective (thanks to the need for OMB review mandated by the Paperwork Reduction Act) and (b) the two-year compliance period wraps up on June 19, 2016. On that last point, the public notice doesn’t say anything about the fact that, at least according to our official CommLawBlog calendar, June 19, 2016 is expected to be a Sunday.
Of course, as of their effective date, the new rules apply to new JSA's -- that is, the two-year compliance period relates only to JSA's already in existence prior to the effective date.
So no real news here, but now we do have official confirmation.
On the agenda: The implications of the FCC’s Open Internet decision
Few issues in the recent past have attracted as much attention as net neutrality. Everybody’s got something to say about it: industry representatives, public interest advocates, pundits on all sides of the political spectrum, even late night humor shows.
But how many of them have actually read the FCC’s decision and thought through its obvious, and not so obvious, implications?
FHH telecom guru Paul Feldman has, and he’s set to share his thoughts in a FREE webinar on Thursday, June 19, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. (ET).
Join Paul as he analyzes the current state of net neutrality and the prospects for further developments – at the FCC, in the courts, and in the real world.
It happens every spring: the annual announcement of proposed regulatory fees that the FCC’s regulatees will be called upon to shell out toward the end of summer. While the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) laying out the proposed fees has in recent years tended to pop up in early May (or even April, back in 2010), the Commission is running a tad late this time around.
Never fear – the proposed 2014 reg fees are here!
While the final figures (usually adopted in July or early August, payable in late August or September) may vary here and there from the proposals, generally any changes will be minor. The issuance of this year’s NPRM gives one and all an opportunity to comment on the proposals before they get etched in stone (although many may question the utility of trying to sway the Commission on the fee front).
There’s some interesting news for both TV folks and radio folks in the FCC’s proposals.Continue Reading...
If you’re an LPTV, Class A TV or TV translator licensee and you haven’t gotten around to filing for displacement facilities (or, in the case of translators, digital replacement translator (DRT) facilities), we’ve got bad news for you: effective immediately (that is, as of June 11, 2014), the Media Bureau has put a freeze on such filings. While the abrupt announcement of an in-effect-immediately freeze is always a bit surprising, the reason underlying the freeze is not. It’s necessary to ensure a static frequency landscape as the FCC gears up for the incentive auction.
Unlike many other freezes, this one is not expected to cause much disruption. That’s because, given the fact that the television digital transition was largely completed nearly five years ago, the Bureau figures that “there should be little occasion for new DRT and displacement applications to be filed.”
The freeze will remain in effect until after the incentive auction is completed. The Bureau will then announce a special filing window to be opened for existing DRT, LPTV, and TV translator stations displaced by the incentive auction-induced channel repacking.
This is not what you might call a Han Solo-in-carbonite freeze – there is a little wiggle room. During the freeze, LPTV and TV translators will be able to request a waiver to seek displacement if they can demonstrate that they are causing or receiving “new actual” interference to or from a full power television station. Here’s what the Commission has to say about “new actual interference”:
By “new” interference, we mean interference that is a result of the initiation of new or modified service by a full power station during the freeze. To qualify for the waiver, the displacement applicant must demonstrate either actual interference within the noise limited contour of the full power station or actual interference to the displacement applicant’s LPTV or TV translator station, either of which will result in the immediate loss of service to viewers, thus necessitating the grant of its application.
This waiver opportunity will not ordinarily extend to applications for new DRTs or Class A displacements. The need for such facilites has presumably already been identified and addressed.
The Bureau will continue to process DRT and displacement applications already on file prior to June 11. Also, during the freeze the Bureau will accept minor change applications and applications for digital flash cut and digital companion channels filed by existing LPTV and TV translator and Class A stations.
We recently reported on a Request for Expedited Declaratory Ruling in which T-Mobile is asking the Commission for guidance on how the “commercial reasonableness” of data roaming charges is to be measured. Acting with admirable alacrity, the FCC has now formally acknowledged the T-Mobile filing and has invited comments and reply comments about it. Anyone with something to say on the topic of data roaming charges has until July 10, 2014 to submit comments; reply comments may be filed by August 11. Submissions may be uploaded through the FCC’s ECFS filing site; use Proceeding No. 05-265.
Broadcasters feeling the heat as another agency tries to help the music industry
In its never-ending push-and-pull relationship with the music industry over copyright royalties, the radio industry currently faces assaults on multiple fronts. While the creation of a “performance right” (or, as broadcasters view it, a “performance tax”) appears to have been staved off for another year (according to the NAB), there are plenty of other threats headed the broadcasters’ way.
For example, the radio industry is already subject to a performance right obligation requiring stations to pay recording artists, through SoundExchange, for the digital performance of sound recordings. That burden is almost certain to increase as a result of the “Webcasting IV” proceeding that will set new streaming rates for 2016-2020. Also, the Copyright Office is looking at whether changes to all aspects of music licensing are warranted. And lurking just beyond the horizon we have the “Respect Act” recently introduced in Congress. That would require digital radio services (Pandora, Sirius XM and anyone engaged in webcasting, including broadcasters) to pay royalties for sound recordings created before February 15, 1972. Such recordings are currently covered by most state copyright laws but not by federal law.
Now we can add another potential flashpoint: the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice has initiated a review of the longstanding ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees that mandate federal court oversight of the rates paid by radio broadcasters to ASCAP/BMI-repped songwriters/composers.Continue Reading...
The rules implementing the CALM Act have been changed. But don’t worry: the revised version won’t take effect for another year.
The CALM Act, designed to make LOUD COMMERCIALS a thing of the past, was enacted in late 2010. The Commission diligently undertook the necessary follow-up rulemaking to implement the Act. The resulting rules were adopted in December, 2011; they took effect in December, 2012, per the schedule dictated by Congress.
And, as we reported last year, by 2013 the rules already had to be amended.
That led to a further rulemaking proceeding which has now been concluded. Since Congress gave the FCC no discretion in the matter, the rule changes proposed last fall have been adopted.
If you want more background on all this, check out our post from last November. The short version: The CALM Act ordered the FCC to incorporate into its rules ATSC A/85 Recommended Practice (RP), a standard for monitoring and controlling the loudness level of digital TV programming. At the time, the latest and greatest version of that RP was vintage 2011, so that’s the one the FCC adopted. But, recognizing that standards and technology are constantly evolving, Congress also ordered the FCC to update its rules to incorporate any subsequent changes to the RP.
Sure enough, the RP was updated in early 2013, which meant that the FCC had to do likewise with its rules.Continue Reading...
Last month we reported on the FCC’s announcement that its new application fee schedule would kick in as of June 6. We also suggested that there would likely be some slippage and that the actual effective date would be later. Sure enough, the Commission has announced that the real effective date of the new fee schedule will be July 3, 2014. The Commission promises that it will issue a further public notice confirming the date before then; it also says that new fee filing guides will be posted on its website before as well. We’ll keep an eye out and, if the date starts to move again, we’ll let you know.
In the meantime, if you have any applications that could be filed by July 2, you can save yourself at least a couple of bucks by getting them in before the prices go up.
In April we reported on the adoption of new service rules for 65 MHz of re-purposed spectrum in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands to be used for Advanced Wireless Services (AWS-3). The Commission’s Report and Order has now been published in the Federal Register, which means that the effective date of most (but not all) of the new rules has been set. Mark your calendars: July 7, 2014 is the date. But note that the amendment to Section 2.106 (adding Fixed and Mobile allocations for the 2025-2110 MHz band to the Federal Table of Frequency Allocations) won’t kick in until the Commission issues a further notice in the Federal Register. Ditto for Sections 2.1033(c)(19)(i)-(ii), 27.14(k) and (s), 27.17(c), 27.50(d)(3), 27.1131, 27.1132, and 27.1134(c) and (f), all of which involve new "information collections" that first have to be run through the Paperwork Reduction Act drill at the Office of Management and Budget. Check back here for updates.
FCC sets ambitious $10.5 billion reserve price.
Hot on the heels of its March 31, 2014 adoption service rules for the long awaited AWS-3 service, the FCC wasted no time issuing a public notice and request for comments in which it set a date – November 13, 2014 – for the auction of the new spectrum and proposed rules to govern the auction. (Last April we reported on the structure of the newly-authorized service and the license blocks that will be up for sale.)
If everything on the AWS-3 front looks like it’s moving fast, that’s because it is. The haste is necessitated by the looming statutory date of February, 2015 by which the Commission must have not only completed the auction but also actually issued the licenses to the winning bidders. The auction notice is designed to set the stage for the auction itself.
The auction will follow the typical FCC auction format, including the now-customary anonymous bidding feature. This relatively recent wrinkle to the auction process prevents bidders from knowing who is bidding on what until after the auction is over. A few features are of particular note:Continue Reading...
Waivers will allow retuning older U-NII-3 band systems to operate in U-NII-1.
The new U-NII rules, which take effect June 2, increase the power limits for the U-NII-1 band (5.15-5.25 GHz) and allow outdoor operation. Devices certified for the higher-powered U-NII-3 band (5.725-5.825 GHz) can be retuned for use in U-NII-1, but older systems may not comply with the new rules. Users or providers of those older systems have 30 days – until July 2 – to apply for waivers to allow their operation in U-NII-1. The FCC expects to quickly approve any such requests that seek to operate within the U-NII-1 band with up to 250 mW of conducted power and a PSD of 11 dBm/MHz with a 6 dBi gain antenna. This does not automatically rule out requests for higher power that come within the old rules for U-NII-3 (i.e., the ones that were in effect before June 2) or under the former version of Section 15.247, but the FCC may take longer to consider these.
If the above makes no sense to you, no need to worry – this post probably doesn’t affect you. Just ignore it.
Back in April we reported on a sweeping Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) on the evolving creation of a Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3.5 GHz band. The proposal incorporates a new approach to how the world might handle spectrum use, including on-the-fly frequency coordination with priority up for sale via auction. The FNPRM has now been published in the Federal Register. As a result, we know the deadlines for comments and reply comments directed to the FCC’s proposals. Comments are due by July 14, 2014 and replies by August 1. Anyone wishing to comment now may do so by uploading their submissions in Proceeding No. 12-354 at the FCC’s ECFS filing site.
There’s been some movement on the white space database administrator front – but it’s hard to call it progress. Readers will recall that Google got its database system approved nearly a year ago. But now comes word from the Office of Engineering and Technology that Google has come up with a “new registration system” which is a “major modification” to the Google system previously approved. That means that the new version will have to be run through the same hoops as the original. Accordingly, for a 45-day test period beginning on June 2, 2014, Google’s new system will be available for public trials. Interested folks can give it the once-over, kick the tires, take it for a spin and see if it does what it’s supposed to.
When the test wraps up – on July 17, or maybe later if the FCC decides more testing is called for – we’ll see the usual drill: Google will have to file a report on the test, public comment on the report will be invited and, if everything works out Google’s way, the FCC will eventually re-approve it as a coordinator. If and when that happens, Google’s new system will rejoin the others already approved.
OET’s public notice indicates that Google is currently relying on Spectrum Bridge (another already-approved coordinator) to manage registration of protected entities on Google’s behalf. Google’s new system is intended to “replace [Google’s] use of the Spectrum Bridge procedures”. What precisely has become of Google’s originally approved system is not clear.
Four other candidates have still not reached the testing phase, so check back here for updates.
In keeping with our white space database SOP, we have updated our handy-dandy table charting the progress of each of the would-be administrators by inserting a new row (for “Google Inc. II”) to track the progress of the latest test process:Continue Reading...
Trying to meet conflicting demands of court, Congress and constituency, Chairman Wheeler is on the horns of a dilemma.
The FCC’s May, 2014 monthly meeting was not ordinary. Protestors camped outside the Commission’s headquarters and shouted slogans in its meeting room. Democratic Commissioners showed signs of open rebellion against their Chairman. Republican Commissioners stood in blunt opposition to the Chairman. And everyone, including the Chairman, urged fervently that “the future of the Internet” was at stake.
Against this backdrop, Chairman Wheeler announced the FCC’s latest proposal for Open Internet rules. Caught between the demands of his political constituency and legal requirements set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, he attempted to walk a narrow and difficult path.
And by a 3-2 vote (with two of the three Commissioners in the majority expressing serious reservations), the FCC followed the Chairman on that path: it adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) soliciting comments on the latest approach to “net neutrality” regulation.
Highlights of the NPRM include proposals to:Continue Reading...
Federal Register publication also sets deadlines for comments on changes to ownership rules proposed in 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review.
What with the Federal Register publication of the new retrans consent restrictions, you had to know that the new limits on TV joint sales agreements (JSAs) couldn’t be far behind. And sure enough, the FCC’s 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review (2014 Quad Reg Review) decision has now been published in the Federal Register in two separate parts – one covering the Report and Order component and the other covering the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) component.
As a result, we now know when the new JSA rules for TV licensees will take effect – that would be June 19, 2014. We also know that comments on the various proposals in the NPRM are due by July 7, 2014 and reply comments by August 4.
While the new JSA rules require that TV JSAs old and new be submitted to the Commission (and placed in stations’ online public inspection files), that requirement will not kick in on June 19. Because that aspect of the rules constitutes an “information collection”, it must first be run past the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the hilariously-named Paperwork Reduction Act. As a result, we don’t expect the file-with-the-FCC/place-in-the-public-file component to take effect for another four-six months or so. Check back here for updates.Continue Reading...
Update: Effective Date, Appeal/Recon Deadlines Set for New Restrictions on Retrans Consent Negotiations
Last month we reported on the Commission’s decision to prohibit joint retransmission consent negotiations between two non-commonly owned “Top Four” stations in the same market. The Report and Order component of that decision has now been published in the Federal Register. That establishes the effective date for the prohibition: June 18, 2014. Any TV licensees preferring some kind of joint retrans negotiations should thus be sure to wrap them up before then – but it’s probably best not to get your hopes up on that score, since the folks on the other side of the table will also be aware of the approaching effective date and may therefore not be especially motivated to close a deal before then.
The Federal Register publication also starts the countdown for (1) petitions for reconsideration asking the Commission to re-think things and (2) petitions for review asking a Federal appeals court to reverse the Commission. Recon petitions are due at the Commission no later than June 18, 2014. Petitions for review are due by July 18.Continue Reading...
Early last month we reported on the adoption of new rules intended to beef up Wi-Fi operations across the country. Thanks to a notice in the Federal Register, we now know that those new rules (with one exception) will take effect on June 2, 2014. That starts a 12-month transition period (beginning with the June 2 effective date) by the end of which applications for certification of 5 GHz devices must meet the new and modified rules. IMPORTANT: Equipment manufacturers and operators who, prior to the effective date, installed outdoor U-NII-3 band systems that don’t comply with the new EIRP limits have until July 2, 2014 to file waiver requests. Not a big deal – the FCC has signaled it intends to grant these.
The one aspect of the new rules that is not subject to the effective date is Section 15.407(j). That section requires anybody “deploying an aggregate total of more than one thousand outdoor access points within the 5.15-5.25 GHz band” to first submit a letter to the Commission acknowledging that they will have to take corrective action should harmful interference to licensed services in the band occur. Since that submission requirement is, in the parlance of the hilariously-named Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), an “information collection”, it must first be run past the Office of Management and Budget. That process, which generally takes four-six months or so, has also been initiated by a separate Federal Register notice.
PRA notices often contain curious nuggets, and this one is no exception. Again, Section 15.407(j) requires the preparation of a letter acknowledging responsibility for correcting interference. That’s what, maybe two-three paragraphs long, at most. And while we are loath to discourage the creative spirit, this type of letter appears ideal for a totally mechanistic, boilerplate approach. But the FCC’s “estimated time per response” for each respondent is a staggering 32 hours – that’s four full eight-hour days. Anyone charging by the hour for the preparation of such letters may want to make note of that estimate for future billing purposes.
Section 15.407(j) won’t take effect until OMB has signed off on it and the FCC has published a follow-up notice reporting on that. Check back here for updates.
Last month we reported that comment deadlines had been set with respect to the long-pending proposal to establish a “designated hitter” approach to assure that EAS announcements are broadcast in foreign languages when the audience includes a significant number of non-English speaking folks. If you’re thinking about filing comments in that proceeding, get your calendar and your eraser out. The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau has just pushed the deadlines back a month. The Bureau was happy to do so particularly because the original proponent, the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, was the one asking for more time. Comments in response to the Bureau’s request for comments are now due by May 28, 2014 and replies are due by June 12.
Comments have been invited on an NAB/SBE proposal aimed at (slightly) improving the audio quality on the TIS without interfering with AM stations.
Last July we blogged about changes the Commission had adopted to improve Travelers' Information Stations (TIS). At that time, the FCC proposed another fairly drastic change – the elimination of certain filtering requirements – that might potentially improve the service. The proposal went farther than some commenters thought advisable, which prompted them to propose a more moderate approach and, in response, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau has now issued a Public Notice seeking further comment. (The Bureau probably could have skipped this step, but this writer thinks it’s a good thing they didn’t.)
TIS are low-power AM stations broadcasting information of interest to motorists, including traffic and road conditions, travel advisories, hazards, directions and the like. Each station covers only a small geographic area, most commonly along major highways and near tourist destinations.
AM service is notoriously interference-prone, with TIS as a potential source. The interference occurs because of the “sideband” portion of the TIS-transmitted AM signal. Excessively wide sidebands can cross over into another station’s channel, causing interference to that station. With AM stations – whose signals, particularly at night, can extend for hundreds of miles – this can cause big problems.Continue Reading...
A Federal Register notice suggests that the FCC may be thinking about re-imposing the Form 395-B requirement – but the notice neglects a couple of problems.
It’s baaaack – maybe. The Commission’s decade-dormant annual employment report form has stirred. In a Federal Register notice the FCC has advised that it is cranking up the process (mandated by the hilariously-named Paperwork Reduction Act) to secure the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to continue to keep Form 395-B in the FCC’s roster of forms.
There are multiple problems here.
As longtime Commission watchers may recall, Form 395-B calls for broadcast stations to provide information, annually, detailing the racial, ethnic and gender composition of their full-time and part-time staff according to job category. If you’re a recent arrival to the broadcast industry – “recent” being within the last 15 years or so – you may not be familiar with Form 395-B. You can read about the history in this post of ours from last year.Continue Reading...
Last week we reported on the FCC’s Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the “proposed rulemaking” component of which sought comments on the possible elimination of the Commission’s existing network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules. (Those rules allow broadcasters to ask the Commission to enforce exclusivity rights granted in network affiliation or syndication agreements. While not themselves establishing such rights, the FCC’s rules do set out the maximum areas in which such rights may be granted, and provide a framework through which broadcasters can enforce those rights to prohibit MVPDs from importing distant signals.) The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now been published in the Federal Register, so we now know the deadlines for comments on the proposal. Comments may be filed by May 12, 2014 and replies by June 9. Comments may be uploaded at the FCC’s ECFS filing site; the relevant “Proceeding Number” is 10-71.
Live on the Intertubes: Kevin (“The Swami”) Goldberg and Harry (“The Blogmeister”) Cole, recapping the Aereo story on (almost) the eve of the Supreme Court argument.
Hey, CommLawBlog readers (you know who you are)! Kevin Goldberg (a/k/a/ the Swami) and Harry Cole (a/k/a the Blogmeister) have put up scads of posts here covering the ongoing drama of Aereo vs. the Broadcasters (and its various spin-offs, including Aereo: Los Angeles, better known as Aereokiller vs. the Broadcasters). You’ve been reading their stuff for years – now you can listen to them, too!
Back in December, Kevin speculated that we could be seeing Aereo Armageddon sooner rather than later in the form of a Supreme Court showdown. And sure enough (we don’t call him the Swami for nothing), that showdown is on the Court’s schedule for April 22, when Aereo and its various nemeses are set to face off in an epic oral argument before the Supremes.
The outcome – likely to be decided by the end of June – could have a major impact on the Future of Broadcast Television (as well as other incidentals, like the Future of Cloud Computing). Suffice it to say, we can expect the argument and its aftermath to be big news.
To help make sense of it all before the argument – and to help make sense of the argument once it happens – Kevin and Harry will be presenting a FREE webinar on Wednesday, April 16 at 3:00 p.m. ET to review and explain the legal issues and judicial decisions that have brought Aereo to the Supreme Court. Their goal will be to provide attendees background to help them understand the arguments before – and the ultimate decision of – the Court. They’ll track the legal history from which Aereo emerged, sort out the various different lawsuits that have cropped up across the country, and look at possible outcomes.
You can register to attend the free 75-minute webinar by clicking on the link below. Space is limited and registration is available on a first-come, first-served basis only.
(Messrs. K and H assure the public their production will be second to none . . .)
Media Bureau “reminder” seems to eliminate any hope of extension of exemption for non-Top Four affiliates outside of top 50 DMAs.
If you’re a TV licensee who doesn’t happen to be either (a) in any of the top 50 DMAs or (b) affiliated with one of the top four commercial networks (ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC), we’ve got some news for you: it looks like you’ll be having to upload all your new (but none of your old) political file data to your online public inspection file starting July 1, 2014.
That, at least, is the unmistakable take-away message from a public notice issued by the Media Bureau.
The notice reminds one and all of a wrinkle the Commission included when it imposed the online public file requirement for TV licensees back in 2012. At that time, the obligation to upload the political file component of each station’s public file was limited to Top Four affiliates in the top 50 DMAs. All other stations were still required to maintain a political public file, but only on paper, as they had done for years.
In 2012, the Commission said the exemption would be good only until July 1, 2014. BUT the FCC held out at least a glimmer of hope that the exemption might be extended: in 2013 the Media Bureau was to invite comments on whether “any changes [to the online political file rule] should be made before it takes effect for the other stations.” The Bureau dutifully solicited comments in June, 2013 and, as we reported last year, the response was less than overwhelming.Continue Reading...
A week or two ago we reported on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in which the FCC is proposing changes to a number of rules relating to emergency signaling devices. The NPRM has now made it into the Federal Register, which means that we now know the comment deadlines. If you are planning to chip in your two cents’ worth, you’ve got until June 2, 2014 to file comments, and June 30 for replies. You can file comments by going to this FCC site and uploading your comments in Proceeding Number 14-36.
Earlier this month we reported on the FCC’s invitation for comments to “refresh the record” with respect to the MMTC suggestion that broadcasters should adopt a “designated hitter” approach to assure that EAS announcements are broadcast in foreign languages, particularly when non-English speaking folks comprise a significant portion of the market’s population. The invitation has now been published in the Federal Register, which sets the deadlines for comments. If you are inclined to accept the FCC’s invitation, you have until April 28, 2014 to get your comments in; replies may be filed by May 12.
Earlier this month we reported on the FCC’s Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in its effort to improve E911 location capabilities. The NPRM has now made it into the Federal Register, as a result of which we now know the comment deadlines. Comments in response to the NPRM may be filed by May 12, 2014 and replies by June 11.
What will channel repacking require in money and effort? FCC-commissioned report itemizes licensees’ anticipated costs of repacking, likely steps toward completion, probable sticking points.
The incentive auction and related spectrum repacking are coming. If you’re a TV licensee and you’ve avoided thinking about what might happen to you when the repacking happens, it’s time to get off the dime. The repacking is approaching. You will need to be ready when it arrives.
To remind us all of that fact, the Commission has released a report providing a reasonably clear, if unpleasant, glimpse of the practical tasks the TV industry has to look forward to.
The Commission hired Widelity, Inc., a communications consulting firm, last September to give the agency, and the TV industry, a better idea of the steps that licensees will need to take, and the expenses they’re likely to face, in carrying out the coming spectrum repacking. The report is the result of Widelity’s efforts. (If you’re fuzzy on the whole repacking idea, take a look at our series on the incentive auction, particularly this post and this post.)
The short version of the bad news: the per station repacking process is likely to cost anywhere from the mid-six figures (in uncomplicated TV markets) to eight figures in the largest urban areas. It’s likely to drag on for at least the better part of a year in even the simplest case and could stretch out for several years in others (and those estimates all assume – unrealistically – that no glitches crop up). And it’s likely to be subject to a wide variety of practical problems.Continue Reading...
Major overhaul of all music licensing may be in the offing as Copyright Office opens far-ranging inquiry.
Congress could not have foreseen all of today’s technologies and the myriad ways consumers and others engage with creative works in the digital environment. Perhaps nowhere has the landscape been as significantly altered as in the realm of music.
With that observation nestled in the opening paragraph of a Notice of Inquiry (NOI), the Copyright Office (CO) has kicked off a wide-ranging evaluation of “the effectiveness of existing methods of licensing music”. The CO’s study could eventually have a dramatic impact on the uses and distribution of recorded music in all areas of American business and culture.
The CO’s statement quoted above is certainly accurate (although similar technological changes have transformed the delivery of video programming, too). Think about the changes in recorded music since 1976, when Congress last overhauled the Copyright Act. Where we had vinyl discs (33-1/3 LPs, 45s and maybe even 78s) in 1976, we’ve since run through eight-tracks, cassettes and CDs. And now we can obtain recorded music digitally from MP3 and Internet streaming and MP3s. Where we once received music via broadcast radio, we now have satellite and Internet radio.
Despite these wholesale changes, the process of licensing recorded music has remained largely static for decades. That’s why many music industry participants – including songwriters, recording artists, broadcasters, Internet radio services – agree that revision of the process is long overdue.
Music licensing is complex. It includes multiple separate and distinct components that may not be immediately apparent to the casual observer. Anyone even tangentially interested in the CO’s study should read the CO’s NOI at least for background purposes. Before we look at the questions the CO has posed, let’s review the various components of music licensing.Continue Reading...
Most readers will likely recall that, late last year, the FCC invited comments (and replies) on whether the Commission should lift its regulatory ban against cell phone use in airplanes. Not surprisingly, the FCC’s proposal attracted considerable attention. To date, more than 1,300 comments have already been filed in the docket.
Reply comments were originally due by March 17. Not anymore.
At the request of CTIA-The Wireless Association® and two aeronautics-related companies (AeroMobile Communications Limited and Panasonic Avionics Corporation), the deadline for replies has been extended a generous 60 days (to May 16, 2014). The extension will enable all parties to conduct further analyses and undertake further consultation relative to the thorny technical issues on the table. It will also give interested parties time to sift through the ever-growing pile of comments already submitted.
Some Connect America funding contemplated once policies, standards are set in second phase of proceeding.
The FCC is looking for proposals to bring advanced telecommunications services to rural Americans . . . and it’s planning on providing governmental cash to worthy proponents. To help it determine what projects will get funded and how much funding will be available, the Commission has launched a two-phase process. In the now-open first phase, prospective proponents have been invited to submit “expressions of interest” describing what they have in mind. In the second stage, the FCC will seek more detailed and definite applications, subject to resolution of certain policy issues in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) component of the Technology Transition Order. Comments on the FNPRM are due March 31.
The Commission’s invitation is addressed to the widest range of communications service providers, including ILECs, CLECs, cable, utilities, fixed and mobile wireless, municipalities, Tribes, WISPs, and others. So if you’re interested in building high-speed, scalable IP-based networks in rural areas and maybe getting at least some federal funding in the process, listen up.
In its call for proposals, the FCC is focusing on proposals to build robust last-mile broadband, rather than middle mile projects. Proposed experiments described in expressions of interest must be for rural areas currently lacking Internet access service that delivers at least 3 Mbps downstream/768 kbps upstream.
The major goal here is to determine how the use of “tailored economic incentives” might encourage the deployment of next gen networks, wireline and wireless, in rural, high cost areas to which such networks have historically been slow to spread. In the FCC’s words, the experiment will “test, on a limited scale, the use of an application-based competitive bidding process with objective selection criteria”.
The Commission is currently considering what mechanism(s) to use in the award of Connect America funding support in price cap territories where the incumbent declines the offer of model-based support. One possibility would be for the FCC to use application-based competitive bidding, rather than a reverse auction. Another innovation: while such funding has previously been available only in areas served by price cap incumbent local exchange carriers, in this program it will also be made available in areas where the incumbent is a rate-of-return carrier.Continue Reading...
FCC’s September, 2013 denial of reconsideration finally makes it to the Federal Register
While the transition of full-power TV stations from analog to digital occurred nearly five years ago, the DTV transition for Class A and LPTV stations is still far from complete. In 2011 the FCC set deadlines for the construction of Class A and LPTV stations and the termination of all LPTV operation on Channels 52 and above. (Read out post about that decision here.) And as we reported last September, the Commission denied reconsideration of that decision.
For unexplained reasons, the order denying reconsideration was not published in the Federal Register . . . until now. Its publication there on March 6 starts the 60-day clock for seeking judicial review of the deadline rules. In other words, May 5, 2014 is the last day for getting to the court house.
For anyone who might (understandably) have lost track of this proceeding in the five months or so since the FCC formally addressed it, here’s what’s on the table.Continue Reading...
Last month we reported on an FCC proposal to expand its Text-to-911 mandate to include all texting service providers. That proposal has made it into the Federal Register. As a result, we now know that the deadline for comments on the proposal is April 4, 2014, and the deadline for reply comments is May 5. Comments and replies may be submitted electronically by uploading them at this FCC site; use Proceeding Number 11-153.
First in the door with a proposal: Iowa Network Services, with the help of one of our Fletcher Heald colleagues
As we reported last month, in late January the FCC released its Technology Transitions Order inviting proposals for service-based experiments designed to gauge the effects likely to be encountered as we shift from the legacy telephone network to an all Internet Protocol (IP) alternative. The target deadline initially set for proposals was February 20. And with lightning speed, the very next day the Commission released a public notice seeking comment on the first proposal, which had been filed on February 20.
We are pleased to report that that proposal, filed by Iowa Network Services, Inc. (INS), was prepared by our colleague (and occasional CommLawBlog contributor) James Troup on behalf of INS, an FHH client.
INS operates a statewide Centralized Equal Access (CEA) network in Iowa comprised of more than 2,000 miles of fiber optic cable and dual tandem switches. The network allows INS to aggregate rural traffic, centralize the provisioning of expensive features and functionalities, and help bring the benefits of advanced communications services and competition to rural areas of Iowa. INS connects service providers to more than 300 rural exchanges.Continue Reading...
OMB thumbs up clears path for rules adopted last August to kick in
Last August we reported on a decision by the Commission requiring ALL FCC-regulated services – broadcast and non-broadcast alike – to protect AM stations from signal distortion arising from construction or modification of nearby towers. (Reminder: The term “towers” in this context is broad and includes buildings or other structures on which a new or modified antenna or antenna-supporting structures are being installed.)
Because the new rules include “information collections”, their effectiveness had been deferred pending review by the Office of Management Budget (OMB) pursuant to the hilariously-named Paperwork Reduction Act.
The wait is now over. According to a notice in the Federal Register, OMB approved the rules on February 10, and as of February 20, 2014, they have become effective.
As we outlined in our post last August, the phase-in of the rules is somewhat complex, with some potential effects stretching over a year or two. AM stations and anyone building a structure near an AM station should take a close look at the rules to determine their potential impact on any particular situation.
Shared use of adjacent 2473-2483.5 MHz unlicensed band could raise objections.
Last November, at the urging of Globalstar, Inc., the FCC proposed to modify the Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) of the rules governing the Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) system operating in the Big Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) S band. Now, after an inexplicable three-month delay, that proposal has made it into the Federal Register, so comment and reply comment deadlines have been set.
Globalstar is the licensee of a Big LEO S band MSS system. It proposes ATC use of its licensed 2483.5-2495 MHz spectrum for a low power broadband network. That is not especially controversial because use of satellite spectrum for ATC service has been approved by the FCC for more than a decade as a way of expanding the use of satellite spectrum for terrestrial communications while maintaining the primary usage for satellite service.
The quirk in Globalstar’s proposal is that it would incorporate the adjacent 2473-2483.5 MHz segment of the 2.4 GHz unlicensed band into its operation. While the 2.4 GHz unlicensed band as a whole is widely used for Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, this particular segment at the upper end is unused by standard Wi-Fi operations in the U.S. because of the need to protect Globalstar’s adjacent satellite operations. Globalstar figured it could appropriate, in a practical sense, that 11.5 MHz in order to give it an effective full 22 MHz of bandwidth for its terrestrial operations.
But there are some complications.Continue Reading...
Some reporting, record retention requirements still in limbo pending OMB approval
In December we reported on a new set of rigorous requirements for 911 system service providers. And as we reported last month, most – but not all – of the requirements were set to take effect on February 18, 2014. However, also as we reported last month, two of the new rule sections impose new “information collections”; before they can take effect, those two sections (Sections 12.4(c) and (d)(1)) must be run through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a process that generally takes several months.
What we did not report in January was the fact that two additional sections (Sections 12.4(d)(3) and 4.9(h)) also impose “information collections” and must, therefore, also be shipped over to OMB. (We didn’t report that in January because the FCC didn’t acknowledge that those two were in fact “information collections” until a corrective announcement in February.)
To recap, then, now that February 18 is here, all “Covered Service Providers” must take reasonable steps toward providing reliable 911 service by conducting network monitoring and circuit audits and insuring the availability of backup power at any central office that serves a public safety access point.
But until further notice from the FCC, “Covered Service Providers” are not required to submit their annual reliability certifications (Section 12.4(c)) or their initial reliability certifications (Section 12.4(d)(1)). They are also not required to comply with the record retention obligations of Section 12.4(d)(3) or to report on outages potentially affecting a special 911 facility (Seciton 4.9(h))..
It’s official. The big day is April 22, 2014. That’s when the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the Aereo case. From the calendar released by the Court, it looks like the argument will be the second of two on the card – but that’s subject to change. If you’re planning on attending the argument, expect to get to the Court early in the morning, stand in line for a long time, and probably sit through a case you know nothing about
Or you could just make a point of checking in with us for our post-argument take on things.
While predicting the final result in a case based on oral argument is an unreliable (at best) exercise, the exchanges between the Justices and counsel for the various parties invariably lend themselves to beaucoup speculation. And we here at CommLawBlog plan to be speculating with the rest of the crowd. The difference? We’ll have Swami Kevin Goldberg – no stranger to this kind of this – and his pal the Blogmeister (Harry Cole) doing the heavy lifting for us. Kevin and Harry are planning to attend the argument and to share their observations with our readers promptly thereafter. Stay tuned.
About a year ago we reported on the adoption of a new set of rules governing the use of cell phone boosters. In passing, we noted that all boosters marketed in the U.S. must comply with the new standards by March 1, 2014.
Not so fast.
Turns out that it was a bit trickier than expected to develop the test procedures necessary to ensure compliance. The task force designing those test procedures included members of the TCB Council, test labs, equipment manufacturers and representatives of the wireless industry. Despite that fact – or who knows, maybe because of it – the task force’s in-depth consideration of the process “revealed significant technical and policy issues”. The upshot: the test procedures weren’t finalized and published until last month. And without final test procedures, manufacturers weren’t in a position to finalize and submit applications to get their gear certified.
Now that the test procedures – which the FCC assures us are “more robust” and “comprehensive” – are in place, manufacturers have started to run their equipment through the process. But that takes time. As a result, the Commission has agreed to extend for 60 days, to and including April 30, 2014, the deadline by which all Consumer Signal Boosters marketed, distributed or sold in the United States must comply with Section 20.21 of the Commission’s rules. In the meantime, the restrictions on sale and marketing (set out in Section 20.21(g)) are being waived until April 30 as well.
If you were planning to file reply comments in the AM Revitalization proceeding and were getting worried about how you were going to work those into your schedule – what with Valentine’s Day and Presidents’ Day and all – you can breathe a bit easier. The deadline for replies has been extended a month, to March 20, 2014. That’s good news because a quick check on ECFS indicates that by February 7 there were already more than 150 items in the docket to which a replier might want to reply. Better get reading!
Reply comments may be filed electronically through ECFS beginning at this link; reference Proceeding Number 13-249.
Comments sought on how and when text-to-911 should be required across-the-board, including by interconnected “over the top” services
Pity the poor FCC. Saddled with an outdated governing statute and limited resources, it’s supposed to regulate newly-minted whiz bang technologies that get embraced by the public seemingly before the FCC even learns about them. And when it tries to get ahead of the curve, it occasionally gets too far ahead. Case in point: its text-to-911 bounce-back rule for roaming customers. A great idea on paper but, as the FCC learned, beyond the capabilities of existing technology, the result being a last-minute revision to the rule last September.
Bloodied but unbowed, the FCC is again revising its text-to-911 rules in an apparent attempt to catch up with that “app” thing that all the kids are using. In a Policy Statement and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (PS/SFNPRM) the Commission is proposing to require all interconnected text messaging services to enable consumers to send text message to 911. This would include texting apps that ride “over the top” (OTT) of the data services of wireless service providers.
But this time, even the FCC recognizes that its ambitions may exceed present-day technical capabilities.
More than a year ago the Big Four wireless carriers (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile) agreed that, by May 15, 2014, they would provide text-to-911 service to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) that are capable of, and that request to receive, such service. With text-to-911 capabilities for the Big Guys now just a few months away, the FCC has decided as a matter of policy that every CMRS carrier and every provider that enables interconnected texting should do this as well.
How and when that might happen is unclear.Continue Reading...
It’s that time of year again – time for our annual reminder to all telecommunications carriers and interconnected VoIP providers that your CPNI certifications are due by March 3, 2014. While the Enforcement Bureau has announced the deadline as March 1, it appears not to have noticed that in 2014, March 1 is a Saturday. Thanks to our old friend Section 1.4(j) of the FCC's rules, when a filing deadline falls on a holiday -- and the rules do indeed specifically confirm that Saturdays are "holidays" -- the deadline rolls over to the next business day, which in this case will be Monday, March 3.
As described by the Enforcement Bureau, CPNI – Customer Proprietary Network Information to the uninitiated – includes “some of the most sensitive personal information that carriers have about their customers as a result of their business relationship”. Think phone numbers of calls made or received, or the frequency or duration of calls, etc. . . . basically the same stuff the NSA has apparently been collecting for years. While the NSA is not required to file CPNI certifications with the FCC, telecom carriers aren’t so lucky.
The Bureau has issued a convenient “Enforcement Advisory” to remind one and all of the fast-approaching March 3 deadline. Like similar advisories in past years, this year’s includes a helpful list of FAQs and a suggested template showing what a certificate should look like. The only noteworthy change from last year: the potential per-violation fine has risen to $160,000 (from last year’s $150,000), and the maximum potential fine for a continuing violation has been similarly jacked up, to $1,575,000 (from last year’s $1,500,000).
As those potential fines indicate, the Commission takes this reporting requirement very seriously. Historically it has doled out five-digit fines to non-compliant carriers. In fact, the FCC’s zeal is such that, in many instances, it has initiated forfeiture proceedings even against carriers who, as it turned out, had fully complied with the rules.Continue Reading...
Commission seeks data for critical policy dialogue; coming changes may particularly affect smaller carriers – and their customers.
Major changes are coming to the telephone system that provides the interconnected communications system on which American society has long depended. For more than 125 years that system has been based on a circuit-switched, mostly copper-wire-based public switched network (PSTN) – nowadays sometimes called a “Time Division Multiplex (TDM)” network. But networks based on Internet Protocol (IP) technology have begun to replace the PSTN. The FCC has now expressly acknowledged that the “the global multimedia communications infrastructure of the future” will consist of all-IP networks very different from the circuit-switched technology we have been used to since Alexander Graham Bell.
And with that acknowledgement, the FCC has now started to take steps to identify and assess the effects that the fundamental technological overhaul of our nationwide phone system are likely to have on phone companies, consumers, and the FCC’s own ability to achieve its statutory responsibilities.
To that end, the FCC has invited proposals for “service-based” experiments designed to illuminate and inform the transition to IP-based service. Reflecting the seriousness and urgency of its purpose, the FCC has set an unusually short deadline for the submission of the initial round of experiment proposals: they are due by February 20, 2014, a mere three weeks after the FCC’s call for those proposals. Potential experiment proponents will need to get moving quickly, as will parties wishing to comment on any proposals that are ultimately filed: comments are due by March 21.Continue Reading...
FCC still on track for May, 2014 start-date.
The FCC has announced the final rules for its upcoming auction of 22 AM radio construction permits.
As we reported last November, the auction – which is set for May, 2014 start date – involves applications filed a decade or so ago. In November, the FCC announced the eligible applications, the markets involved, and the proposed minimum bids for each market. It also solicited comments on those minimum bids and the auction procedures to be used.
In response, two applicants asked the Commission to remove their respective MX groups from the auction. Another applicant asked that the deadline for successful bidders to pony up their initial payments be delayed until the bidders can be reasonably sure that their proposed facilities will in fact be grantable – not an unreasonable concern. You can check out all the comments here. (Disclosure: a couple of our FHH colleagues, acting on behalf of one applicant, opposed the notion of removing its particular MX group from the auction.)
Tossing the various comments aside, the FCC declined to engage in any market carve-outs or payment postponements; instead, it’s full speed ahead toward the May auction.
The suggestion that the down payment deadline be postponed serves as a reminder to potential bidders of the FCC’s rigid “Buyer Beware” policy. If you bid on a license that turns out to be useless, the FCC does not let you off the hook. As is customary in broadcast auction notices, seven paragraphs of the FCC’s most recent notice caution bidders – twice in bold type – that bidders are expected to do their own due diligence. Bidders are warned that they are “solely responsible” and that “the FCC makes no representations or warranties” about the permits on the block. If you’re a bidder, consider yourself warned.Continue Reading...
Late last year we reported on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) casting considerable doubt on the future prospects of the sports blackout rule. The NPRM has made it into the Federal Register, so we now know the deadlines for comments and replies. If you want to toss your two cents’ worth in on the issues raised in the NPRM, you’ve got until February 24, 2014 to file comments and March 25 to file replies. You can do so by surfing over to the FCC’s ECFS electronic filing site and submitting them in Proceeding Number 12-3.
If you’re a webcaster, you’ve got until January 31 to wrap up your annual SoundExchange homework.
This should not be news to anybody. We’ve provided an annual reminder about the deadline and all that it entails since 2009. And yet, every year, some webcasters don’t pay attention and miss the filing date. As a result, they may lose the ability to claim the “small broadcaster” or “noncommercial microcaster” status that reduces their obligations for the rest of the year. Worse, they could open themselves up to a very sharply worded letter from SoundExchange advising of potentially significant monetary penalties. Sure, those penalties may not reach the worst-case scenario ($150K per copyrighted work), but they will almost certainly exceed by a long shot what it would cost simply to comply with filing requirements on time.
So this year, let’s try not to be the guy who sleeps through the deadline.
The chores should be old hat to anyone who’s been webcasting for more than a year.Continue Reading...
Back in July we reported on the adoption of new service rules to govern the H Block band. All but a small handful of those rules took effect in September, and one of the stragglers kicked in in November. According to a notice in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and Budget has now cleared the last of the rules, so with the publication of the Federal Register notice on January 17, 2014, they have become effective. According to the notice, OMB signed off on these rules on September 26, 2013; why it’s taken nearly four months for the Commission to publish a perfunctory notice reflecting that sign-off is a mystery. Whatever the reason, all of the new H Block rules are now in effect.
Last month we reported on a new set of rigorous reporting requirements to which 911 system service providers will be subject. The Commission’s Report and Order laying out the new requirements has now been published in the Federal Register, which means that they will become effective as of February 18, 2014 – EXCEPT FOR new Sections 12.4(c) and (d)(1). Those sections – which include the specs for the new Annual Reliability Certification and Initial Reliability Certification – involve new “information collections” which must be run through the Paperwork Reduction Act drill before they can take effect. That process generally takes several months to complete. Check back here for updates.
Cell phones on airplanes? Everybody seems to have an opinion about the FCC’s proposal (about which we reported last month) – and it seems to be the same opinion across the board.
Now the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) has made it into the Federal Register, so we all have a deadline for making our feelings known to the Commission. To be sure, the fact that no deadline has heretofore been established hasn’t stopped folks from expressing their views: within the first month following release of the NPRM more than 400 comments had been filed. No, we didn’t read them all, but a spot check indicates that approximately all of them oppose giving a governmental green light to cell phone use in the air.
On the other hand, none of the comments we saw takes on the main issue the FCC has authority to decide: whether cell phones in the air will cause interference to cell service on the ground. If the answer is no, the FCC will have little choice but to drop its ban and let the airlines decide what kind of cabin environment they want in the air.
Still, it’s possible that the Commission’s proposal has some fans somewhere who will be moved to file, but from the response the NPRM has received so far, the boo-birds are likely to outnumber the cheerleaders by a whopping margin. But who knows? In any event, according to the Federal Register notice, comments must be filed by February 14, 2014; reply comments are due by March 17. If you’re inclined to chip in your two cents’ worth, just click on over to this link and submit in Docket No. 13-301. (You can also file separate comments pursuant to the hilariously-named Paperwork Reduction Act; those go to the FCC, but at a separate address listed in the Federal Regiater notice; they're due by March 17, too.)
Commerce, Communications Committee chairmen seek public input on fundamental questions about federal regulation of communications
It’s generally acknowledged that the Communications Act – first enacted four score years ago and not substantially updated in nearly 20 years – is ill-suited for regulation of the 21st Century communications landscape. And now two well-placed members of Congress have announced the start of an effort to update the Act and perhaps restructure the FCC itself.
Given the prominence of the folks making that announcement, anyone subject to the FCC’s regulatory reach should pay attention. But before you get overcome with visions of sweeping change just around the corner, it’s important to temper your expectations with a healthy splash of reality: any significant change to the Act that may occur isn’t likely to happen in the immediate future, if at all.
The two gentlemen responsible for the latest initiative are Fred Upton (R-MI) and Greg Walden (R-OR), the Chairs of, respectively, the House Energy and Commerce Committee and that Committee’s Communications and Technology Subcommittee. You can see them explain their plans in a 13-minute video posted on the Committee’s website. To summarize: Noting that (a) the FCC first opened its doors in the Great Depression and (b) the last time the Act was amended, 56 kb/s by dial-up modem was the state of the art, Upton and Walden sensibly feel that it’s time to talk about an update.
The emphasis, though, is more on the “talk” part than the “update” part.Continue Reading...
Form 655’s are due January 15, 2014.
The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau has reminded wireless service providers – including resellers – that their hearing aid compatibility (HAC) reports (Form 655) are due to be filed by January 15, 2014. Since failure to file can lead to costly fines – starting at $6K per violation – it’s a good idea to get those reports in on time.
As a component of the FCC’s effort to assure that folks with hearing loss are afforded the safety and convenience benefits of wireless telephony, wireless service providers and handset manufacturers are subject to certain requirements: a minimum number of hearing aid-compatible handset models must be offered and/or a minimum percentage of all their models must be hearing aid-compatible, depending on a complex formula. Failure to meet the minimum requirements can net you a $15,000 penalty per month for each handset you’re short. (Hearing aid compatibility is rated on numerical scales that reflect how well the handset couples to hearing aids with a minimum of buzzing or other interference to the hearing aids.)
To help the FCC police compliance with that requirement, wireless service providers and manufacturers must submit annual status reports demonstrating (at least ideally) that they are meeting the minimum. Reports from wireless providers are due in January; manufacturers’ reports are due in July.Continue Reading...
CRB notice suggests possible shift in royalty rate calculation method, replacing per-performance mechanism with percentage-of-revenue approach.
The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) has started on its quinquennial chore of establishing copyright royalty rates applicable to various non-interactive webcasters. While the to-be-determined rates won’t kick in for another two years – they will apply to the period January 1, 2016-December 31, 2020 – the CRB is required by Congress to get the ball rolling by January 5, 2014, and the CRB has gotten itself in under the wire with a notice in the January 3 Federal Register inviting public participation in a new proceeding (dubbed “Web IV” by the CRB).
Web IV will set the rates for eligible nonsubscription and new subscription services (most of our readers, including just about all broadcasters engaged in webcasting, fall into the former). And while the rate structure currently in place for the 2011-2015 term has been relatively complaint- and controversy-free, the CRB’s notice suggests that the CRB may be looking to take rate calculations in a different direction. Rather than simply hit “repeat” and stick with the per-performance basis for rates all players have lived with for more than five years already, the CRB appears to have a percentage-of-revenue model in mind. At least that’s one possible reading of the questions laid out for comment by the CRB.Continue Reading...
Commission considers mandating captioning of video “clips”.
For the last year or so, the law has required a sizable chunk of U.S. video programming displayed on the Internet to be closed captioned. One type of programming has, however, been exempt from that requirement: video “clips” don’t need to be captioned, as opposed to “full-length” programming which, for the most part, does.
But now the FCC is considering closing that loophole, and the Media Bureau is looking for input to help in making the decision. If you have any information or thoughts to share, you’ve got until January 27, 2014 to let the Bureau know; reply comments can be filed until February 26.
Before delving into the specifics of the Bureau’s inquiry, let’s take a quick look at the Internet captioning requirements as they now stand.Continue Reading...
Aereo on the agenda: Where it’s been, where it’s going, where it’s taking the rest of us
If you’re interested in the ongoing Aereo saga – and the impact that it’s likely to have on communications law, copyright law and the video delivery business in general – check this out. FHH guru Kevin Goldberg (regular CommLawBlog readers may know him as “the Swami”) will be sharing his Aereo expertise in a webinar on January 16, 2014. Titled “Will Aereo Case Force a Rewrite of Communications and Copyright Laws?”, the gig is billed as a webinar for folks who advise communications and broadcasting companies, professionals involved in media ownership and regulation and intellectual property practitioners. It may even qualify for continuing legal education in some jurisdictions. Such a deal! The 90-minute affair, which is scheduled to start at 1:00 p.m., is sponsored by Bloomberg BNA. Consult the registration page for information about admission fees (there are a couple of options), CLE details, other webinar panelists and the like.
Update: Effective Dates Announced for Some (but Not All) of the New Rural Call Completion Rules; Comment Deadlines set for Proposed Rules
Last month we reported on the Commission’s Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (R&O/FNPRM) aimed at addressing the problem of failed telephone calls placed to small towns or rural areas. The R&O/FNPRM has now made it into the Federal Register in two separate parts. The R&O portion includes the rules that the Commission has already adopted, and the FNPRM portion includes the further contemplated changes about which the FCC has invited comment.
Federal Register publication, of course, means that effective dates and comments deadlines have now been established.
According to the Register notice, the newly adopted rules will become effective on January 16, 2014. Before you mark your calendars, though, be advised that that date appears to apply only to Section 64.2101, which consists of definitions. Section 64.2201, which specifies ringing indication requirements, will not take effect until January 31, 2014, and the various retention and reporting requirements (set out in Sections 64.2103, 64.2105 and 64.2107) won’t take effect until further notice because they have to run past the Office of Management and Budget thanks to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
As far as the FNPRM is concerned, comments may be filed by January 16, 2014 and reply comments by February 18, 2014.
EA or CMA or MSA/RSA or CMA or . . . how about PEA?
One of the crucial questions that the FCC must answer before it can get its Incentive Spectrum Auction off the ground is how it plans to sell 600 MHz licenses in the “forward” part of the auction. In the Incentive Auction Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission indicated that it was initially leaning toward selling them based on Economic Areas (EAs), rather than larger pieces of real estate (e.g., nationwide licenses) or smaller alternatives (e.g., CEAs or MSA/RSAs). (Fuzzy on the distinctions? Check out the Blogmeister’s Sidebar at the end of this post for further information.)
But now the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at the prodding of the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA), is thinking that Partial Economic Areas (PEAs) might be the way to go, and it’s asking for input on the question.
This is a big deal. Here’s why.
As most readers presumably know, the Incentive Auction will consist of two independent but interrelated elements: (1) the reverse auction, through which the FCC will “free up” spectrum by giving TV licensees cash to vacate their current channels; and (2) the forward auction, in which the FCC will sell off the spectrum freed up in the reverse auction. (The cash generated by the latter will be used in part to pay broadcasters in the former.) The ultimate success or failure of the Incentive Auction will be measured in part by how much money the forward auction brings in.Continue Reading...
Deadline trimmed by five hours.
Hey, all you procrastinating commercial broadcasters. You know who you are. Listen up. Even though the FCC gave you (and everybody else) an extra 18 days – to December 20 – to file your biennial Ownership Reports (FCC Form 323), that deadline has now been modified slightly. While ordinarily your reports could have been filed up to 11:59 p.m., we’re losing five hours this time around. The Commission has announced that Ownership Reports must be filed BEFORE 7:00 p.m. ET on December 20. It seems that power to the FCC’s headquarters is going to be turned off at that time, as required by the District of Columbia Fire Code. That’s going to take CDBS off-line. So in order to get your Ownership Report on file by the deadline, you’ve got to get it in before 7:00 p.m.
A number of us believe that CDBS has been running noticeably slower than usual over the last couple of weeks, which we suspect is the result of increased traffic from Form 323-related activity. Given that, and the recent experience with the LPFM filing window (during which some unspecified “technical issues” slowed CDBS to a crawl, necessitating a one-day extension of the window), we strongly recommend that folks who have not yet filed their Ownership Reports take steps to get them prepared and filed well in advance of the newly-tweaked deadline.
FCC Chairman moves the target date from 2014 to the “middle of 2015”, assures that all auctions systems will be “thoroughly tested”
Despite the FCC’s repeated insistence that it’s been on track to complete all the necessary prep work to conduct the Incentive Auction sometime in 2014, Chairman Wheeler has now taken the opportunity – in a blog posted on the FCC’s website – to throttle back that ambitious schedule. While Wheeler is less than specific about the likely timing of the auction, he is now expressing the belief that it can be held “in the middle of 2015”.
Of course, in order to do that, the Commission will have to hit a number of milestones in terms of nitty-gritty preparation details along the way, as the Chairman acknowledges. We should get a better idea of precisely what those milestones are and when they might be met at the January, 2014 Commission meeting. That’s when the Incentive Auction Task Force is slated to make a presentation on its anticipated timeline for rolling out the auction.
The very rough roadmap sketched out by Wheeler in his blog post mentions an initial Report and Order establishing “policies” that should be ready for a Commission vote “in the spring” of next year. That would be followed “in the second half” of 2014 by release of two public notices – an “Auction Comment Public Notice” and a “Procedures Public Notice” – designed to “provide additional details and seek comment on how the specific parts of the auction will actually function.” No other specifics (if you can call those vague references “specifics”) are laid out.Continue Reading...
In October we reported on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in which the Commission is exploring a host of potential measures to make it easier for wireless companies to build new infrastructure. The NPRM has now been published in the Federal Register, so the comment deadlines are established: if you want to file comments in response to the NPRM, you’ve got until February 3, 2014; reply comments are due by March 5. To file online, start at this link and file in Docket No. 13-238.
Public notice suggests grants of singleton LPFM applications as early as January, 2014; Upcoming settlement, amendment opportunities also described
The LPFM juggernaut that has been moving forward with impressive speed all year seems, incredibly enough, to be gaining momentum. Less than three weeks after the filing window slammed shut on new LPFM applications, the Audio Division has released a public notice providing a progress report and a road map for handling the 2,800 or so applications that were filed. And that map seems to point to potential resolution of most applications in reasonably short order, some even as soon as next month.
All LPFM applicants, as well as anyone who might be affected by any of the applications, would do well to review the Division’s public notice carefully.
The good news for many: nearly one-third of the LPFM applications – approximately 900 – appear to be singletons. The Division has made identification of all singletons its highest priority, and has already started to mark the ones it has so identified as “accepted for filing”, a status that starts the 30-day petition to deny period. That means that, at least for some (if not most) of the singletons, the petition to deny period will expire in January, leaving applications that don’t attract any petitions potentially eligible for grant next month.
Meanwhile, the Division also expects to have bunched all non-singleton applications into their respective MX (for “mutually exclusive”) groups shortly. Look for a public notice listing all MX groups by the end of this month.Continue Reading...
With toll free numbers fast running out, FCC declines to delay roll out of new toll free code despite concerns about possible abuses.
If you’ve got your eye on a vanity toll free telephone number you’d like to use – or if you might want to expand an existing vanity number to include another toll free area code – listen up: New toll free area code 844 is about to make its debut. And now the FCC has announced how numbers in that area code are going to be assigned.
Last summer we wrote about the new toll-free code, which is set to become available at noon (ET) on December 7, 2013. At that point area code 844 will join the ranks of 888, 877, 866, and 855, along with the original toll-free 800 code.
All toll free numbers are administered by SMS/800, Inc., which oversees the toll free Service Management System for the North American Numbering Plan. Entities known as “Responsible Organizations” – usually referred to simply as “RespOrgs” – can access the SMS/800 database and reserve particular numbers. If a subscriber wants a particular toll free number, it contacts a RespOrg, which in turn obtains the number for that subscriber from the database. A RespOrg is not supposed to reserve any number unless the RespOrg is doing so at the specific request of a telephone subscriber.
Anticipating an initial rush for numbers using the new 844 code, the FCC asked for comment on how distribution of those numbers should be handled. Its conclusion: limit each RespOrg to 100 numbers per day for the first 30 days. (The FCC imposed a similar limit when area code 855 first came on line.) After the first 30 days, the usual rule will come back into effect for numbers in the 844 code: like other toll free numbers, they will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis.Continue Reading...
Earlier this month we reported on an Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( in which the FCC is looking to revise the rules the it adopted in 2011 – and that took effect in 2012 – pursuant to the CALM Act. That’s the 2010 law by which Congress hopes to eliminate LOUD COMMERCIALS from the TV airwaves. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking portion of the Commission’s most recent action has now made it into the Federal Register, which establishes the comment and reply comment deadlines. If you plan to file comments in response to the Further Notice, you have until December 27, 2013. Reply comments are due by January 13, 2014.
Proposed rule change would update 1980 provisions that limit radio-transmitted data rates.
The amateur radio community has come a long way since the early days of Morse code (even though, as recently as 2006, many amateurs opposed the FCC’s dropping a Morse code requirement). In fact Morse was the first popular form of digital radio transmission. But it was slow. Most amateurs, for most of the last century, preferred voice. Starting around the middle of the century, with the FCC’s blessing, a few amateurs began connecting Teletype machines to their transmitters, sending text messages via warbling tones that used a clumsy 5-bit protocol called a Baudot code. In 1980, after many amateurs had acquired early versions of the “home computers” that used the more modern 8-bit ASCII code, the FCC adjusted the rules to allow ASCII transmissions as well.
But the 1980 rules indirectly limited the speed of data transmission in some of the amateur bands most used for long-distance communications, those below about 30 MHz. Not that the FCC cared how fast anyone sent data way back then. But the accepted wisdom, in those days, said that higher data speeds necessarily occupied higher bandwidths – i.e., took up more spectrum. The FCC’s caps on “symbol rates,” which are one factor in data rates, supposedly furthered the goal of limiting how much spectrum any one transmission used.
During the intervening 33 years, as data transmission by radio matured from a curiosity to a necessity (smartphones, digital TV, Wi-Fi, etc.), engineers got much better at packing higher data rates into lower bandwidths. Notwithstanding this progress, however, the increasingly anachronistic symbol-rate limits remained in the FCC’s amateur rules.
The organization “ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio” (originally, the American Radio Relay League) has now filed a Petition for Rulemaking that asks the FCC to fix the anomalies. ARRL’s proposal is simple: eliminate the caps on symbol rates, and instead regulate the element that actually matters – by imposing specific, numerical limits on bandwidth.
We think the idea has a lot of merit. Perhaps most important, it would free amateurs to experiment with faster modes of data transmission while still maximizing their sharing of scarce long-range spectrum resources.
The ARRL petition was filed on November 15, but the FCC has already given it a file number and invited preliminary comments on it. Tell the FCC what you think: file via ECFS in proceeding RM-11708, by December 23, 2013.
FCC schedules Auction No. 84 for May, 2014, with 22 AM permits up for grabs.
Do you remember what you were doing in January, 2004? That’s not quite ten years ago. George W. Bush was still in his first term in office. The Janet Jackson Super Bowl flap still hadn’t happened. “Friends” and “Frasier” were still on the air; “House” and “Desperate Housewives” hadn’t even debuted. Facebook was still just a glimmer in Mark Zuckerberg’s eye.
And some of you were apparently filing applications for AM radio construction permits.
We know that because 53 AM applicants, vintage January, 2004 (and four more from 2007), have just been identified as possible participants in a “closed” auction announced by the FCC. The auction, featuring 22 AM construction permits, is set to begin on May 6, 2014.
The permits are for service areas from Oregon down to Florida. Opening bids range from as little as $1,000 (for, e.g., beautiful Lovelock, Nevada) up to $25,000 (for Culver City, California). You can see a list of the lucky few eligible to bid, the markets they’ll be able to bid on, and the minimum opening bids here.Continue Reading...
A couple of weeks ago we reported on the FCC’s adoption of a sweeping Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) aimed at revitalizing the AM radio service. The NPRM has now been published in the Federal Register, which means that the deadlines for comments on the various proposals have now been set. If you want to file comments in response to the NPRM, you’ve got until January 21, 2014. Reply comments can be filed by February 18, 2014. Additionally, if for some bizarre reason you might instead feel motivated to comment strictly on whether the “information collection” aspects of the NPRM comport with the Paperwork Reduction Act, you can file those comments separately by January 21, 2014.
It’s official! The deadline for filing biennial Ownership Reports for commercial broadcast stations has been extended 18 days, to December 20, 2013. The Media Bureau took this action in response to a number of requests which observed that the usual 60-day period for preparing and filing such reports – which would ordinarily have run from October 1–December 2 – was interrupted by the 16-day shutdown of the federal government in October. Since preparation of the reports requires access to CDBS, which was off-line during the shutdown, would-be filers were deprived of that access.
CDBS problems lead to 21-hour extension of filing opportunity.
Hey, all you procrastinating LPFM applicants – you’ve got 21 more hours than you thought you had! The long-scheduled LPFM application window was set to close at 6:00 p.m. ET today, November 14. But lo and behold, CDBS encountered some “technical issues” this afternoon, “issues” that apparently prevented or delayed folks from uploading their applications. (We here at FHH can attest that CDBS appeared to be having major league problems.) As a result, at the very last minute (i.e., approximately 5:00 p.m. ET, an hour before the window was going to slam shut), the Media Bureau issued a public notice announcing that the window would stay open until November 15, 2013 at 3:00 p.m. ET.
This is the second time the LPFM window has been extended. We strongly suspect that it will be the last.
Back in September we reported on a Commission proposal to abandon the UHF discount aspect of the limitation on nationwide broadcast TV multiple ownership. (The Commission also suggested that it might be interested in establishing a VHF discount.) The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has now made it into the Federal Register, which means that comments deadlines have now been established. If you have anything to say to the FCC about the proposal, you’ve got until December 16, 2013 to file comments and until January 13, 2014 to file reply comments.
If you’re broadcasting video in digital, we’re talking to you.
Attention, all DTV broadcasters! It’s that time of year again. Your Form 317 is due at the FCC by December 2. You get an extra day this year (since the normal due date, December 1, falls on a Sunday), but that extra day should give you plenty of time to complete and file the form – assuming, that is, that CDBS hasn’t crashed under the weight of all the biennial Ownership Reports that are currently scheduled to be filed by the same deadline.
Having trouble recalling just what Form 317 is all about? No problem. Form 317 is the “Digital Ancillary/Supplementary Services” Report on which you have to report whether, between October 1, 2012 – September 30, 2013, your DTV station provided any ancillary or supplementary services for a fee and, if so, how much revenue the station received. If you did provide any such services, then you’ve got to fork over five percent of the gross revenues you got from them (the payment to be accompanied by a completed Form 159, thank you very much.)
“Ancillary or supplementary services” include any services that are provided using the portion of a facility’s spectrum that is not needed for its required one free broadcast signal. Multiple video streams that are received free to the public are not considered to be ancillary or supplementary services.Continue Reading...
The latest version of the FCC’s clarification on reseller certification language recommended for use by wholesale telecommunications providers is now available for comment.
The FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau is seeking comment on another round of proposed changes to the Form 499-A and Form 499-Q instructions. The latest proposals contain (among a few other things) what many hope will be the final version of the “reseller certification” language for use starting next year. (Reseller certifications are what wholesale telecommunications providers rely on to ascertain applicable Universal Service Fund (USF) contribution obligations.)
Our regular readers will recall that the Commission’s “Wholesaler-Reseller Clarification Order” from nearly a year ago promised clarification to the reseller certification language in the upcoming Form 499-A instructions. As we observed last March, that clarification was missing from the instructions released earlier this year. Then in August we reported that a group of wholesale telecommunications providers had offered suggested revisions to the reseller certification language and other aspects of the FCC Form 499-A instructions.
(If you need to refresh your recollection of the information in our previous posts, now would be a good time to go back through them again. That background will be helpful for what follows.)Continue Reading...
FCC implements key provisions of AT&T’s 700 MHz interoperability proposal while extending interim construction deadline for 700 MHz A and B Block licensees until December 13, 2016.
In September we reported on a voluntary industry solution, proposed by AT&T and DISH Network, looking to bring interoperability to the 700 MHz block. Since AT&T required, as a condition to its proposal, that the FCC adopt a number of rules to AT&T’s liking by December 31, 2013, we expressed some skepticism as to the FCC’s ability to meet that ambitious deadline. But lo and behold, the FCC has managed to do just that in record breaking time.
In a "Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification" released on October 29, the FCC, among other things, has modified: (a) certain technical requirements for the Lower 700 MHz D and E blocks; and (b) AT&T’s B and C Block licenses, as AT&T had requested as part of the voluntary industry interoperability solution. The Commission also extended the interim construction benchmark deadline for all 700 MHz Lower A and B Block licensees until December 13, 2016, and issued a waiver of the interim construction benchmark for certain Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees that must limit their deployments in order to protect incumbent Channel 51 operations.
What’s particularly noteworthy in the Order is the inclusion by the FCC of various escape valves AT&T provided for itself, which could delay the roll-out of 700 MHz interoperable devices for at least six months. It’s not clear what the FCC would do, if anything, to extend the interim construction deadlines for Lower A and B Block licensees should AT&T miss the deadline to begin the roll-out of interoperable devices.
In keeping with the breakneck speed with which the FCC seems to be dealing with AT&T’s proposal, the Order has been published in the Federal Register already. The amended rules are set to take effect on December 5, 2013, although the Order itself will technically be subject to judicial review until at least January 4, 2014 (and longer, if anyone seeks such review prior to that date).
Last August we reported that most, but not all, of the H Block service rules adopted by the Commission in June were scheduled to take effect in September. The three exceptions: Sections 1.2105(a)(2)(xii), 27.12, and 27.17, all of which involve new “information collections” requiring Paperwork Reduction Act review by the Office of Management and Budget. Now we’re one step closer to getting all the new rules in place. By a public notice in the Federal Register, the Commission has announced that OMB has signed off on the revised 1.2105(a)(2)(xii), so that section (as revised) is now effective. (Turns out the OMB’s sign-off happened on September 17. We don’t know why the FCC held off a month and a half to spread the word.)
The new version of Section 1.2105(a)(2)(xii) requires
a party seeking to participate in any auction conducted pursuant to the 2012 Spectrum Act to certify in its application, under penalty of perjury, that the applicant and all of the related individuals and entities required to be disclosed on its application are not person(s) who have been, for reasons of national security, barred by any agency of the Federal Government from bidding on a contract, participating in an auction, or receiving a grant and thus statutorily prohibited from participating in such a Commission auction.
No word on the other two not-yet-effective rules. Check back here for updates on that front.
Public notice lays out ideas based on industry responses so far.
We reported a year ago on the FCC’s novel proposals for spectrum management in the 3550-3650 MHz band.
Ordinarily at this point in a blog piece, we would summarize the public notice. Not this time. It runs to 18 single-spaced pages and is dense with information; an accurate summary would be almost as long as the document itself. We recommend that interested persons consult the public notice directly.
This is not the last word. The FCC has signaled that the next stage will be a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, before it proceeds to adopt rules. Usually, this sequence means the FNPRM will be largely a formality, setting out whatever rules the FCC expects to adopt. Those who want to affect the course of the proceeding should consider submitting their views in response to the public notice.
Comments are due by December 5, 2013 and reply comments by December 20. File in GN Docket No. 12-354.
IEEE wants the FCC to declare that innovations in this frequency range are “new technologies” requiring a “public interest” determination within one year.
The history of radio is the history of a push to ever-higher frequencies. In the 1930s, “short wave” at 30 MHz (then called 30 “megacycles”) was near the upper limit. The post-war years saw a rapid push into single-digit gigahertz. Today there is off-the-shelf equipment at pretty much all frequencies up to 95 GHz.
But no higher, because that is where the FCC rules stop. The FCC has assigned uses to frequencies up to 275 GHz, and it claims jurisdiction up to 3,000 GHz. (Beyond 3,000 GHz, signals stop being radio waves and become infrared.)
But above 95 GHz, there are no rules to regulate any service. The FCC will not authorize the marketing of a device that transmits above 95 GHz. FCC approvals in this range can be obtained only on an experimental basis.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), which includes the top experts in this area, expects frequencies above 95 GHz soon to be ripe for commercial exploitation. But the group sees the lack of FCC rules as a barrier. In addition to regulatory uncertainty, innovators will face what the IEEE delicately calls “an expected regulatory delay that is difficult to quantify.” We can be more blunt: with just one or two recent exceptions, the FCC has been notoriously slow in approving new technologies.Continue Reading...
Workshop to take place November 8 at FCC headquarters.
The FCC has announced the topics and panel participants for its November 8 workshop on unlicensed spectrum issues related to the spectrum incentive auction. Details are here.
A couple of days ago we called readers’ attention to a petition for reconsideration of the H Block service rules that had been filed by the Rural Wireless Association (RWA). We mentioned in that post that an FHH client – NCTH, Inc. – had filed for reconsideration of the H Block auction procedures. And now a public notice of that latter recon petition has made it into the Federal Register. The NCTH petition urges the Commission to address and resolve RWA’s petition before the auction so that, if the Commission is persuaded by RWA’s arguments, it can make appropriate changes to the auction before the participants – that is, bidders and the FCC – get too deeply wedded to the procedures as originally announced. (Spoiler alert: NCTH agrees with the RWA position.)
The NCTH petition also suggests that the Commission reduce the reserve price set for the H Block auction. The reserve price is the minimum amount that the auction must bring in before the auction will be deemed to be valid. Often, the reserve price is set to be close to the initial minimum bid amount. But here, the reserve price for the H Block auction is $0.50 per MHz/pop, which calculates out to about $1.5 billion – magnitudes greater than most observers had expected. The astronomical reserve price may be part of an arrangement with DISH Network that has been the source of some speculation. Since an unusually high reserve price could easily discourage smaller carriers from bidding, NCTH suggests that the Commission should lower the reserve price to increase participation. (It also expresses concern about the Commission’s failure thus far to make clear on the public record what influence, if any, the DISH arrangement may have had on the establishment of the reserve price.)
Oppositions to the NCTH petition for reconsideration may be filed by November 13, 2013. Replies may be filed by November 25.
Earlier this month we reported on the Commission’s last-minute amendment of its text-to-911 bounce-back rule. The amendment was necessitated by the fact – brought to the FCC’s attention by CTIA – that the bounce-back rule (that would be Section 20.18(n)(7)) would be impossible for carriers to comply with for roaming customers due to the way text-to-911 messages are handled.
The order announcing the amendment has now been published in the Federal Register. And as we pointed out in our original post, the Commission took care to provide that the amendment will take effect immediately upon Register publication (rather than 30 days thereafter, as is the FCC’s SOP). So the amended text-to-911 bounce-back rule is now officially in effect.
Another caltrop has been dropped in the path of the H Block auctions that the Commission is trying to push forward full speed ahead. A petition has been filed seeking reconsideration of the rules, adopted last June, governing the licensing of H Block spectrum.
The petition, filed by the Rural Wireless Association (RWA), challenges the FCC’s decision to issue H Block licenses on an Economic Area (EA) basis, rather than a Cellular Market Area (CMA) basis. It also faults the Commission for adopting population-based construction requirements.
In RWA’s view, the H Block rules as adopted will present a barrier to the participation of small and rural carriers in the H Block auction and will result in the failure of carriers to provide H Block service to rural consumers. According to RWA (which used to be known as Rural Telecommunications Group, Inc.), Congress indicated that the FCC should be far more solicitous of rural interests than the H Block rules appear to be.
As we have previously indicated, the H Block rules and related auction procedures do seem to have been crafted with a particular agenda in mind, an agenda not necessarily consistent with rural interests. (Full disclosure: FHH represents a party that has sought reconsideration of the auction procedures.) Whether all this runs afoul of Congress’s intent remains to be seen. But the pendency of reconsideration petitions could cast enough of a pall of uncertainty over the upcoming auction to discourage potential bidders. And that, in turn, could reduce the government’s take out of the auctions.
The Commission may seek to resolve the petitions sooner rather than later, to dispel any uncertainty as quickly as possible. But the prospect of appeals will still linger.
The filing of the RWA petition has now been noted in the Federal Register, which sets the dates for oppositions and replies. Anyone wishing to oppose the RWA petition has until November 12, 2013 to do so; replies may be filed by November 22.
If you’re planning on participating in the upcoming H Block auction, it’s time to get your calendar out and mark some scheduling changes. As a result of the governmental shutdown, the originally announced dates are being shifted to provide auction participants a bit more time for planning and preparation. According to the latest public notice, the auction will now begin on January 22, 2014 (eight days later than previously announced). Other important dates are now set as follows:
Window for Short Form (FCC Form 175)
Applications OPENS: November 4, 2013 – 12N ET
Window for Short Form Applications CLOSES: November 15, 2013 – 6:00 p.m. ET
Upfront payments (via wire transfer) due: December 18, 2013 – 6:00 p.m. ET
Auction begins: January 22, 2014
To assist would-be bidders, the Commission is also presenting an online auction tutorial on November 4, 2013, and it's planning to conduct a mock auction on January 17, 2014.
LPFM protection of FM translator input signals modified in several respects
In further fallout from the October shutdown of the federal government, the Commission has extended the LPFM filing window by 16 days. As a result, the window – which has been open since the FCC reopened its doors again on October 17 – will stay open until November 14, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. EST. Please revise your calendars accordingly.
In other LPFM scheduling news, the Media Bureau has also rescheduled an LPFM webinar for October 24, 2013 from 1:00-2:30 p.m. Topics covered will include “LPFM Channel Finder, creating a CDBS account, completing Form 318, and any other issues related to the LPFM window and the filing process”. You can send in your own questions by email (firstname.lastname@example.org) or by Twitter (hashtag - #LPFMquestions).
Before you formulate your list of questions, you should be sure to take a look at the first order the Commission released when it got back to work post-shutdown. In fairness to the Commission, it had adopted this order – the Sixth Order on Reconsideration (Sixth LPFM Recon Order) – on September 30, the day before the shutdown. But it wasn’t able to get the order out the door before Congress’s shenanigans slammed the door shut on October 1, so the order sat in limbo for the 16 days of the shutdown.Continue Reading...
Federal shutdown prevented licensees from posting quarterly lists, compliance reports by October 10 deadline.
As just about everybody must know by now, the government has been shut down since October 1, but appears to be set to re-open in the next couple of days, possibly as early as Thursday, October 17.
Our colleague Mitchell Lazarus observed here last week that, when at long last the FCC flings its doors (and e-filing portals) wide open once again, it is likely to be inundated with applications, reports, pleadings, comments and all manner of other materials.
A couple of chores that should not be overlooked by TV licensees are the uploading of their issues/programs lists, commercial compliance certifications and website compliance reports for the third quarter of 2013. All of these were due to be prepared by all full-service TV and Class A TV stations by October 10.Continue Reading...
But government shutdown, still-pending issues could interpose delays.
Despite some dissension on the 8th floor of the FCC about whether to proceed immediately with the H Block auction, the FCC has adopted a scheduling order and associated rules and procedures to govern the auction. (Blogmeister's Note: As previously promised, here is a link to the FCC's original public notice setting the dates and procedures for the H Block auction -- but heads up! Thanks to the government shutdown, the FCC has since adjusted the relevant dates. Check here for our update.) Commissioner Rosenworcel had argued that the H Block auction should be paired with the auction of AWS-3 spectrum in order to reap a larger pay-out to the FCC from the combination of the two. Despite this objection, the Commission plunged ahead on September 13 to set the auction up for January 14, 2014. The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 had directed the FCC to auction this spectrum no later than February 23, 2015, so the Commission had a little leeway here on when it had to initiate the auction.
The H Block consists of the 1995-2000 MHz and 1915-1920 MHz bands. It is therefore adjacent to the PCS G Block held by Sprint on one side and the AWS-4 band held by DISH Network on the other. This geographic setting has unfortunately made it the Alsace-Lorraine of telecommunications – the prize in a tug o’ war between the two giant adjacent licensees who have tried to make it their own.
The rules applicable to this auction follow the procedures typical for auctions these days with a few key exceptions:Continue Reading...
(Pent-up filings from the period of the shutdown will jam the agency)
With the FCC shutdown now halfway through its second week, we have been thinking about the start-up procedure when the shutdown finally ends. We don’t like how that looks.
Everything that would have come due during the shutdown instead will all be due on the same day: not the day the FCC reopens, but the day after that. Filings due on the day of reopening are likewise put off till that same next day.Continue Reading...
Amended rule to take effect on expedited basis; Rule adopted last May to be waived pending effectiveness of amendment
There’s nothing like an impending deadline to get your attention – even if you are the FCC.
Readers will recall that, just last May, the Commission adopted new rules requiring text-to-911 “bounce-back” messages when a person sends a text message to “911” but text-to-911 capabilities are not actually available. As we reported, the new rules were set to take effect on September 30, 2013. But in July, CTIA sought reconsideration, pointing out that the bounce-back rule (Section 20.18(n)(7), if you need to know) would be impossible for carriers to comply with for roaming customers due to the way text-to-911 messages are handled. Obviously, addressing that problem before the effective date was a matter of some importance.
And sure enough, the FCC has done what needed to be done. In an Order on Reconsideration issued on (wait for it) September 30, the FCC amended Section 20.18(n)(7) to read as follows:
(7) Notwithstanding any other provisions in this section, when a consumer is roaming on a covered text provider’s host network pursuant to 20.12, the covered text provider operating the consumer's home network shall have the obligation to originate an automatic bounce-back message to such consumer when (a) the consumer is located in an area where text-to-911 service is unavailable, or (b) the home provider does not support text-to-911 service in that area at the time. The host provider shall not impede the consumer’s 911 text message to the home provider and/or any automatic bounce-back message originated by the home provider to the consumer roaming on the host network.
This appears to address the problem identified by CTIA.
But this amendment won’t go into effect until it’s been published in the Federal Register, while the rule as adopted last May is already in effect. Doesn’t that mean that, at least for the time being, providers are technically in violation of the rule (even if compliance with the rule is technically impossible)?Continue Reading...
Deadlines set in 2011 remain in place; Channel 6 LPTV's cautioned on potential for NCE FM interference.
The FCC has nixed requests submitted by a number of LPTV and Class A stations looking for relief from spectrum-clearing measures put in place two years ago.
In 2011, the FCC announced the end of the transition to digital broadcasting for Class A and Low Power Television stations (to make life simple, we’ll call them both “LPTV” for now). In so doing, it set a number of deadlines. In response to a handful of petitions of reconsideration, the FCC has now reaffirmed those deadlines. It has also addressed complaints from noncommercial (NCE) FM broadcasters that increased power levels for LPTV stations operating on Channel 6 could cause interference to NCE FM stations.
Under the deadlines set in 2011, all TV operation of any kind, analog or digital, on Channels 52 and above had to end by December 31, 2011, and all analog LPTV broadcasting on any channel must end by September 1, 2015.
The December, 2011 deadline put a particular squeeze on out-of-core LPTV licensees. Some had a hard time finding an in-core channel by the deadline. Others who did find such a channel still had to go dark on December 31, 2011 if they had not received a permit for, or completed construction of, their in-core facilities. Going dark, of course, poses its own major problem: Section 312(g) of the Communications Act says that a broadcast station that fails to operate for 12 consecutive months automatically loses its license.Continue Reading...
The FCC has announced that, as of October 1, commercial broadcasters will be able to file their 2013 biennial Ownership Reports (FCC Form 323). These reports are technically not due until December 2. Still, we should all bear in mind that
(a) ALL attributable interest holders in ALL commercial licensees must file biennial reports, which means that the load on CDBS will increase substantially (yes, you have to use CDBS; no paper filings will be accepted); (b) December 2 happens to fall shortly after the Thanksgiving holiday and shortly before the big and often distracting year end holidays (Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, New Year’s); and (c) a number of licensees will also be having to file renewal applications on or before December 2. All of those are pretty good reasons to get ahead of the curve and file your 323’s sooner rather than later
The information to be reported must reflect things as of October 1, 2013. In other words, even if a station changes hands or new officers, directors, shareholders or other attributable interest holders are brought into the mix between October 1 and when you end up filing the Ownership Report, your biennial report must show the station’s ownership as it was as of October 1.
This year reporting parties will still be able to use Special Use FRNs (SUFRN). (If you’re fuzzy on the whole SUFRN thing, check out this earlier post on the topic.) While the instructions on current version of Form 323 are surprisingly silent about that option – in fact, the instructions say nothing at all about SUFRNs – the Commission has updated its online Form 323 FAQs to provide information on SUFRN use.
One quirk of the Form 323 which is not mentioned on the FAQ page does happen to pop up on a different FCC webpage titled “Most Common Form 323 Filing Errors”.Continue Reading...
Transaction has been approved, but with strings attached; agency is now looking to define those strings
As many readers probably realize, in a move that would shrink the competitive field of media measurement companies, the nice folks at Nielsen are planning to acquire the nice folks at Arbitron. As often happens when one competitor proposes to absorb another, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has involved itself in the proposed take-over. While the FTC has green-lighted the deal, it is insisting that the parties enter into a consent agreement.
The FTC’s concern arises from the proposed acquisition’s potential for the complete elimination of competition in the cross-platform media measurement service market. (A cross-platform media measurement service can measure the audience of a “television” program regardless of whether or not it was watched on a traditional television set, or through online or mobile devices.) In order to offer cross-platform audience measurements on a national scale, a firm must have access to television audience data along with individual demographic data. Establishing the infrastructure to recruit and maintain a representative sample of the population and developing technology capable of collecting the underlying data would be extremely expensive.
Nielsen and Arbitron are currently the only two companies with the potential to provide these services, and their combination could lead to a lack of innovation and higher prices for customers. Additionally, advertisers have come to trust Nielsen and Arbitron as the only reputable and reliable services. Any competitor would likely face pushback from the buyers of advertising time.
The FTC has concluded that the acquisition is likely to cause significant competitive harms in the market for national cross-platform audience measurement services.Continue Reading...
Sadly enough, the possibility of a governmental shut-down next week looms if Congress is unable to get its act together to keep the government funded. As matters currently stand, it looks like September 30 would be the last day routine business might get done before the budget impasse closes down the government. Such a shut-down would affect the FCC along with all other federal agencies. This could have a disastrous impact on non-broadcast licensees whose licenses are expiring after 11:59 p.m. on September 30.
The Administrative Procedure Act provides that licensees continue to have operating authority even after the expiration of their licenses as long as they have a renewal application on file. However, in order to take advantage of that automatic extension of your license, you must have actually filed a renewal application – and there’s the rub. If the agency is closed for business, licensees would theoretically be unable to file their renewal applications. (It’s not clear whether on-line filing mechanisms – think ULS or CDBS – would remain up and running during a shut-down. And even if they were technically still functioning, it’s equally unclear whether a renewal application uploaded through those systems would trigger the automatic extension of operating authority.)
A shut-down would theoretically extend the time for you to file a renewal application until the government re-opens, but it would not automatically extend your operating authority beyond the expiration date. So a licensee whose license expires on, say, October 10, 2013 might not be able to file a renewal application until some later date when the government gets going again. In the meantime, the licensee would not have any authority to be operating.Continue Reading...
Attention, any TV licensee with a CALM Act waiver still in effect. You’ve got until October 14, 2013 to file for extension of that waiver. Failure to do so could mean that you will have to be in compliance with the CALM Act requirements when December 13 rolls around
The 2010 CALM Act, designed to stifle “loud commercials”, technically took effect in December 2012. But, in its infinite legislative wisdom, Congress provided the opportunity for an initial one-year waiver – possibly extendible for a second year. In implementing the Act, the Commission allowed “small” stations and MVPDs to have the initial one-year waiver pretty much for the asking: all that was required was a self-certification that (a) the station/MVPD met the limited standards for “small” facilities and (b) it needed the extra year to “obtain specified equipment in order to avoid the financial hardship that would be imposed” if it had to get the equipment sooner. (Check out our earlier post for more information on those requirements.)
As we reported back in July, the initial one-year waivers will expire as of the first anniversary of the effectiveness of the CALM Act rules, i.e., by December 13, 2013. Requests for the extension of the waiver must be filed at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the currently outstanding waiver, which gets us to the upcoming October 14, 2013 deadline. (Last year the Commission extended the deadline after the fact; we can’t say whether the Commission will do the same again, but we wouldn’t bet the farm on a similar extension this year.)
Back in 2011, when it first announced how it would deal with waivers, the Commission said that the “filing requirements to request a waiver for a second year are the same as those for the initial waiver request.” That seems pretty clear, but you never can tell. (Again, for a summary of the filing requirements as originally laid out by the FCC, see our earlier post.) In any event, if you will be needing an additional one-year waiver, you’ve got just a couple of weeks to request it.
We can assist in the preparation and filing of extension requests -- let us know if we can help.
Incentive Auction Update: Bureau Looks For Input on What Auction-Induced Reassignment Expenses Should be Reimbursable
Public notice suggests FCC is looking to cut as many corners as possible.
If you’re a full-power or Class A TV licensee and you haven’t started to do the math relative to what the much-heralded incentive auction could mean for you dollars-and-cents-wise, here’s a CommLawBlog tip – it’s time to get started . . . because the Media Bureau clearly has. Don’t believe us? Check out the Bureau’s request for comments on the “catalog of eligible expenses” that it has compiled. You’ve got until October 31, 2013 to let the Bureau know what you think about its catalog (and some related issues); you’ll also be able to file reply comments until November 14.
The Bureau’s (and the Commission’s) interest here arises particularly from the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (what many of us refer to as the Spectrum Act). There Congress established a $1.75 billion “TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund” for reimbursement of certain expenses incurred by broadcasters in connection with the various channel shuffles necessary to make the incentive auction work. Congress left to the FCC the nitty-gritty chore of figuring out just what expenses would be subject to reimbursement.
The Commission has now started on that process, and it’s looking for industry input.Continue Reading...
With the opening of the LPFM filing window fast approaching, the Commission has announced another webinar on the LPFM filing process. Mark your calendars: the webinar will be held on October 3, 2013 from 1:00-2:30 p.m. ET. The Commission plans to run the webinar as a Q-and-A permitting would-be LPFM applicants to pepper Media Bureau gurus with specific questions about “the LPFM Channel Finder, creating a CDBS account, filling out the application (Form 318), and any other issues related to the LPFM window and Form 318.” Questions will be submitted during the webinar by email (email@example.com) or by Twitter (hashtag – #LPFMquestions).
This is a follow-up to an earlier LPFM webinar held last month. If you missed that one, no worries – you can still catch the replay on the FCC’s website. But hold on just a sec. The subjects supposedly covered in the August webinar were (and we quote): “an overview of the low power radio service; how to use the Commission’s LPFM Channel Finder; instructions on creating a CDBS account; and how to fill out the application (Form 318).” What is this, Groundhog Day? Or is the LPFM filing process so difficult to explain that the August session didn’t cover it all?
Whatever may be the case, it’s probably good that the Commission is doing what it can to educate LPFM wannabes before the window opens. While that does not guarantee a smooth filing process with no glitches, it may at least help to reduce some of the frustration, disappointment and potential disruption that might otherwise occur if boatloads of LPFM applicants go the DIY route rather than lawyer up with real communications counsel.
* (for maybe another couple of weeks, probably)
And the target continues to move as the Commission works to sharpen its analytical pencils. Less than a month after Version 1.2.7 of TVStudy was released, lookee here – there’s a new and improved version. The Office of Engineering and Technology has announced Version 1.2.8, hot off the presses and ready for test drives. (At the risk of stating the obvious, TVStudy is the software that will be used in the modeling and analysis necessary to repack the TV spectrum.)
With the new version, we should all be able to “apply mechanical beam tilt only to stations having real antenna elevation patterns (either licensee-supplied elevation patterns in CDBS or user-entered patterns)”. According to OET, Version 1.2.8 also “adds logic to choose the higher of the radio horizon or maximum values for effective radiated power for low-power stations (including Class A)”. Plus, let’s not overlook the fact that the new version “improves compatibility with Oracle’s Java Runtime Environment (JRE) version 7” and “corrects an issue with scenario template exportation.” And those are just the highlights – check out the “Upgrade Guide and Change Log” for the full scoop.
Meanwhile, for those who are perhaps less technically inclined, the FCC has separately announced a workshop on September 30, 2013 on “issues surrounding the reassignment of television stations after the incentive auction.” This time around, those issues will include the types of reimbursable costs TV licensees can expect to run into in the repacking process, and also how broadcasters can “coordinate among themselves to mitigate costs and ensure the most efficient transition to new frequencies.” The show is scheduled to run from 10:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room. It’ll also be streamed at http://www.fcc.gov/live as part of the FCC’s “Learn Everything About Reverse Auctions Now” Program. (Yes, that would be the LEARN program, acronymically speaking.)
A second window for long-form translator applications is now open through October 9.
If you’ve got a singleton FM translator application still pending but you weren’t among the 1,200+ applicants who got invited to file long form Form 349 applications last July, take heart! The Media Bureau has issued another invitation, this time to 104 more translator applicants. You can see a PDF of the invite list here, or you can find a more sliceable and diceable Excel version here. If you're on the list, get ready to act right away.
The same drill that applied to the July invitees applies this time around.
First and foremost, the deadline: this latest window will be open only until through Wednesday, October 9, 2013. Mark your calendars.
And heads up – if you’re planning on amending your technical proposal, be aware that the long-form application (and amendments) will be entitled to protection from all subsequently-filed FM translator applications (and their amendments). So the sooner you file, the better.
Applicants will need to include a filing fee and Form 159 with their long-forms, but since the long-forms must be filed electronically through CDBS, you’ll be reminded of that when you file. CDBS may not alert you, however, to the fact that your application will be subject to a number of limitations.Continue Reading...
Public interest groups suggest FEC-like reporting system for TV stations
A couple of months ago we reported that the FCC had asked for comments on whether or not to extend the political file component of the online public inspection file requirement to all TV stations. You will doubtless recall that, when the online public file system was first put into place in 2012, only Big Four network affiliates in the Top 50 markets were required to upload their political file materials. Everybody else simply has had to continue to maintain those materials in their respective local public files. The FCC originally targeted July 1, 2014, as the date by which the online requirement would be made universal; the recent request for comments is designed to help the Commission decide whether that target date is still a good idea.
The initial response to the FCC request for comments was less than overwhelming. As of September 6, ECFS was showing a total of three comments filed. Of those, two (filed by the NAB and Gray Television, Inc.) advocated that the FCC hold off beyond July 1, 2014 on imposing the online political file burden on smaller stations in smaller markets. No big surprise there: based on their obvious familiarity with the operation of such stations in such markets, both NAB and Gray argued that forcing all TV stations, regardless of their size, to move their political files online would result in serious, unnecessary burdens.
The third set of comments came from an entirely different angle.Continue Reading...
Mark your calendar, round up your credit cards and keep your FRN handy. The FCC has finally announced that this year’s regulatory fees must be paid by September 20, 2013. (Yes, that deadline -- which appears in the "Dates" paragraph in the linked Federal Register announcement -- does seem a bit later than usual, as does the announcement itself, which is showing up less than 30 days before the deadline!) [Blogmeister's Update: During the afternoon of August 23, the FCC has issued a separate public notice further confirming that the deadline for payment of 2013 reg fees is 11:59 p.m. (ET) on September 20, 2013.[
The online “Fee Filer” system is now up and running; you can get to it at this link. That’s the first stop you’ll have to make in paying your fees. Once you log into the Fee Filer system (using your FCC Registration Number (FRN) and password), you’ll be able to generate a Form 159-E, which you’ll need to tender with your payment.
While Fee Filer will ordinarily list fees associated with the FRN used to access the system, WATCH OUT: the list of fees shown in Fee Filer may not be complete. (The same is true for the broadcast reg fee “lookup” page provided by the Commission.) The FCC makes clear that it’s the payer’s responsibility to confirm the “fullest extent of [the payer’s] regulatory fee obligation.” Double- and triple-checking other FCC databases, as well as your own records, is prudent, since failure to file any required reg fee, even if inadvertent and even if only for a very small amount – like, say, a $10 auxiliary license fee – can result in very unpleasant complications (thanks to the Debt Collection Improvement Act).
As outlined in the public notice announcing the September 20 deadline, there are a number of ways in which the fee can be paid, once you have your Form 159-E. Helpful tip: the online approach, using a credit card, is extremely efficient. Wire transfer and ACH payments are also good, although they may involve some additional steps. For our money, the least desirable approach is the old-fashioned way, i.e., sending a paper check to the FCC’s bank in St. Louis. Lots of things could go wrong between the times (a) you stick the envelope in the mail box and (b) the payment is ultimately credited by the Commission.
Remember, the FCC will not be sending you a hard-copy reminder of your reg fee bill. And remember, too, the FCC imposes a 25% late filing fee, starting immediately after the deadline. You’ve got just about a month to get your payment in – there is no reason to run afoul of that deadline. Good luck.
* (for now, at least)
From our Moving Targets file, we are pleased to report more developments from the FCC’s Incentive Auction Task Force. Less than a month ago, the Office of Engineering and Technology released a bunch of materials relating to Version 1.2.6 of TVStudy, which was an upgrade from April’s Version 1.1.2. (The original version – presumably Version 1.1.1 – was released last February.)
And now OET has given us Version 1.2.7.
TV Study, of course, is the software that will be used in the modeling and analysis necessary to repack the TV spectrum.
The new version allows studies of potential interference between U.S. stations and stations in Canada and Mexico (on proxy channels, of course). It also cleans up a couple of bugs that had apparently surfaced in the earlier version. (For ALL the gory details, hard-core techies may want to consult the “Upgrade Guide and Change Log” the FCC has posted.)
OET continues to solicit input on TVStudy from any interested parties, and from the turn-around time between Versions 1.2.6 and 1.2.7, they sure seem to be moving quickly to tweak the program.
If you’re still getting oriented with this whole repacking thing – or if you want to get even further into the details of the FCC’s repacking plans than you already are – you may want to sign up to participate in a Task Force-conducted webinar on “repacking data”. It’s scheduled for August 22, 2013 between 1:00-3:00 p.m. The full scoop on how to sign up can be found here.
In late July we reported on the FCC’s adoption of new rules governing Travelers’ Information Stations. Those new rules (contained in the “Report and Order” portion of the “Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” (R&O/FNPRM)) have now been published in the Federal Register, which means that they are set to take effect on September 18, 2013. Meanwhile, in a separate item in the same issue of the Federal Register, the Commission has published the “Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” component of the R&O/FNPRM. According to that item, comments on in response to the FCC’s proposals are due to be filed by September 18, 2013, and reply comments by October 3.
Inquiry focuses on recent technical submission.
If you thought LightSquared was dead and gone, think again. We reported in November on the company’s proposal to shift its operations farther away from GPS frequencies, so as to escape the vehement negative reaction of GPS users. Now LightSquared has released additional technical information about its handset operations in the newly proposed band. The FCC wants to know what you think.
Comments on the LightSquared submission are due on September 6, 2013 and reply comments on September 23.
Last month we reported on the FCC’s prompt adoption of new service rules governing operation in the H Block, i.e., the portion of the spectrum consisting of the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands. The Commission’s Report and Order has now been published in the Federal Register, which sets the effective date for most of the new rules at September 16, 2013. The exceptions? Those would be Sections 1.2105(a)(2)(xii), 27.12, and 27.17, all of which involve new “information collections” that must first be run past the Office of Management and Budget, thanks to the Paperwork Reduction Act. That process will take several months, at least. Check back here for updates.
Last month we reported on changes to the Commission’s Form 477 Data Program, which collects information from broadband and voice service providers. The Report and Order setting out those changes has now made it into the Federal Register, meaning that some – but not all – of those changes will take effect on September 12, 2013. Which parts didn’t make the cut? Those would be the new “information collection” components, which can be found in Sections 1.7001, 1.7002, 43.01 and 43.11. As we mentioned in our earlier post, such information collections have to be run through the Office of Management and Budget for its thumbs up pursuant to the hilariously named Paperwork Reduction Act. That process usually takes several months. Check back here for updates.
Significant increases across-the-board for broadcasters; no announced deadline for fee payments yet, but indications are that they will be due sometime in “the middle of September”
The final 2013 regulatory fees have been announced by the Commission. For those of you anxious to cut to the chase, here’s a link to a convenient table setting out new fees (and, for TV-related services, comparing (a) the fees the FCC has now adopted against (b) last year’s fees). But before you head on out to the table, you might want to brace yourself – this year’s fees are, with very limited exceptions, a lot steeper than last year’s.
How much steeper? About 7.5% across-the-board on the TV side – which, for a VHF TV station in one of the top ten markets translates to an impressive $6,000 bump up. For radio, the increases tend to be more in the 5% range – preferable to 7.5%, for sure, but still likely to sting a bit.
The relative uniformity in the fee increases over last year should not be a surprise. As we reported last May, when the FCC first proposed this year’s fees, the Commission is re-jiggering the cost allocation method underlying the annual calculation of fees. That re-jiggering means serious upticks for some services, including broadcasting. In fact, the anticipated increases were so serious that, to cushion the initial blow, last May the Commission was contemplating capping increases at 7.5%. And that’s just what it’s done. (For a somewhat more detailed discussion of the allocation method that has led to the increases, see our previous posts here and here.)Continue Reading...
Yikes, time is just screaming past us. Has it really been two years since the last biennial Ownership Report (FCC Form 323) was filed? Apparently so – and we know this because the FCC, apparently looking to get a jump on things, has already extended the deadline for the next biennial Form 323. In an order issued on its own motion (i.e., nobody even had to ask), the Media Bureau has announced that the 2013 biennial Ownership Reports will be due no later than December 2, 2013. (That’s a month later than the original deadline.)
The Commission provided a similar one-month extension the last time around, back in 2011.
These biennial reports must be filed by all commercial full-power AM, FM, TV, and LPTV stations (including Class A stations), as well as any entities that happen to have attributable interests in any such stations. While the deadline for filing has moved, the “as of” date – that is, the date as of which the information in the report must be accurate – has not moved. So this year’s Ownership Reports must reflect the reporting entity’s information as of October 1, 2013.
The Commission still has taken no action in the rulemaking proceeding it kicked off last New Year’s Eve. You may recall that, in that Sixth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed ditching the “special use FRN” (SUFRN) that has been a feature of the biennial Form 323 since late 2009. (The SUFRN has an interesting history, which you can read about here (and in the earlier links you’ll find there). It’s a device that permits some reporting individuals to avoid having to cough up their Social Security Numbers in order to get an official FCC Registration Number (FRN) to include in the Ownership Report.) The Bureau’s order doesn’t mention SUFRNs, which is par for the course. But since the Commission has not adopted that proposal, it seems at this point that it’s a reasonable bet that the SUFRN will still be available for 2013 Form 323 filers. You can never be too sure, though, so it would probably be prudent to check back here periodically between now and then.
The FCC seeks comment on proposed changes to the Form 499-A instructions submitted by a group of wholesale carriers.
The Commission is on a constant crusade to ensure that all telecommunications providers who are supposed to be contributing to the Universal Service Fund (USF) are in fact doing so . . . and doing so in the proper amounts. Last month the FCC received some help from the private sector in the form of a letter – filed jointly by eight wholesale telecommunications providers (including Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, CenturyLink and XO Communications) – offering suggested revisions to the “reseller certification” language, and other aspects, of FCC Form 499-A.
The USF, of course, is a program which supports several federal, telecom-related, subsidy programs. It is funded through mandatory “contributions” – the guv’mint prefers that you don’t call it a tax, even if it looks like one – from telecommunications providers based on their “end-user” revenues. (More below on what constitutes an “end-user”.) The providers traditionally don’t dip into their own pockets to make the payment; instead, they simply pass the cost along to their customers in a separate line item charge. Still, providers want to be sure that they aren’t overpaying, while the Commission wants to make sure that all are paying their fair share.
Which brings us to Form 499-A.Continue Reading...
Toll-free phone numbers using the next area code in the 800 series will be up for grabs starting this December.
A new toll-free area code is about to become available. Put your hands together for 844, which is set to join the ranks of 888, 877, 866, and 855, and, of course, the venerable 800. 844 will be the sixth toll-free code. Two more are on deck for future use – 833 and 822. Note: 811 is not a toll-free area code; rather, that has been reserved for the “Dig Safe” (formerly known as “Miss Utility”) three-digit dialing code used to notify the appropriate folks of planned excavation that might disrupt underground pipes or wires.
The establishment of a new toll-free area code gives rise to potential opportunities and problems. You’ve got four months to figure out what it might mean for you.
Before we get into all that, though, we must express our surprise that the demand for toll-free numbers continues to mushroom. After all, many people are migrating from conventional landlines to cellphones and IP-based services which don’t charge for what we used to call “long distance” calls. If there is no toll, why worry about setting up toll-free numbers? We don’t know, but we do know that the demand continues unabated.
How unabated?Continue Reading...
The window will be open through August 30, but it may pay to act sooner than that.
The long-awaited white flag has been waved and the last lap has begun: the Media Bureau has opened the window for the 1,239 FM vintage 2003 translator applicants previously identified as “singletons”. They can now file their long-form applications (Form 349). Can’t remember whether you’re one of those lucky 1,239? Here’s a PDF of the list and, perhaps more helpfully, here’s a sliceable and diceable spreadsheet version of the same list.
The filing opportunity is not without its gotchas.
First and foremost, the deadline: the window will be open only until through Friday, August 30, 2013. The clock is ticking. [Blogmeister's Note: We originally indicated that August 30 would be a Tuesday; our bad. That mistake has been corrected, thanks to a tip from one of our readers.]
And heads up – if you’re planning on amending your technical proposal, it does NOT pay to dilly-dally until the very last day of the window period. That’s because the long-form application (and amendments) will be entitled to protection from all subsequently-filed FM translator applications (and their amendments).
Applicants will need to include a filing fee and Form 159 with their long-forms, but since the long-forms must be filed electronically through CDBS, you’ll be reminded of that when you file. CDBS may not alert you, however, to the fact that your application will be subject to a number of limitations.Continue Reading...
A couple of weeks ago we reported that CTIA-The Wireless Association® had filed for reconsideration of the Commission’s new text-to-911 “bounce-back” rules. The official notice of that filing has now made it to the Federal Register, which starts the opposition and reply periods. Anyone inclined to oppose CTIA’s petition has until August 15, 2013 to do so; CTIA will then have until August 26 to respond.
Last February we reported on a Commission proposal to overhaul its equipment certification procedure. If you’re thinking about filing reply comments in response to any (or all) of the 20 or so comments that have already been filed in response to that proposal, you’re in luck.In response to a request by the American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63 – which has concluded that it needs more time to prepare its own reply – the FCC has announced a two-week extension of the reply comment deadline. Replies are now due no later than July 31, 2013.
In May we reported on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) looking to alter the way in which certain spectrum is to be shared between the government and private users. The NPRM has made it into the Federal Register, so we now know what the comment deadlines are. Comments may be filed by August 30, 2013, and replies by September 30.
A couple of months ago we reported on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) looking to expand the use of wireless services, particularly in-flight Wi-Fi, on aircraft traveling over the contiguous United States. The idea is to establish a nationwide network of air-to-ground stations that would allow plane passengers to connect to the Internet more easily and cheaply, at least while they’re in U.S. airspace. The NPRM has now been published in the Federal Register, as a result of which the deadlines for comments and reply comments have now been set. Comments are due by August 26, 2013 and reply comments are due by September 23. And a bonus deadline! Since the FCC’s proposals include some new “information collections” subject to the hilariously-named Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Commission has also invited separate comments on that aspect of the NPRM. PRA comments are due by September 9.
Complaints soar, and deadline for seeking further one-year extensions of outstanding waivers is approaching.
Back in December, 2010, with considerable fanfare Congress passed and the President signed the CALM Act. As its full name – the Commercial Announcement Loudness Mitigation Act – indicated, it was designed to put the kibosh on “loud commercials”.
The Act imposed a number of detailed technical requirements on TV licensees and MVPDs, but it also provided the opportunity for an initial one-year waiver – possibly extendible for a second year. In implementing the Act, the Commission allowed “small” stations and MVPDs essentially to have the initial one-year waiver for the asking: all that was required was a self-certification that (a) the station/MVPD met the limited standards for “small” facilities and (b) you needed the extra year to “obtain specified equipment in order to avoid the financial hardship that would be imposed” if you had to get the equipment sooner. (Check out our earlier post for more information on those requirements.)
The initial one-year waivers will expire as of the first anniversary of the effectiveness of the CALM Act rules, i.e., by December 13, 2013. The Act and the rules provide that a “renewal” of the waiver for another one-year period may be obtained. Requests for the extension of the waiver must be filed at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the currently outstanding waiver, i.e., by October 14, 2013. (Last year the Commission extended the deadline after the fact; it’s impossible to say whether it will do the same this time around, but since this is the second time around for CALM Act compliance, we wouldn’t bet the farm on a similar extension this year.)Continue Reading...
Update: Deadlines Set for Reponses to Reconsideration Petitions in Experimental Licensing Proceeding
Several weeks ago we reported on the filing of several petitions seeking reconsideration of the FCC’s order from last January expanding the scope of experimental licenses. The public notice announcing those petitions has now appeared in the Federal Register, so we know the deadlines for oppositions (that would be July 16, 2013) and replies (that would be July 26) relative to any or all of those petitions.
Update: Comments Invited on Political File Component of Online TV Public Inspection File Requirement
Has it really been almost a year since the online public inspection file took effect for TV licensees? Sure enough, August 2, 2012 was the Big Date last year; since the initial flurry of public file-related activities, things seemed to have settled into a routine. But now the Commission – keeping a commitment it made back in April, 2012 – has asked for comments on how the political file component of the online public file system has affected the 240 or so stations that have been subject to that particular requirement. The responses the Commission gets could determine whether any changes should be made to the requirement before it takes effect for other stations.
The history of the TV online public file is extensive. If you’re a bit fuzzy on it all, check out our archive of reports here.
For our immediate purposes, it suffices to remind readers that, while all full-power and Class A TV stations are required to maintain the majority of their public files online (using the FCC-maintained system), only affiliates of the top-four commercial networks in the top 50 DMAs have been required to keep their political public files online. (All other stations are still required to maintain their political files the old-fashioned in-house way at least until July 1, 2014, at which point the current plan is to have everybody go online.)
The idea behind easing the online political file obligation in that way was: (a) to make sure that the FCC’s system (which was largely untested as the August 2, 2012 start-up date) could handle the load; and (b) to “limit any unforeseen start-up difficulties to those stations that are best able to address them”, whatever that might have meant. And to take advantage of that testing phase, the Commission committed to invite comments, by July 1, 2013, on how things are going on the online political file front.
That invitation has now been issued, in the form of a public notice soliciting comments on the functioning of the political file component of the online public file system.Continue Reading...
In April we reported on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry (NPRM/NOI) in which the FCC has proposed changes in how telephone numbers are obtained by certain types of providers. The ultimate upshot of the Commission’s proceeding could eventually mean serious changes in what we understand a telephone number to represent. The NPRM/NOI has now been published in the Federal Register, which (as loyal readers should know by now) sets the deadlines for comments and reply comments. Anyone interested in commenting has until July 19, 2013; reply comments are due by August 19.
Last month we reported on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) looking to address the problem of contraband cell phone use in prisons. The NPRM has now been published in the Federal Register, which means that comment and reply comment deadlines have now been set. If you’re looking to chip in your two cents’ worth, you’ve got until July 18, 2013 to file comments, and until August 2 for reply comments.
Pleading asks full Commission to reverse decision of three bureaus.
We reported in May that three of the FCC’s bureaus turned down, after five years, a Petition for Rulemaking from the Utilities Telecom Council and Winchester Cator, LLC that asked the FCC to open the 14.0-14.5 GHz band for terrestrial point-to-point and point-to-multipoint critical infrastructure communications. It is probably not a coincidence that the FCC, just a few days before the rejection, had proposed use of this same band for air-ground broadband systems to facilitate Internet service for airplane passengers.
UTC and Winchester Cator have now filed an Application for Review asking the full Commission to reverse the bureaus’ decision. Comments are due on July 1, 2013 and reply comments on July 11.
Reply comments in the proceeding on 5 GHz unlicensed operation are now due July 24.
In February we reported on an FCC proposal that would not only add new 5 GHz frequencies but also overhaul – maybe even simplify – a confusing stretch of the rules. One possible upshot would be the opening up of 195 MHz of spectrum for Wi-Fi-type operation.
Comments were filed on May 28. The FCC has extended the date for reply comments, originally June 24, to July 24.
Media Bureau announces LPFM filing window opening October 15 and closing October 29 (at 6:00 p.m. EDT); applications may be uploaded, but not filed, starting now
Attention all you LPFM wannabes. Mark your calendars, get your CDBS and FRN account information in order, stock up on NoDoz® and let the games begin – because the count-down has started. The Media Bureau has announced that, on October 15, 2013, the first LPFM filing window in more than a decade will be flung open, and will stay open until 6:00 p.m. (EDT) on October 29, 2013. The window will permit the filing of applications for new LPFM stations and major changes to existing stations.
While applications can’t be filed until October 15, they may be uploaded to CDBS anytime between now and then – which gives would-be LPFM applicants plenty of time to undertake searches for channels and transmitter sites and prep their apps in anticipation of the opening of the window.
A few important threshold factors to keep in mind:Continue Reading...
Despite the FCC’s efforts in its 2002 and 2006 quadrennial review proceedings to relax (or maybe even eliminate) its newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership (NBCO) prohibition, that prohibition is still alive and kicking after nearly 40 years. In the 2010 quadrennial the NBCO is again in the Commission’s sights. And now the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC) has provided arguable impetus for the Commission to try to pull the trigger, again.
MMTC has submitted a specially-commissioned study entitled “The Impact of Cross Media Ownership on Minority/Women Owned Broadcast Stations” (Study). Prepared by well-respected BIA/Kelsey Chief Economist Mark Fratrik, the Study presents evidence that “the impact of cross-media ownership on minority and women broadcast ownership is probably negligible”. In other words, the Commission could probably dump the NBCO without having to worry about adversely affecting minority- or female-owned stations. Since the FCC’s 2002 and 2006 quad efforts were criticized (by, among others, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit) because of the Commission’s supposed lack of attention to minority/female considerations, the Study helps fill in that arguable gap.
Based on questionnaire responses provided by only a relatively limited sample of broadcast stations, the Study is, by its own terms, “not dispositive”. Still, in light of its sponsor and its author, it may be viewed as a significant contribution to the record.
The FCC has invited public input on the Study. Comments are due by July 22, 2013; reply comments by August 6.
Back in April we reported on the FCC’s most recent foray into the thorny issue of health effects of radio waves. The FCC adopted minor tweaks to its existing rules, proposed further tweaks, and sought comments on broader issues, including the controversial question of whether the current radio-frequency exposure limits are safe, and if not, what they should be.
The document has now been published in the Federal Register, in two separate parts. The first part sets out the newly adopted rules; the second part poses the questions on which the Commission has requested comment.
Publication in the Federal Register establishes both (a) the effective date of the rule changes that were adopted and (b) the deadlines for comments on the out-for-comment questions. The adopted changes will become effective on August 5, 2013. Comments will be due on September 3, 2013, and reply comments on November 1.
The FCC requests comment on white space database tests recently conducted by Google, Inc. and Key Bridge Global LLC.
In separate public notices, the FCC has asked for comment on white space database tests recently conducted by Google, Inc. and Key Bridge Global LLC. (The FCC paperwork misidentifies the second company as "Keybridge Global Inc.") Their respective test reports are here and here. Mark your scorecards: once approved, these will be database managers numbers 3 and 4.
Comments on both tests are due on June 13, 2013 and reply comments in June 20.
For background on the databases and what they do, see this article.
[Blogmeister’s Note: In keeping with the practice we introduced with our last white space database post, we have sought to capture the essence of these recent developments poetically:
An FCC Haiku to the Public
Key Bridge and Google
filed database test reports.
Comments? We’re all ears.]
The new requirements relative to text-to-911 bounce-back messages have been published in the Federal Register, which means that they are technically set to become effective on June 28, 2013. As a practical matter, that effective date is meaningful only to the lawyers, since the “bounce-back” obligation won’t have to be implemented by carriers until September 30. But the Federal Register publication does set the dates for seeking reconsideration (June 28) and judicial review (July 29).
Commission looks to update its methodology for calculating regulatory fees, but proposes a possible alternative approach to cushion the blow this year.
One of the time-honored rites of spring – at least at the FCC – is the release, every April or May, of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking setting out the schedule of regulatory fees the Commission thinks it may impose on all regulatees come August-September. Historically, we here at CommLawBlog have tried to be Johnny-on-the-spot in letting our readers know the fees that have been proposed, even though the fees that eventually adopted (usually in July) may vary here and there from the initial proposal.
But this year is different.
Instead of providing one set of proposed fees, the Commission has given us a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) laying out two sets of possible fees . . . because it’s in the process of a much-needed update of its calculation methodology, and it’s still not sure: (a) whether the new approach is exactly right and, even if it is, (b) whether that new approach should be applied this year. Depending on which method it ultimately adopts, the fees for some broadcasters could swing by a couple of thousand dollars. As a result, we’ve had to prepare a more elaborate table reflecting the proposals, so we’re a day or so behind our usual curve. Please bear with us.
To understand what’s going on here, you have to understand how reg fees are calculated.Continue Reading...
Media Bureau provides MX applicants one last opportunity to avoid going to auction.
If you’ve still got one or more FM translator applications pending from the infamous 2003 window, listen up! The Media Bureau has opened a 62-day “Settlement Period” – up to and including July 22, 2013 – during which applicants with mutually exclusive (MX) applications may attempt to resolve their differences through engineering amendments or settlements.
For those of you who may have forgotten exactly which (if any) of your applications may still be alive and kicking, the Bureau has provided a list of the apps that the Bureau thinks are eligible for settlement (i.e., applications MX with one or more other applications). You can check that list out here (or in a more sliceable and diceable Excel version here). There are a total of 539 MX groups, so you’d better start looking now.
Important alert: The Bureau recognizes that its list may not be 100% complete, and it expressly encourages anybody who believes that one or more applications may have been omitted to get in touch with the Bureau immediately. Remember, to be on the list, your application has to be MX with at least one of the applications already listed.Continue Reading...
If you have the vague sense that you might like to file comments in response to the bizarre invitation for comments relative to the FCC’s indecency policies, but you’re still trying to figure out exactly what those policies are in the first place, you're in luck. The General Counsel’s office and the Enforcement Bureau have extended the deadlines. Comments are now due by June 19, 2013 and reply comments by July 18. Unfortunately, the public notice announcing the extensions does not shed any more light on the indecency inquiry. As previously reported here, the inquiry posed on April Fool’s Day is, at best, cryptic and unilluminating, so much so that it’s difficult to imagine that anything useful could possibly come from it. But for those of you who may be champing at the bit to toss in your two cents’ worth, you now have a little more time within which to hone your prose.
The full FCC agrees with the Wireless Bureau that FiberTower’s failure to construct resulted from its own business decisions.
FiberTower loses again. The full FCC has backed the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s decision to cancel 698 licenses held by the company in the 24 GHz and 39 GHz auctioned fixed microwave bands, for failure to construct sufficient facilities.
As we explained last December in our sister publication FHH Telecom Law, FiberTower is not alone in its difficulties. Nearly all of the area-wide licensees in the four auctioned bands used to communicate between fixed points – at 24, 28, 31, and 39 GHz – have had difficulty in meeting their renewal obligations. In part the problems trace to a shortage of suitable equipment, and in part to markets that did not develop as expected. FiberTower, ironically, was one of the more commercially successful licensees, so the FCC action against it seems particularly harsh.
The usual duration for microwave licenses of all kinds is ten years. When an area-wide licensee applies for renewal after that period, it must show it is providing “substantial service.” The FCC rules define this, unhelpfully, as “a service which is sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant renewal during its past license term.” (Confusingly, this says the level of service required for renewal is substantially above the level of service required for renewal.)
Thanks to a “safe harbor” policy, a licensee is deemed to be providing “substantial service” if it demonstrates that it has constructed four links per million population in its service area.Continue Reading...
Request reopens matter laid to rest just six years ago.
The FCC has reopened the difficult question of technical standards for radio receivers.
Everyone agrees that poor receivers impair efficient use of spectrum. In particular, receivers that respond to a wider swath of frequencies than necessary can receive interference from unwanted signals close by the intended signal. Just ask LightSquared, whose plans to use mobile satellite frequencies on terrestrial towers failed because its signal was close enough to GPS frequencies to overpower some GPS receivers.
Less selective, more interference-prone receivers are cheaper to manufacture. Market forces are not much help because a more selective (and hence more expensive) receiver is rarely of immediate benefit to the purchaser. The improved receiver does benefit other users seeking to operate on frequencies nearby, as better GPS receivers would have benefited LightSquared. But the manufacturer gains no competitive advantage to offset the higher price. So manufacturers, especially of consumer equipment, tend to supply the least selective (and least expensive) receivers that will work in the current spectrum environment.
A situation like this, where market forces act against the public good, is a classic set-up for regulation.
The FCC tried. Just over ten years ago it issued a Notice of Inquiry on whether to include “receiver interference immunity performance specifications” in its rules. After sifting through sixty-odd comments, and then waiting a few years, the FCC terminated the proceeding in a terse one-pager.
Now the issue is back.Continue Reading...
In February we reported on the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking looking to revamp its equipment certification process. That notice has now hit the Federal Register. As a result, we now have the deadlines for comments and reply comments in response to the notice. Comments are due by June 17, 2013, and replies by July 17.
In December of last year we reported on the Commission’s “Fifth Order on Reconsideration and Sixth Report and Order” (we refer to it as the 6th R&O) in which it (a) tied up some loose ends relative to LPFM and FM translator matters and (b) adopted new rules and policies governing LPFM applicants. The 6th R&O was published in the Federal Register the following month, but (as we reported in January) that didn’t mean that all the new rules went into effect back then.
Rather, the changes to Sections 73.807, 73.810, 73.827, 73.850, 73.853, 73.855, 73.860 and 73.872 – and the revised version of FCC Form 318 – all had to be run past the Office of Management and Budget for its approval. (Those changes all involved “information collections” requiring OMB review thanks to the Paperwork Reduction Act.)
The Commission has now announced that OMB is happy with the changes. As a result, they will all take effect on May 23, 2013. It’s unlikely that the changes will have any immediate impact, since they relate primarily to LPFM applications, and there’s currently no opportunity to file for new LPFM authorizations. However, as we all know, the Commission is hoping to be able to open a window for new LPFM applications sometime in the near future – October, 2013 is one target date, although many are doubtful that the Commission will be able to hit that target. Anyone who expects to be filing any LPFM apps in that window should be sure to make note of the effectiveness of the 6th R&O changes.
Indecency public notice hits the Federal Register.
Earlier this month we reported on an odd public notice soliciting comments about the FCC’s indecency policy. That notice has now been published in the Federal Register – but that doesn’t mean that the notice makes any more sense now than it did when it first appeared.
The title of the notice still says that the FCC is seeking “comments on adopting egregious cases policy”, but that’s the only time the term “egregious cases policy” shows up. As a result, it’s far from clear exactly what we’re supposed to be commenting on. You would think that, if the FCC does have some “egregious cases policy” currently in effect – which is what the full text of the public notice released on April Fool’s Day indicated – the Commission might let us all in on the precise details of that policy so that we might be able to comment on it at least quasi-intelligently. Apparently not.
As we noted in our initial post, the utility of any record likely to be compiled in response to the notice’s nebulous invitation for comments is dubious. How, after all, is a commenter supposed to organize his/her/its comments in a coherent and useful way? And how can the Commission’s staff be expected to process those comments? Without any apparent context or direction, it’s hard to see what the staff can do with them.
If this is how the Commission proposes to deal with the indecency issue, that issue is likely to be with us, unresolved, for many years to come.
In any event, the Federal Register publication establishes the deadlines for comments in response to the notice. Comments are due by May 20, 2013, and reply comments by June 18.
New quarterly form would theoretically shed more useful light on chronic problem, but proposed exceptions could gut the form’s effectiveness.
Although perhaps not widely acknowledged or often discussed, the problem of “blocked” or unsuccessful long-distance telephone calls to rural customers is a serious one. For at least a couple of years interested parties have urged the Commission to do something about it. And now the FCC thinks that it’s come up with a way to begin to address this failure to communicate: new recordkeeping requirements, and a new report to be filed quarterly by facilities-based originating providers (with some notable exceptions).
The report would theoretically allow the Commission to better monitor the delivery of long-distance calls in rural areas. In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the FCC has invited comments on the proposed requirements.
So what’s the problem the FCC is addressing here?Continue Reading...
With just 12 days to go before Auction 94 is set to kick off, the FCC has identified the 85 bidders who have qualified to participate in this year’s FM Construction Permit Sell-a-Thon. At the same time, the Commission has laid out the final ground rules that will govern both the auction and everybody who filed an application, whether or not they actually opt to participate in the auction.
As we previously reported, the FCC initially received 109 applications, but, as so often happens, the herd got thinned along the way: two dozen applicants have dropped out of the running and will only be watching from the sidelines when the action cranks up on April 23, 2013.
In order to assure their place in the race, each of the 85 surviving bidders ponied up upfront payments ranging from a paltry $750 to a considerably more robust $250,000+. Upfront payments establish a bidder’s initial eligibility for the auction and the permit(s) which each bidder may bid for. When the bidding starts, however, nothing – other than common sense and financial ability – limits the amount(s) that can be bid.Continue Reading...
With interoperability issues still unresolved, FCC gives many B Block licensees a few more months of breathing room.
If you’re an active Lower 700 MHz band B Block licensee with an interim four-year construction benchmark deadline before December 13, 2013, here’s some good news: unless you happen to fall within a couple of exceptions, the FCC has extended your construction deadline to December 13, 2013. This tracks a similar extension granted to Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees a couple of months ago.
The construction deadline in question stems from Section 27.14(g), which requires 700 MHz B Block folks both to provide signal coverage and to offer service over at least 35% of the geographic area of their licenses by one of two dates, either (1) June 13, 2013 (if the initial authorization was granted on June 13, 2009 or earlier), or (2) within four years of the initial license grant.
Since at least 2009, a number of 700 MHz licensees have been complaining that the FCC’s approach to the 700 MHz band – i.e., developing two separate and distinct band classes within the Lower 700 MHz band – has given rise to interoperability issues that have in turn impeded construction. In March, 2012, the Commission agreed to explore interoperability issues, but beyond the issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, nothing has come of that “Interoperability Proceeding” to date. Meanwhile, the construction clock has continued to tick down.
The announced extension reflects the FCC’s recognition that its own failure to act thus far has put some folks in a bind.Continue Reading...
Last February we reported on the FCC’s adoption of a new comprehensive regulatory approach to cell phone boosters. The Report and Order setting out that approach has now made it into the Federal Register. As a result, many – but not all – of the new rules will take effect as of May 13, 2013. Which of the amended rules won’t kick in then? Why, those would be Sections 1.1307(b)(1); 20.3; 20.21(a)(2); 20.21(a)(5); 20.21(e)(2); 20.21(e)(8)(i)(G); 20.21(e)(9)(i)(H); 20.21(f); 20.21(h); 22.9; 24.9; 27.9; 90.203(q); 90.219(b)(1)(i); 90.219(d)(5); and 90.219(e)(5). Those all involve “information collections” and, thus, must first be blessed by the Office of Management and Budget thanks to the hilariously-named Paperwork Reduction Act. Check back here for further updates on that front.
Please keep in mind the crucial distinction between cell phone boosters (at issue here) and cell phone jammers. The latter remain illegal.
Need for a “stable database” to assist in development of “repacking methodologies” puts TV mod applications on ice.
Attention all full-power and Class A TV licensees!!! The Media Bureau has placed a freeze on the filing and processing of most modification applications for full power and Class A television stations, effective April 5, 2013.
As of April 5, the Bureau will no longer routinely accept any applications from full-power or Class A television stations proposing modifications that would increase the station’s currently authorized (by license or granted construction permit) contour in any direction. The single exception to the freeze applies to certain Class A stations filing minor change applications to implement their transition to digital broadcasting. (The freeze may also be waived for other licensees in exceptional circumstances.)
Also frozen is the processing of any already pending application that would increase a station’s protected service area in any direction. However, in announcing the freeze the Bureau has provided that applicants with such pending applications will have a 60-day period to amend to specify facilities that do not increase the station’s service area. Any such applications that are not amended will be held by the Commission and processed only after the adoption of final rules regarding the Incentive Auction.Continue Reading...
Window follows rejection of Request for Declaratory Ruling looking to get multiple NCE applications dismissed.
We’ve got good news for you if (1) you’ve got an FM translator application still pending from the 2003/Auction 83 filing window and (2) you identified yourself as a noncommercial educational (NCE) applicant when you first filed the application. The Media Bureau has announced that, between April 8-17, you will have an opportunity to “de-select” that NCE filing status. If you want to keep your application alive, you’ll take advantage of that opportunity.
In announcing this amendment window (and in a separate letter ruling), the Bureau made short work of a recently-filed Request for Declaratory Ruling which looked to thin the herd of pending applications by effectively prohibiting such amendments.
The problem being addressed here arose when the Auction 83 window first opened in March, 2003. Back then, applicants seeking NCE authorizations were permitted to participate in such proceedings. At the time, NCE applicants were explicitly instructed to designate their status as “noncommercial educational” in the box provided on the Form 175.Continue Reading...
Remember the Commission’s proposal to accord its new Earth Station Aboard Aircraft (ESAA) service co-primary allocation status for its 14.0-14.5 GHz uplink operations? (Hint: ESAA is the service that’s expected to give us all easy Internet access on airplanes.) If you’re planning on filing comments on that proposal, you’re in luck! It turns out that the FCC miscalculated the comment deadlines when it first published the deadlines in the Federal Register a couple of weeks ago. So you can disregard the previously announced dates (which we reported on here. According to a corrective notice in the Federal Register, comments are due by May 22, 2013 and reply comments are due by June 21.
[Blogmeister's Note: These comment dates affect only the details of spectrum sharing between ESAA and other satellite services. If you have views on the wisdom (or its absence) of Internet use on airplanes, the FCC no longer wants to hear about it. You can, however, write to your congressional representative or your senator.]
Bureau gently prods applicants in the proper direction with a public notice that reads like “Preclusion Showings for Dummies"
As we have previously reported, FM translator applicants whose applications are still alive and kicking are subject to a variety of filing deadlines looming in the very near future. Different deadlines apply, based on whether the application has been identified by the Media Bureau as (a) one of 713 “singleton” applications or (b) one of a separate batch of 639 applications not satisfying the “singleton” criteria.
Some, but not necessarily all, of those 1,352 applicants must file “preclusion showings” as part of their required submissions. Apparently, from the filings that have already rolled in the door, the Bureau’s staff has concluded that at least some of the affected applicants haven’t fully grasped what’s expected of them. Accordingly, the Bureau has tried, tried again, this time by issuing yet another public notice providing further “guidance” or “clarification” of the filing requirements.
The notice, which reads like “Preclusion Showings for Dummies”, is relatively short and to the point. Where preclusion showings are required, the notice thoughtfully bold faces the word “required” as an additional helpful visual cue. The concepts don’t appear to be particularly complicated (but then we didn’t think they were particularly complicated when they appeared in the Fourth Report and Order or in the previous public notices). In any event, anybody with a translator application still in the hunt should be sure to review the public notice carefully and to follow its directions thoroughly.Continue Reading...
639 surviving applicants face the next hurdle in the now decade-long contest.
In the long-running reality show “Survivor – 2003 FM Translators”, if you happen to be a player whose FM translator applications haven’t yet been kicked off the island, heads up: the Media Bureau has just announced the next challenge. This time affected applicants have been given a 19-day window (from April 1-19, 2013) within which to submit their Preclusion Showings.
Which applications are subject to the challenge? Any of the 639 still-pending FM translator application originally filed in the 2003 window (for Auction 83) which specifies a transmitter site that is (1) inside a Spectrum Limited market and/or (2) within 39 km of any Spectrum Limited Market Grid. For those of you who may be unclear about whether you’re still in the game (and, thus, facing this next chore), the Commission has provided a list of all 639 lucky applications. You can find a PDF version of the list at this link, but we suspect that you may find this MS-Excel version a bit more useful in terms of slicing and dicing the data on the list, which spans ten single-spaced pages. Here’s the Bureau’s explanatory description of the list:
Attachment A lists each Auction 83 Filing Window tech box proposal for which a Preclusion Showing amendment must be electronically submitted by the April 19 deadline. The list is sorted by the state in which the specified community of license is located. The “Market” column lists, if applicable, the Fall 2011 Arbitron Market number as set forth in Appendix A in the Fourth Report and Order. Each market designation was based on the location of the proposal’s specified transmitter site. The “In SL Buffer” column identifies with a “Yes” each proposal that specifies a transmitter site that is within 39 km of at least one Spectrum Limited Market Grid.
And what the heck is a “Preclusion Showing” anyway?Continue Reading...
Audio Division to Permittees: Get License Applications Filed Within 30 Days of Permit Expiration . . . Or Else!
Facilities covered by a permit must in any event be completely constructed by the expiration date.
Attention, everybody who is currently sitting on, or may someday be sitting on, a construction permit for a new radio station. The FCC’s Audio Division has announced, in no uncertain terms, that when the rules say that a covering license application must be filed before the expiration of the underlying construction permit, they really mean it . . . sort of.
The problem here arises from Section 73.3598(e) of the Commission’s rules, a section admirable for its concision and directness:
Any construction permit for which construction has not been completed and for which an application for license has not been filed, shall be automatically forfeited upon expiration without any further affirmative cancellation by the Commission.
Your ordinary person reading that would likely understand it to say that any permittee who doesn’t get the covering license application on file by the permit’s expiration date is out of luck. Period. End of story. That is, after all, precisely what the rule says.
But thanks to the Audio Division’s latest reading of the rule, permittees will have an extra 30 days within which to file their license applications, provided, of course, that they did in fact complete construction before the permit’s expiration.
The underlying story starts back in 2004, when an FM station in West Virginia obtained a CP to construct new facilities after its then-authorized tower had been destroyed. The permit specified the conventional three-year construction period, with an expiration date in 2007.
Wouldn’t you know it, 2007 came and went, but no license application got filed.Continue Reading...
Auction 94, featuring 112 FM construction permits, is on track. The FCC has issued a notice announcing that 109 potential bidders submitted applications to participate in the upcoming auction of 112 FM construction permits. The auction is still scheduled to begin on April 23, 2013.
A total of 109 prospective bidders tossed in applications. Of those, 88 made the initial cut: the Commission has concluded that their applications were complete and acceptable, so they are assured of a bidding paddle and a seat in the bidders’ section (assuming, of course, that they get the necessary upfront payment filed in time). The other 21 applicants? Their submissions were lacking in one or another respect, so for the time being they’re on the outside looking in. But we don't need to exile them to Loserville yet. All 21 of the not-yet-in-the-door applicants should be receiving an overnight letter from the Commission laying out “the information that is required to make its application complete.” They’ll have until March 18, 2013 to resubmit corrected applications.
Any bidder – whether one of the 88 or one of the 21 – who wants to participate in the bidding is required to wire the upfront payment to the FCC within the next week by 6:00 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, March 18, 2013. Readers who plan to participate in the auction are advised to send your money to the FCC well before the deadline to avoid any unexpected delays. The FCC is not sympathetic to bidders that wait until the last day; historically, the FCC has disqualified some late-paying bidders who claimed that their lateness was the fault of their banks.Continue Reading...
Last December the Commission released its Fifth Order on Reconsideration and Sixth Report and Order in the long-running LPFM proceeding. Five parties weren’t 100% happy with the results so – surprise, surprise! – they have filed for reconsideration of various aspects of the FCC’s decision. The petitioners (with links to their respective petitions) are:
According to a notice in the Federal Register, if you want to oppose any (or all) of these petitions, you have until March 21, 2013. Replies to any oppositions will be due by April 1.
While the opening of a new pleading cycle – with the consequent opportunity for a pleading war – is often a harbinger of delay, our guess is that that’s not the most likely scenario here. As we have reported, the Media Bureau is doing its darnedest to tee the next LPFM application window up as quickly as possible (maybe even by next October, if the Chairman gets his wish). It’s unlikely that a handful of recons will distract the Bureau from that mission, but you never know. In the meantime, look for continued progress in the Bureau’s efforts to clear the FM translator application dead wood, a necessary antecedent to the LPFM window.
Proposed change in the form would allow individuals to identify themselves as members of as many as five separate racial categories, simultaneously. But the results may not help the Commission get to where it seems to want to go.
The Federal Register on March 1 has informed us that the FCC’s Broadcast Ownership Report (FCC Form 323) is back at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. According to the notice, the Commission is proposing a change in the question seeking the racial identification of attributable interest holders. You can get to the OMB’s files on the matter at this link.
The form currently in effect lists five racial categories and then a catch-all “Two or more races”; respondents are required to select only one of those six options. Apparently, though, OMB changed its policies governing collection of data relative to race and ethnicity last September. (According to the FCC, that change is reflected in an OMB action dated September 13, 2012, cited by the FCC as “Notice of Office of Management and Budget Action (NOA), dated 09/13/2012”. We were unable to track down a copy of that action, but we’re willing to take the Commission’s word that it exists somewhere. If any reader can point us to a site where we might find the OMB action in question, we’d be much obliged.) As a result, the Commission is proposing to eliminate the “Two or more races” option and to allow respondents to select as many of the other racial options as may apply to the individual who is the subject of the response.
While the elimination of the generally uninformative “Two or more races” might be thought to provide a greater degree of useful data concerning the racial composition of commercial broadcast ownership, we’re not confident of that.Continue Reading...
Postponement allows time after March 13 workshop.
Last December we reported on a proceeding that proposes novel spectrum management techniques to accommodate small cell operation in the 3.55-3.65 GHz band.
Last September we reported on a request advanced by the Coalition for Broadcast Investment seeking "clarification" of the FCC's broadcast ownership limitations on alien ownership. You can find a copy of the Coalition’s letter request here. As summarized by the Commission, the proposal asks the Commission to “clarify that it will conduct a substantive, facts and circumstances evaluation of proposals for foreign investment in excess of 25 percent in the parent company of a broadcast licensee, consistent with and in furtherance of its authority under 47 U.S.C. § 310(b)(4)
The Commission has now solicited comments on the proposal. If you have any thoughts about the Coalition’s suggestion that you’d care to share with the Commission, you’ve got until April 15, 2013 to submit them; reply comments may be filed by April 30. You can file on paper, or electronically through ECFS (referencing MB Docket No. 13-50).
The FM translator application juggernaut rolls on.
Having processed the Selections Lists and Caps Showings filed in January and having, as a result, tossed several thousand applications earlier this month, the Media Bureau has sifted through the remaining rubble and identified 713 singleton applications that may be grantable in relatively short order. The lucky 713 applications: (a) are apparently not mutually exclusive with any other applications filed back in the 2003 filing window and (b) don’t run afoul of the technical limitations imposed in last year’s Fourth Report and Order. (Helpful reminder: To satisfy those limitations, an application must be: (1) outside all Spectrum Limited markets and (2) not within 39 km of any Spectrum Limited market grid.)
Heads up, though. If you’re on the singleton list, you’ve only got until March 28, 2013 to prepare and file your long-form application (Form 349), along with any required filing fee and Form 159, in order to stay in the game.
The public notice announcing the singleton list also includes some guidelines relative to what you can and can’t do in the long-form application. Attention should be paid to those details, because a failure to comply could result in dismissal. It would be a shame to have come this far in the application process only to crater on a technicality at the ultimate (or maybe penultimate) stage of that process.Continue Reading...
Statute requires the band to be cleared of public safety users by 2021 and auctioned by 2023.
In most parts of the country, the frequency band 470-512 MHz, also called the “T-band,” is better known as TV channels 14-20. But 11 major metropolitan areas use parts of the band for public safety communications, like the two-way radios in police cars, ambulances, and fire vehicles. These users include some of the nation’s biggest first responders, such as the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the New York City Police Department. Other licensees also use the band for two-way communications.
Last year, as part of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act (most of which has little to do with middle class tax relief), Congress gave public safety entities access to additional spectrum in the 700 MHz band for a nationwide first responder broadband network. But it also required that public safety licensees give back spectrum they use in the T-band, which would then be auctioned for commercial services. Public safety users would have to vacate the T-band by 2021 for a spectrum auction by 2023. The auction revenue is supposed to be made available to current public safety licensees to help offset the cost of relocating their systems to other frequencies. Oddly, the statute is silent as to the non-public safety users of T-band.
There has been talk among public safety licensees of asking Congress to repeal the T-band “give back” provisions. Unless and until such a repeal occurs, though, the FCC has its marching orders. In keeping with those orders, the FCC has released a public notice to investigate the implications of the law for public safety and other land mobile radio licensees. The public notice seeks detailed information on the extent and nature of public safety radio systems in the T-band, whether some of the current users can migrate to the new first responder broadband network or other public safety frequency bands, and the potential costs of such a relocation.
Comments in response to the public notice are due on May 13, 2013, with reply comments due on
Attention, all you CommLawBlog readers!
We’re presenting a webinar this Thursday, February 14 at 3:00 p.m. EST in cooperation with a number of our state broadcast association friends. It turns out that we have a limited number of open spaces – so if you would like to listen in, for free, here’s your chance.
The webinar will feature Kevin “The Swami” Goldberg addressing a number of hot button issues on the intellectual property front and Dan Kirkpatrick updating us all on the FCC regulatory front. Serving in the color commentary/peanut gallery role will be Frank Jazzo, Scott Johnson and Harry Cole.
The 90-minute agenda will include discussions of:
- ASCAP/BMI/SESAC issues
- The Mission Abstract Data litigation
- The Aereo/Aerokiller cases
- Webcasting/streaming royalty calculations
- Royalties for performance of sound recordings
- The FCC Ownership Proceeding
TV JSA attribution
- The incentive spectrum auctions/repacking
- TV online public file
- Ownership reporting
If you’d like to sign up, click on the button below to get to the registration page. Remember, space is limited.
OET seeks comments on alternative to traditional OET-69 methodology.
The FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) wants to sharpen its pencil when it comes to predicting TV station coverage. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) doesn’t think that that’s a good idea – not just now, at least.
Who cares? You should, if you’re a full-service or Class A TV licensee about to be forced into deciding whether (and if so, how) you will participate in the incentive auction process currently being devised by the Commission.
OET has announced, pretty much out of the blue, that it has developed new software – dubbed TVStudy – which the Commission “plans to use in connection with” the incentive auctions. At issue is the way the FCC plans to utilize OET-69 in the implementation of the auction process.Continue Reading...
Telecom Providers and Manufacturers: Accessibility-Related Recordkeeping and Certification Requirements Are Now in Effect
For some time already many, if not most, communications service providers and equipment makers have had to ensure accessibility to the disabled; now they’ve got to keep records of those efforts AND separately certify to the FCC that they’re in fact keeping those records.
If you happen to be subject to Section 255, 716 and/or 718 of the Communications Act, the FCC wants to make sure that you know you’ve got some recordkeeping to do – and some reporting, too. (Fuzzy on whether you’re in that club? If you are not a communications service provider or equipment manufacturer, you need read no further. If you do happen to fall into one or both of those categories, you should read on, although it may turn out that you, too, are off the hook.)
The new recordkeeping requirements – which took effect on January 30, 2013 – arise from Congress’s repeated efforts to ensure that telecommunications services and equipment are accessible to folks with disabilities. Thanks to those efforts, certain service providers and manufacturers must take affirmative steps to provide accessibility to the extent achievable.
And now, in addition to actually taking those steps, the affected companies must also maintain records of the steps they’ve taken . . . and they’ve also got to confirm to the FCC, once a year, that they are indeed maintaining such records.
What kind of recordkeeping are we talking about?Continue Reading...
As drive toward an LPFM auction moves forward, applications get tossed for real while Selection Lists/Caps Showings get released, sort of.
That loud flushing noise you may just have heard was the sound of about 3,000 FM translator applications heading down the tubes. Having analyzed the various Selection Lists and Caps Showings submitted by translator applicants late last month, the Media Bureau has announced that it has now tossed “approximately 3,000” vintage 2003 translator applications. In the same public notice, the Bureau has also announced the “release” – and we use that term loosely – of all of the underlying Selection Lists and Caps Showings submitted during the recently closed Selection Filing Window.
Which applications got thrown out and which didn’t? Good question. The Bureau’s one and only (apparently) public notice on the subject doesn’t include a list of the dismissed applicants, or applications, or file numbers, or any of the other conventional data you might expect. If you want to know any specifics, the staff apparently expects you to head online to CDBS, where you can probably figure out precisely which applications got dismissed and which continue to live on if you’ve got boatloads of (a) time and (b) motivation and (c) luck.Continue Reading...
Another element of the FCC’s overhaul of the wireless backhaul system is now in place.
Looks like it’s full speed ahead for another aspect of the Commission’s overhaul of the wireless backhaul regime. As we reported two days ago, the effective date of the rule requiring registration of TV pickup licenses has just been announced (that would be April 1). And the FCC has followed up with a Federal Register announcement that the Rural Microwave Flexibility Policy adopted last August – another component of the backhaul overhaul – has now been approved by the Office of Management and Budget. As a result, the Policy is now in effect.
For those not up on the details of the Policy, here’s the scoop. Ordinarily, the FCC requires that Fixed Service licenses be able to carry a minimum payload per megahertz of radio bandwidth. But the Commission will “favorably consider” requests for waiver of those requirements if the following criteria are satisfied:Continue Reading...
Some TV Broadcasters Relieved of Obligation to Upload Some (But Not All) Issues/Programs Lists to Online Public Inspection File
But paper copies of those lists must still be maintained for public inspection at the station, and the waiver is subject to some limiting conditions
Full-service and Class A TV licensees take heart! The Media Bureau may have let many of you off the hook with respect to one component of the online public inspection file requirement. In particular, the Bureau has announced that stations whose licenses were not renewed during the previous renewal cycle may opt not to post to the FCC’s online public file system their quarterly issues/programs lists relating to the earlier license terms covered by those filed-but-not-yet-granted renewal applications.
Before you start doing the Snoopy dance, be aware that there are at least three gotchas here.
Some background first.
As we all know, full-service and Class A TV folks are required to upload their public inspection files to the FCC-maintained online system by February 4. The public file rules (for both commercial and noncommercial licensees) require that those files include quarterly issues/programs lists dating back to the date on which the grant of their last renewal application became final.
The problem is that the last renewal grant, for many TV licensees, dates back into the 1990s. That’s because many TV renewal applications from the last renewal cycle still haven’t been granted, in many (if not most) cases thanks presumably to the dreaded “enforcement holds” arising from pending complaints lodged against the station. As a result, in order to comply precisely with the public file rule, a TV licensee whose last renewal is still in deferred status would have to upload an extra eight years’ or so worth of issues/programs lists.Continue Reading...
Mandatory registration is one element of FCC's expansion of wireless backhaul opportunities.
If you’ve got a TV pickup license in the 6875-7125 MHz or 12700-13200 MHz bands, you’ll be needing to register your stationary receive-only sites in the Commission’s Universal Licensing System (ULS) in the near future (if you haven’t done so already). Section 74.605, the Commission’s rule requiring such registration will finally become effective April 1, 2013, according to a notice in the Federal Register.
Long in the works, the “new” requirement was actually adopted nearly 18 months ago – back in August, 2011 – as part of the Commission’s overhaul of the wireless backhaul process. That overhaul is intended to make more spectrum available for fixed wireless operations serving as the “middle mile” links that move end-user traffic between cell towers and the core network. The increased spectrum availability is to be accomplished by allowing such services to share spectrum already used by TV pickup licenses in the 6875-7125 MHz or 12700-13200 MHz bands. But effective sharing will require coordination of use of the frequencies, and mandatory registration of receive-only sites will obviously facilitate such coordination.
Of course, it’s been a good idea to register such sites for some time, as we (and our friend and reader, Dane Ericksen) were recommending nearly two years ago. The Commission has permitted ULS registration of TV pickups since 2008 as an optional aid to coordination in the band. But come April, “optional” registration will become “mandatory” registration.
The delay in making Section 74.605 effective is a bit puzzling. Since the rule constitutes an “information collection”, it had to be run through the Paperwork Reduction Act process at the Office of Management and Budget. But according to the FCC’s Federal Register notice, OMB had signed off on the rule back on March 27, 2012. Whatever the reason for the one-year hold-up in making the rule effective, though, the fact of the matter is that we now know that it will be effective on April Fool’s Day. If you’ve got a TV pickup license in the 6875-7125 MHz or 12700-13200 MHz bands and you’ve been dragging your feet as far as registration goes, now would be a good time to get that job done.
Webcasters have until JANUARY 31 to file Statement of Account forms, pay annual fees to SoundExchange
According to famed lyrical poet Paul Hewson (“Bono” to his millions of friends), “nothing changes on New Year’s Day”. He reportedly started writing the song as a love paean to his wife, although it eventually morphed into a political statement inspired by the Polish Solidarity Movement. Regardless of the song’s broader political statement (or anybody’s personal notions about the significance of New Year’s Day), the plain statement isn’t true: things do change on New Year’s Day.
Compliance with the statutory license applicable to webcasting is one of those things.
When the ball drops in Times Square, webcasters are faced with updated forms to fill in and submit, a new cycle for reporting, and a clock ticking down the 31 days until the annual minimum fees of $500 per channel must be sent to SoundExchange.
Thankfully, much like last year, the changes from 2012-2013 are pretty minor. The rates have increased slightly. The forms have changed a little (with a new look and feel), although that shouldn’t be anything to worry about if you’ve done this before. And, in perhaps the most noteworthy change, there are actually fewer forms for some webcasters to file. Here’s an overview of what will be expected of webcasters in 2013.Continue Reading...
The deadline for completion of the upload process is nearly here – are you ready?
TV licensees (that is, full-power and Class A licensees) – this is your final warning from us here at CommLawBlog. You’ve got until February 4 to get your public inspection file uploaded to the FCC’s online system. That’s only two weeks from now, so if you haven’t gotten started on this yet, now would be a good time.
We have previously provided a number of tips on this topic: how to access the system; once you’re in, how to upload the required materials; what documents have to be uploaded. If you missed those posts, click here and here to get started.
We’re not going to re-visit the myriad details of the new rules, their genesis, their implementation, etc., etc. Been there, done that.
We do, though, want to offer a cautionary reminder.
We haven’t canvassed the status of everybody’s public files. It’s possible – maybe not likely, but possible – that everyone has already done everything that they need to do, and our warning here is a churlish and unnecessary bit of hectoring. If you, dear reader, have uploaded your public file already, congratulations, and please accept our apologies for suggesting otherwise. But for everybody else, we do want to underscore one consideration that should motivate any folks who have been dragging their feet.
The FCC’s online public file system is, ahem, an ONLINE public file system. Because of that, anybody anywhere anytime is in a position, unbeknownst to you, to check the status of your file. Once the deadline for completing the upload process arrives – that would be on February 4 – any shortcomings will be rule violations for which the Commission could issue fines. And anybody, anywhere, anytime will be in a position to identify such violations and bring them to the FCC’s attention. Even if the Commission opts not to start handing out fines immediately (and while the Commission may indeed restrain itself, particularly in the initial phase, such self-restraint is not mandatory), it’s hard to imagine a greater incentive to get your file in order by February 4.
If you’re a telecommunications carrier or interconnected VoIP provider, now’s the time to get out your calendar, turn it to early February or so, and mark in big red letters: “CPNI CERTIFICATIONS DUE MARCH 1, 2013”. And don’t forget to follow up by that important deadline.
CPNI here refers, of course, to Customer Proprietary Network Information (but you probably already knew that), and the certifications that are due at the Commission by March 1, 2013 are required by the FCC’s rules (as you hopefully already knew as well.) The FCC has issued a convenient “Enforcement Advisory” to remind one and all of the deadline. Like similar advisories in past years, this year’s includes a helpful list of FAQs and a suggested template showing what a certificate should look like. Heads up, though – this year’s advisory specifies that CPNI includes the numbers of calls made and received; advisories in past years referred only to “phone numbers called”. Additionally, in this year’s advisory voicemail is specifically included among the services covered by CPNI.
As we have explained annually for the past several years, the CPNI rules are designed to safeguard customers’ CPNI against unauthorized access and disclosure. The rules themselves are set out in Subpart U of Part 64 of the Commission’s rules, if you want to check them out yourself. Here’s a link that will take you there, but you might want to stock up on No-Doz® before heading there.Continue Reading...
FCC proposal would abandon “special use FRNs” in Ownership Reports, require social security number-based FRNs instead . . . for noncommercial licensees, too!
If you’ve got an “attributable interest” in a broadcast licensee, you might want to make sure that you’ve got your social security number (SSN) handy. The FCC is trying – again – to insist that all attributable interest holders provide SSN-based FCC registration numbers (FRNs) when the time comes to file biennial Ownership Reports on FCC Forms 323 (for commercial licensees) and 323-E (for noncommercial licensees).
In a Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (6th FNPRM) the Commission has proposed deep-sixing the “special use FRN” (SUFRN, as in “SUFRN succotash”) alternative that has been available since the July, 2010 filing of the biennial Form 323. The Commission has also proposed expanding the SSN-based FRN requirement to Form 323-E for noncoms, which would meant that folks on the controlling boards of NCE stations would have to get SSN-based FRNs. And the Commission has also renewed a proposal first bandied about in the Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (5th FNPRM) back in 2009. (In the nearly four years since the 5th FNPRM, that proposal – which would expand the FRN reporting requirement even more – apparently never made it to the Federal Register . . . until now!)Continue Reading...
Advanced Wireless Services proposed for H Block spectrum – as long as the NKOTHB are in sync with PCS
Nearly a year ago Congress passed, and President Obama signed into law, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. The 47% famously referred to by former Candidate Romney may be surprised to learn that more than 53% of the text of the law dealt with matters largely unrelated to tax relief or job creation. By contrast, Title VI of the law – what we in the biz refer to as the “Spectrum Act” – comprises a whopping 55 out of the law’s 102 pages. That amounts to nearly 54% by our math (don’t worry, we used a calculator). Not surprisingly, we have reported on numerous aspects of the Spectrum Act here over the last year.
Don’t fret if you’ve missed out – there’s plenty more Spectrum Act fun still to come.
For example, we have the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), released last month and recently published in the Federal Register, seeking comment on proposed service rules for the Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) H Block spectrum. Licenses in the block are anticipated to be offered for competitive bidding in 2013.Continue Reading...
Feds revise triggers for automatic merger and acquisition review.
With the 2012 book now closed on several acquisitions and mergers in the communications field, the federal government has performed its annual ritual of announcing the thresholds it will use for automatic federal review of mergers and acquisitions. The FCC worked on several 2012 “Big Ticket” transactions including the Verizon spectrum shuffle with assets from Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, Leap, several cable companies and others. Still under review by the FCC is the Liberty Media acquisition of Sirius/XM.
The FCC can review any transaction in detail before issuing an approval. On the other hand, Congress long ago deemed that the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission must review transactions that cross certain dollar amount thresholds. The dollar amounts of those thresholds were announced in today’s Federal Register. They are set to take effect as of February 11, 2013. Readers considering a merger or acquisition should bear in mind that the administration automatically will be sending at least two agencies to take a closer look at transactions where either:
- the total value of the transaction exceeds $283,600,000; or
- the total value of the transaction exceeds $70.9 million and one party to the deal has total assets of at least $14.2 million (or, if a manufacturer, has $14.2 million in annual net sales) and the other party has net sales or total assets of at least $141.8 million
The new thresholds also affect the filing fees that parties to a deal have to pay the government for the pleasure of going through the review process. (Fees are split between the FTC and the Department of Justice.) For most of 2013, any deal subject to review and valued at less than $141.8 million will pay a $45,000 fee. (Used to be that deals coming in at a mere $100 million got to pay that.) For deals valued at more than $141.8 million but less than $709.1 million, the review fee will be $125,000. And if you’re proposing a deal valued at more than $709.1 million, get set to fork over a tidy $280,000.
When negotiating deals, all parties would be well-advised to bear these thresholds in mind. Once those lines are crossed, the prospect of additional (and considerable) time, expense and hassle to navigate the federal review process is a virtual certainty.
As we reported last month, in December the Commission released its “Fifth Order on Reconsideration and Sixth Report and Order” (we refer to it as the 6th R&O) in which it (a) tied up some loose ends relative to LPFM and FM translator matters and (b) adopted new rules and policies governing LPFM applicants. The 6th R&O has now been published in the Federal Register, which means that most (but not all) of the new rules are set to become effective on February 8, 2013.
The changes to Sections 73.807, 73.810, 73.827, 73.850, 73.853, 73.855, 73.860 and 73.872 will not take effect on that date, though. All those sections involve what we call “information collections”. As a result, they are subject our old friend, the Paperwork Reduction Act, which means that they will have to run past the Office of Management and Budget first before they can be implemented.
Note that the establishment of effective dates for the new rules should not affect the fast-approaching deadline by which FM translator applicants must file their “Selection Lists” and “Caps Showings”. As we have previously reported, the window for filing those lists and showings opens on January 10 and closes on January 25.
With January 25 deadline fast approaching, the Media Bureau has provided some (non-binding) guidance to FM translator applicants.
If you’re one of the folks with a bunch of FM translator applications still pending from the 2003 filing window, you’re probably hard at work trying to figure out what, if anything, you should be filing in response to the Commission’s public notice announcing the deadline for “Selection Lists” and related “Caps Showings”. (You might have missed that notice, since it was released the afternoon of December 21 – that is, the Friday of the long Christmas weekend.)
As we pointed out, in the wake of that notice a considerable amount of work must be done, and there’s not a lot of time to do it in. The window for filing Selection Lists and Caps Showings opens in two days (on January 10), and closes on January 25.
But the Media Bureau feels your pain, and in an effort to assist translator applicants, the Bureau has released a set of 12 clarifying examples (actually, it’s 17, if you count the five sub-examples tacked onto Example 12). They provide reasonably specific directions for what is and is not expected of applicants in a variety of possible scenarios. (They’re especially helpful if you happen to have five applications pending in the Atlanta area, three of which are Inside the Atlanta Market.) So translator applicants currently struggling with making selections and assembling showings would be well-advised to take a few minutes (and a couple of deep breaths) and check out the Bureau’s examples. That may save some time and aggravation.
But heads up. While the examples are “intended to provide general guidance reflecting the staff’s initial interpretation of the application selections and cap showings procedures”, they may not be the last word. The Bureau’s notice specifically disclaims that the examples “are not intended to establish binding precedent”. Further, “[t]he staff will make specific rulings in response to actual selections and submissions on a case-by-case basis.” In other words, applicants should feel free to rely on the examples, but such reliance will not necessarily safeguard an applicant’s selections or showings from adverse determinations by the staff down the line.
“Selection Lists” may be filed by email.
Last month we reported on the Media Bureau’s announcement of the deadline and procedures for filing lists of FM translator applications to be dismissed pursuant to the provisions of the “Fifth Order on Reconsideration and Sixth Report and Order” (which we’ve previously referred to as the 6th R&O). In our post, we said that “[a]ll showings will be submitted on paper – there will be no electronic filing.”
Oops. As a helpful member of the Audio Division has pointed out to us, the Bureau’s public notice DOES provide for submission of the Selection Lists (and related “Caps Showings”) by email, which is technically “electronic filing” (even if it doesn’t involve CDBS).
The address to use: FXshowings@fcc.gov. While that address may or may not be operational as of today (January 3, 2013), we have been advised that it’ll for sure be up and running by January 10, the day the window for filing Selection Lists and Cap Showings opens.
But heads up. The FCC’s email system will not accept attachments larger than 10 MB. The Bureau’s notice instructs that “files beyond that size [i.e., 10 MB] should [be] divided into multiple sub-10 MB documents and sent via separate e-mails.”
Our apologies for any confusion that we may have caused. And many thanks to our sharp-eyed reader who brought this to our attention.
With February 4 deadline fast approaching, some more helpful tips for the upload process
As we roll into the New Year, it’s important that full-power TV and Class A TV licensees (we’ll refer to them collectively as “TV licensees” here) keep their eye on February 4. That’s the date by which all TV licensees must have uploaded their public inspection files to the FCC-maintained online site. If you haven’t already done so, now’s the time to inventory your public file, determine what documents have to be uploaded, and start the upload process inmediatamente.
As we have been explaining in a series of posts that started last spring (or even earlier) when the new online public inspection file requirements were first adopted, TV licensees must move most (but not all) of the materials in their existing public files to the online system. Earlier this month the Commission officially announced that the deadline for completing that project is February 4, 2013.
What has to be uploaded?Continue Reading...
Public notice spells out showings that must accompany applicants’ choices of which 2003-era FM translator applications will stay and which will go
If you’re one of the lucky folks who happens to have translator applications still pending at the Commission from the famous 2003 filing window, heads up – depending on how many applications you have and what markets they propose to serve, you could have a lot of homework to do between now and January 25. That’s because the Media Bureau has announced that the window period for submitting “translator application selection” lists (“Selection Lists”) and related “Caps Showings” will run from January 10-25, 2013.
So much for taking any time off during the Christmas/New Year’s/MLK extended holiday season.
The Bureau’s public notice is not unanticipated. As we noted just ten days ago, the Commission is highly motivated to wrap up the long-running face-off between FM translator applicants and would-be LPFM applicants. The culling of the herd of translator applications that have been sitting around for nearly ten years is an essential step in achieving that goal.
As those of you who have been following the LPFM/FM translator imbroglio through our blog already know, the Commission has devised a highly complex set of technical guidelines to govern which translator applications will be processed and which will be dismissed. The applicants themselves will have the first say, but their ability to pick and choose among their pending applications is subject to the Commission’s complex guidelines.Continue Reading...