Court Review Of Revised Form 323 Is Sought As Bureau Suspends January 11 Deadline
FHH, State Associations head to court; Bureau indicates that revised form may impose “unanticipated” practical burdens on filers
Two days before Christmas, and all was neither calm nor bright for Form 323 at the FCC. On December 23 the agency’s troubled efforts to launch its revised Form 323 – the Ownership Report for commercial broadcasters – got more troubled on a couple of fronts. In the morning, FHH, together with ten state broadcaster associations, asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to stay the implementation of the form pending Court review of the new burdens that form imposes. And hours later, the Media Bureau issued an order postponing indefinitely the deadline for filing biennial (but not other, non-biennial) Ownership Reports on the new form in order to fix mechanical problems that have cropped up with the form. While the two events were not directly related to one another, they both shone a glaring and none too favorable light on the FCC’s six-month (and counting) campaign to impose, without notice or comment, new and intrusive reporting obligations on commercial broadcasters.
We have already chronicled the history of, and major league flaws underlying, that campaign in considerable detail. Need a refresher? Click here and start reading. When last we checked in on things a couple of weeks ago, the FCC had finally taken the wraps off its revised form six months after first announcing in the Federal Register that the new form had been designed. (The FCC has never explained its reluctance to let us all kick the tires on the new form before having to drive it off the lot.) While the Commission had initially mandated in May, 2009, that the revised form would have to be filed by all commercial broadcast licensees by November 1 (reflecting their ownership as of October 1), that date had slipped to December 15, and then to January 11 (with the October 1 “as of” date moving to November 1).
Meanwhile, in November FHH had filed, with the Commission, a motion to stay the implementation of the new form, and then a separate “Petition for Reconsideration or Such Alternative Relief As May Be Appropriate”.
With the January 11 deadline closing in fast and no sign at all that the FCC was giving any serious consideration to the issues which FHH’s pleadings raised, FHH headed to court, along with the broadcaster associations from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, South Carolina and Tennessee.
Continue Reading...
FHH member and noted Net Neutrality maven Paul Feldman recently appeared at the TM Forum’s Management World America Conference in sunny Orlando. He spoke at the Conference’s keynote event, “Hype vs. Reality: What is the Role of Deregulation in Delivering a 21st Century Digital World?” (That's Paul on the right in the photo to the left.) For those of you who didn’t make it down to Florida for the festivities, no problem – you can catch Paul’s 15-minute Q-and-A presentation on net neutrality by 
On December 16 FHH’s Kevin Goldberg testified before the Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and the National Archive of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the topic of “.jpg)
FHH’s own Kevin M. Goldberg will be testifying before the Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census and the National Archives of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday, December 16, at 2 p.m. 
Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth has filed a Motion for Stay with the Commission, asking it to hold off on the implementation of its new Ownership Report (FCC Form 323) for commercial broadcast stations. You can read the 
FCC’s proposed rules good on paper, may do little in practice
You have read the recommendations of our colleague Mitchell Lazarus, both for 
If you’re planning on being in Indianapolis this coming weekend, be on the lookout for 
It looks like Chairman Genachowski is taking steps to get an early handle both on the procession of interested parties seeking to meet with him and on the issues that will be discussed in such meetings. When folks try to get an appointment to speak with him (or his staff) – in person or by phone – they are asked to provide a boatload of information about what’s on their minds before they can get themselves penciled into the Big Guy’s calendar. (This was recently reported by Comm Daily and comports with our own experience thus far in the young Genachowski regime.)
No matter where you are, no matter what you're doing, there's now no excuse for missing a new post to CommLawBlog. Because some people think that just having a blog is, like, so 2003, we've set up Facebook and Twitter accounts so that you'll never be out of the loop.
That's right, this thing is going to be viral (the good kind, not the hack-into-your-computer kind. Our mantra: for good, not for evil).
Fletcher Heald & Hildreth, LLC, has formed a Broadband Stimulus Group to assist prospective applicants seeking to participate in the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) and/or the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP). Those programs are being implemented by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (dubbed the Stimulus Package by many). As outlined in a Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) released in early July, $4 billion in funding is being distributed in the current round of funding. The application window for grants or loans in that round opens July 14 and closes August 14.
It was a great night for softball, and a night for great softball, as the FHH Bombs (a/k/a the Rockets, a/k/a the Fleeting Expletives) rocked the Jake at American University by sweeping a doubleheader and preserving their undefeated record.
If you’re the person in your organization responsible for buying sophisticated software-controlled products – for example, corporate phone systems, advanced medical devices, call center technology – you routinely face a host of complex considerations. In most such cases (which I refer to as “technology procurement transactions”), the products are not purchased off the shelf; rather, they tend to be customized to address the buyer’s peculiar needs. .jpg)
Thomas J. (Tom) Dougherty, Jr., has returned to Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth after a 15-year hiatus during which he practiced in the communications, transactions and outsourcing teams of Kilpatrick Stockton and Gardner, Carton & Douglas. A communications law veteran with more than 25 years' experience, Tom may not have done it all, but he’s done most of it. Secondary market licenses? He’s negotiated many, including EAS lease agreements for both EBS licensees and Sprint Nextel. Buying and selling all manner of communications properties? Done that, too, often using tax-minimizing structures. Franchise and telecom right-of-way agreements on the cable side? Sure enough. On the telecom side, he’s represented both carriers and enterprise users in the procurement of telecommunications services and associated products. And Tom has also represented companies in sophisticated outsourcing and technology procurement transactions.
The 
As you may know, the .JPG)
