The matchup for the National Football League’s championship game, aka the “Super Bowl”, is set. The Los Angeles Rams will face the New England Patriots on Sunday, February 3 in Atlanta in a game that will be hard pressed to exceed either conference championship game in terms of excitement or controversy. Each of the NFC Championship, where the Rams beat the New Orleans Saints, and in the AFC Championship, where the Patriots beat the Kansas City Chiefs, saw one of the teams come back from a double-digit deficit to force a thrilling overtime finish. Both games will be remembered for some questionable officiating. Continue Reading
One downside of a government shutdown—or the present partial shutdown that includes the FCC—is the inability of technology companies to obtain the FCC certifications they need to market certain kinds of new products.
Good news: the FCC has reopened a website that makes it possible for most (not all) new devices to obtain their certifications. Continue Reading
In collaboration with the Colorado Broadcasters Association, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth’s Frank Montero and Dan Kirkpatrick presented a webinar covering guidelines for broadcasters on how to handle controversial advertising and proper sponsorship identification. Frank and Dan discussed many aspects of Federal and state regulation pertaining to advertising on potentially problematic subjects, including marijuana, tobacco, alcohol, and gambling. They also discussed station-sponsored contests, hitting on topics such as what constitutes a lottery. Rounding out the webinar, they took up the topic of sponsorship identification, delving into payola and plugola.
If you were unable to log in to watch the webinar live or if you want to review the high points again, you can download and print the presentation in PDF form here. If you want to watch the webinar in its entirety, please email Dan Kirkpatrick at firstname.lastname@example.org.
On December 12, the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC” or “Commission”) three Republican Commissioners were in a self-congratulatory mood for standing with consumers against unwanted robotexts by classifying text messaging as a Title I service, but did the Commission’s classification decision really mark a major TCPA victory for consumers? Probably not. As Sekoia Rogers detailed on CommLawBlog, the FCC’s decision clarifies the regulatory classification of SMS and MMS messages under Title I of the Communications Act. Yet, instead of focusing on the legal or policy rationales for its classification decision the FCC chose to focus on the TCPA benefits of treating text messages as a Title I information service. So what does the Commission’s decision accomplish from a TCPA standpoint?
On December 12, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) adopted a Declaratory Ruling that finds Short Messaging Service (SMS) and Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) are “information services” under the Communications Act and that these services are not “telecommunications services” or “commercial mobile services”. As a result, SMS/MMS won’t be subjected to the regulatory burdens that apply to telecommunications and commercial mobile services and, according to the FCC, consumers will be able to continue benefiting from measures put in place by SMS/MMS providers to block unwanted text messages.
On January 3, 2019, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or the “Commission”) released a proposed Report and Order which would eliminate the requirement that certain broadcast television and radio stations file a Broadcast Mid-Term EEO Report (Form 397). The Commission released the proposed Report and Order for adoption at its public meeting scheduled for January 30, notifying the public of how it would potentially conclude the proceeding begun in March 2018.
Wondering how the federal government shutdown affects your broadcast station’s regulatory compliance obligations? Because some of the FCC’s online systems are up and running while others are not, it can be confusing as to what is still required of broadcasters. We have sorted through the confusion to help you understand what should still be prepared and/or filed, looking ahead through the beginning of February.
Aside from filings related to the post-Incentive Auction TV Transition (a/k/a the Repack) and certain political file matters, regulatory compliance filings for broadcast stations technically are not due during the shutdown. However, because the FCC has directed that any reports and filings that were due during the shutdown will be required to be filed within two (2) days of the federal government reopening, we recommend that you still prepare reports and make filings on time. This will allow you to be ahead of the curve when the FCC’s systems come back online. Continue Reading
At its December open meeting, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) took a significant step toward facilitating the deployment of fifth-generation (5G) wireless advanced services. For those still wondering what exactly 5G is, we have written about the highly touted mobile broadband technology several times, including here and here.
The FCC has already cleared some important regulatory hurdles necessary for 5G deployment, but the spectrum scarcity issue remains. Many wireless carriers capitalized on the recent broadcast incentive auction to get their hands on airwaves in the 600 MHz range, but 5G will likely rely on a combination of low, medium, and high frequency spectrum, so there is much more work needed to be done by the Commission. The FCC has, for some time, had its eye on the Upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz bands to free up some all-important millimeter wave spectrum.
The most recent Report and Order set the wheels in motion for an incentive auction for those bands, which the FCC hopes to have underway by the end of 2019. An incentive auction would achieve the goal of clearing incumbent licensees in the 39 GHz band. Continue Reading
On December 12, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or the “Commission”) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) commencing the 2018 Quadrennial Review of the Commission’s media ownership rules. The FCC is required under Section 202(h) of the Communications Act to review most of its broadcast ownership rules every four years to determine whether the rules continue to be in the public interest (and to repeal any rules that no longer serve the public interest) because they ensure a competitive broadcast marketplace. (importantly, the national television ownership cap is excluded from the quadrennial review process). These proceedings usually involve court challenges and typically take years to complete – as demonstrated by the fact that the Commission did not complete the 2010 and 2014 quadrennial reviews until 2017.
In the NPRM, the Commission is specifically reviewing its local radio and television ownership rules, as well as the “dual network” rule. The FCC is also considering the adoption of several diversity-related ownership proposals proffered by the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council (“MMTC”).
Each of these items under the Commission’s consideration are reviewed below. Despite its name, the NPRM does not in fact propose any specific rules, but rather requests comment broadly on any changes that should be made to these ownership rules. Instead, Chairman Ajit Pai requested an “intellectually honest conversation” about the current state of the media marketplace, and that any changes to the rules would “follow where the facts take us.” Continue Reading
On December 12, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) adopted an order that creates a reassigned number database to help callers avoid Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) violations that can occur when telephone numbers get reassigned to new users. We covered some of the details in a previous CommLawBlog post when the FCC pre-released its order in draft form. Now that the final version of the order has been adopted, there’s one major change to note: the Commission added a very limited (more on this below) safe harbor for callers that use the reassigned number database. Continue Reading