Mark Your Calendars: Political Broadcasting Webinar Set for Jan. 18 Hosted by Colorado Broadcasters Association and Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth

By FHH Law on Posted in Cable, FCC, Media, Satellite

Join us on Thursday, Jan. 18, 2018 from 2 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. EST for a political broadcasting rules refresher webinar! Presented in collaboration with the Colorado Broadcasters Association and Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, the webinar will be hosted by FHH’s all-star attorneys Frank Montero, Scott Johnson, and Dan Kirkpatrick. And, as an added bonus, the webinar will feature Bobby Baker a long-time head of the FCC’s political programming staff.

The webinar will cover:

  • Lowest Unit Rate calculation
  • What are equal opportunities (also called equal time) requirements and what programs are exempt from this?
  • Impact on streamed political ads online
  • Handling “issue” ads from PACs
  • Record keeping
  • and more!

To register, all you need to do is click here.

The webinar will be available for download, along with corresponding presentation slides. Attendees will also be able to ask questions during the webinar’s broadcast.

We hope you join us!

FCC Welcomes Blue to the EAS Family

By FHH Law on Posted in Cable, FCC, Media, Satellite, Wireless

Last week the FCC unanimously adopted a new member to the Emergency Alert Systems (EAS) family: the “Blue Alert.” Transmitted through the broadcast EAS and Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) systems, the Blue Alert is a voluntary alert code that can be used by state and local authorities to alert the public of credible “threats to law enforcement and to help apprehend dangerous suspects.” See it as an Amber Alert for law enforcement.

The Report and Order was approved after an emotional testimony by the family members of Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu from the New York Police Department, who were gunned down while on duty and whose deaths lead to the 2015 Blue Alert Act. This FCC approval will allow for more states to adopt the new EAS code.

This new alert can be disseminated through television, radio, satellite, and wireless phones using the three character code BLU. On a voluntary basis, all EAS Participants can upgrade their software to include the BLU event code. However, those wishing to upgrade will have to bear the cost for installation, downloading the software updates, and any other clerical work necessary.

For those wishing to welcome Blue Alert into their EAS system, the FCC has provided a 12-month implementation period for broadcast EAS and an 18-month implementation period for WEA via people’s phones. These timelines are designed to ensure that those choosing to deliver EAS Blue Alert can have the sufficient training, resources, and time available to address any technical issues that arise to ensure the successful delivery of Blue Alerts. The Commission also believes that by upgrading the EAS with Blue Alert on a rolling, voluntary basis that it will cut down on significant costs to EAS Participants.

The FCC, along with the National Broadcasters Association, believes that this Order will now allow the public for an “opportunity to protect themselves and their families and to report relevant information to law enforcement, thus facilitating the apprehension of suspects who are alleged to pose an imminent threat to law enforcement officers.”

Commissioner Carr heralded the measure saying, “This action should facilitate the delivery of Blue Alerts in a uniform and consistent manner nationwide and, in the process, increase the reach and effectiveness of these potentially life-saving warnings.” Commissioner Clyburn added that a, “three-character Blue Alert event code is the most effective means to share vital information in critical situations.”

If your arms are wide open to welcome Blue Alert into your EAS system, contact us about how we can help you.

CMRS Rules Get an FCC Facelift – Say Goodbye to Sections 20.7 and 20.9

By Paul J. Feldman on Posted in FCC, Media, Wireless

Chairman Pai and the FCC last week continued their campaign of revamping FCC rules, this time by adopting a Report and Order tackling the Commission’s Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS). The Order deletes Sections 20.7 and 20.9 of the Commission’s rules and is intended to generally eliminate an “outdated and incomplete list of certain services” and streamline rules across all spectrum bands by removing regulations that unnecessarily apply to some mobile service providers.

Photo by Derick Anies on Unsplash via the Creative Commons Licsense

Section 20.7 of the rules specified some, but not all, examples of services that meet the definition of “mobile services.” Section 20.9 of the rules provided a list of services that were presumed to be commercial mobile radio services. It also required applicants or licensees in those services to file a petition for waiver of that CMRS status in order to be classified instead as providers of Private Mobile Radio Service (“PMRS”). Under Section 332 of the Communications Act, and numerous other FCC rules, CMRS providers have significantly more regulatory obligations than PMRS providers, and CMRS providers are in many ways treated as “common carriers.”

The Order notes that while “Section 20.9’s regulatory treatment of certain service bands may well have been a reasonable tool when it was adopted, it was based on assumptions that no longer apply—namely that a licensee would offer a service restricted either to CMRS or PMRS use rather than seek to have the flexibility to operate as both.”

Furthermore, the Order goes on to note that in recent years, “the Commission’s spectrum regulation has turned toward a flexible use model that no longer supports this particular treatment embedded in our rules.” The Commission points out that because of Section 20.9 of the rules, some applicants that might otherwise have their applications granted very quickly instead have to file waivers or similar pleadings to be regulated as PMRS providers, which adds unnecessary cost and delay to the application process. Continue Reading

Rural Health Care Providers Could Find Relief in FCC Proposal

By FHH Law on Posted in FCC, Internet, Telecommunications

Photo by rawpixel.com on Unsplash using the Creative Commons License

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission took steps to review and update its Rural Health Care Program (RHCP) via a Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order. The item seeks comment on how to improve RHCP, including extending a waiver to allow for the rollover of RHCP funds from Fiscal Year 2017 into mid-2018.

The goal of RHCP has been to improve the quality of health care to patients in rural communities where, according to the National Rural Health Association, only nine percent of the country’s physicians practice. Thus, citizens often face difficulties in getting access to quality health care due to a lack of available professionals.

To help, RHCP covers the costs of broadband service for rural health care providers so that they can communicate with patients miles away, rural clinics can send X-rays to a radiologist in an urban area, provide psychiatric counseling through video conferencing, or even help a woman via video who is struggling with a difficult pregnancy. These types of services need a broadband connection, which may not be available in a particular community.

The RHCP Program was established by the 1996 Telecommunications Act to “facilitate health care delivery in rural and remote parts of America.” The Telecom Program, the Health Care Fund Program, the Internet Access Program, and the Rural Health Care Pilot Program all fall under the umbrella of the RHCP Program

Health care providers in rural America use RHCP in order to, according to the FCC, “provide telemedicine, transmit health records, and conduct other telehealth activities, thereby improving patient care and reducing health care costs.” The program provides eligible health care providers with a 65 percent discount on broadband services in rural America.

The NPRM aims to, “ensure that all communities have access to advanced telehealth services” and “curtail waste, fraud, and abuse” within the program. Chairman Pai said that the FCC will begin working toward that goal by trying to identify the ideal size for RHCP in the future and ways in which the program can function better. Continue Reading

The FCC’s Open Internet Order – Which Freedom?  

By FHH Law on Posted in Enforcement, FCC, Internet, Telecommunications

By Fabio Lanari (Modified by Rock1997 via the Creative Commons License)

The fight over the Open Internet (better known as net neutrality) continued Thursday with the Federal Communications Commission voting to reverse the 2015 Title II Order, which reclassified broadband Internet access as a “telecommunications service.” This decision means that the Internet will return to its pre-2015 Title I “information service” classification (For a history of how we got to this point, read our past CommLaw posts here). Furthermore, the Commission’s Order removes much of the FCC’s oversight over the Internet, and reinstates shared jurisdiction with the Federal Trade Commission.

However, it is obvious for anyone that has been following this fight that this battle is far from over.

While Commissioners on both sides of the aisle said they were in favor of Internet freedom, they each had different definitions of what that means. In particular, the Republican and Democratic Commissioners expressed fundamental differences in defining the nature of that freedom and the Commission’s role in protecting such freedom.
Continue Reading

New European Privacy Laws Going Into Effect Mean ALL Companies Need to Review their Data Collection

By FHH Law on Posted in Internet, Privacy, Telecommunications

Our websites are global, our e-commerce offerings reach customers around the world, our Internet radio broadcasts elicit responses from listeners around the globe and our consultants often hail from London to New Delhi.

Whether people pay us, whether we pay them, or whether we just correspond with people interested in our products, services and programs, we often exchange personal data that includes email addresses, phone numbers, and physical addresses. This personal data is increasingly protected by regulations around the world, especially when it is collected online. Nowhere is this regulation more stringent than in Europe.

In just six months, new European privacy regulations, called the General Data Protection Rules (GDPR) will take effect, with large new fines and a strong European Union (EU) commitment to enforcement. This new law fundamentally increases protection of personal data and its reach extends far beyond the borders of the EU. Companies all over the world are preparing for the change. Are you?

This blog post provides an overview of the new GDPR, suggests steps which companies might take to better understand and stay on the right side of these rules (including by “self-certifying” your company’s compliance) and provides some U.S.-based resources in the form of the websites of the Department of Commerce and U.S. Better Business Bureau. For those who collect personal data from citizens in EU countries, the time to act is now.

EU Data Protection Law in a Nutshell

Europe has a different type of protection for personal data then the U.S. For instance, U.S.-based data privacy laws are sectoral: we protect an individual’s health data, financial data and even individual movie rentals. Due to the abusive use of personal data collected before and during WWII, European countries have taken a much harder line than the U.S. when it comes to private collection of personal data. As one of the first laws of the then-new European Union, the Data Protection Directive was passed in 1995 and created a comprehensive data protection law for Europe. All personal data of European individuals is broadly protected and controlled over that data, which rests with the individual and includes: (1) a right to review the data, and correct as appropriate, and (2) a right to consent to “secondary uses” of the data, including whether or not the data may be shared or sold to third parties for purposes unrelated to the original purchase or service.

In 2016, European lawmakers went one giant step further. The EU created a stronger set of data privacy laws designed to further harmonize the data protection laws of the region and better correlate them to 21st century technologies. Now this law, the GDPR, is shaking up the way companies around the world collect, process, retain, share and delete personal data collected from European citizens. Every company working with data flows from Europe should be closely reviewing their data policies, procedures and processing to see if their compliance is required.

Continue Reading

Effective Date of Main Studio Rule Elimination Announced

By FHH Law on Posted in Deadlines, Enforcement, FCC, Media

Photo by John Hult via the Creative Commons License

Effective Jan. 8, 2018, AM, FM, and television broadcast stations will no longer be required to maintain a main studio. The Commission voted back in October to eliminate the Main Studio Rule based on findings that the cost of maintaining a main studio outweighed the benefits. The Order was published in the Federal Register on Dec. 8, and will take effect 30 days after publication (since that date would fall on a Sunday, the revision is effective Monday, Jan. 8, 2018).

We wrote about the implications of the repeal of the main studio rule back in October, following that month’s FCC Open Meeting.

As outlined in the Order adopted by the Commission and published in the Federal Register, “We affirm the tentative conclusion … that technological innovations have rendered local studios unnecessary as a means for viewers and listeners to communicate with or access their local stations and to carry out the other traditional functions that they have served.”

The main studio rule repeal also encompasses staffing requirements associated with the main studio. Previously, it was required that main studios be staffed with a “meaningful management and staff presence” in order to execute the station’s operations.

Now, as of Jan. 8, 2018 broadcast stations will no longer be required to staff or maintain a main studio.  As a reminder, however, they will need to maintain a local or toll-free telephone number and, until their local public inspection file is entirely moved online, must maintain a hard-copy file at an accessible location in their community of license.

Upcoming FCC Broadcasting and Telecommunications Deadlines for January-February 2018

By FHH Law on Posted in Deadlines, FCC, FHH, Media, Telecommunications

It’s never too early to get a jump start on upcoming deadlines as the New Year approaches. Below is a list of upcoming FCC deadlines to keep on your radar.

Note our list is not comprehensive. Other proceedings may apply to you. Please do not hesitate to contact FHH if you have any questions. 

Photo by Sonja Langford on Unsplash

January 10, 2018 – 

Repack Transition Progress Report – All full-power and Class A television stations repacked as a result of the incentive auction must file a report in LMS to detail their progress toward completion of the transition.

Children’s Television Programming Reports – For all commercial television and Class A television stations, the fourth quarter 2017 children’s television programming reports must be filed electronically with the Commission.  These reports then should be automatically included in the online public inspection file, but we would recommend checking, as the FCC bases its initial judgments of filing compliance on the contents and dates shown in the online public file.  Please note that as has been the case for some time now, the required use of the Licensing and Management System for the children’s reports means that the licensee FRN and password are necessary to log in; therefore, you should have that information at hand before you start the process.

Commercial Compliance Certifications – For all commercial television and Class A television stations, a certification of compliance with the limits on commercials during programming for children ages 12 and under, or other evidence to substantiate compliance with those limits, must be uploaded to the online public inspection file.

Website Compliance Information – Television and Class A television station licensees must upload and retain in their online public inspection files records sufficient to substantiate a certification of compliance with the restrictions on display of website addresses during programming directed to children ages 12 and under.

Issues/Programs Lists – For all commercial and noncommercial radio, television, and Class A television stations, a listing of each station’s most significant treatment of community issues during the past quarter must be placed in the station’s public inspection file.  Radio stations in the top 50 markets and in an employment unit with five or more employees will have to place these reports in the new online public inspection file, while all other radio stations may continue to place hard copies in the paper file for the time being.  Television and Class A television stations will continue upload them to the online file.  The list should include a brief narrative describing the issues covered and the programs which provided the coverage, with information concerning the time, date, duration, and title of each program.

Class A Television Continuing Eligibility Documentation – The Commission requires that all Class A Television maintain in their online public inspection files documentation sufficient to demonstrate that the station is continuing to meet the eligibility requirements of broadcasting at least 18 hours per day and broadcasting an average of at least three hours per week of locally produced programming.  While the Commission has given no guidance as to what this documentation must include or when it must be added to the public file, we believe that a quarterly certification which states that the station continues to broadcast at least 18 hours per day, that it broadcasts on average at least three hours per week of locally produced programming, and lists the titles of such locally produced programs should be sufficient.

February 1, 2018 –

EEO Public File Reports – All radio and television stations with five (5) or more full-time employees located in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma must place EEO Public File Reports in their public inspection files. TV stations must upload the reports to the online public file. Radio stations in the top 50 markets and in an employment unit with five or more employees will have to place these reports in the online public inspection file; all other radio stations may continue to place hard copies in the paper public file for the next month. For all stations with websites, the report must be posted there as well. Per announced FCC policy, the reporting period may end ten days before the report is due, and the reporting period for the next year will begin on the following day.

EEO Mid-Term Reports – All radio stations with eleven or more full-time employees in New Jersey or New York, and all television stations with five or more full-time employees in Kansas, Nebraska, or Oklahoma must electronically file a mid-term EEO report on FCC Form 397, with the last two EEO public file reports attached.

‘Here Comes the Sun…’ Federal Magistrate Recommends that RMLC Lawsuit Against GMR be Moved to California

By FHH Law on Posted in FCC, Intellectual Property, Media

It was around this time last year that one of the most closely watched fights in music licensing history – if not copyright generally – went to the next level as the Radio Music License Committee (RMLC) sued Global Music Rights (GMR). The RMLC lawsuit alleges that Irving Azoff-founded newest Performing Rights Organization (PRO), was engaged in anticompetitive behavior in not agreeing to a license that would permit RMLC-represented (mainly mainstream commercial) radio stations around the country to perform musical works owned by GMR members over the air and via the Internet. This includes songs performed by, among others, Bruce Springsteen, The Beatles, Pharrell, Blake Shelton, Bruno Mars, and Taylor Swift.

The RMLC lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and assigned to The Honorable Darnell Jones. We highlighted this fact in our original post on the RMLC-GMR litigation because Judge Jones, as we wrote, is:

the same federal judge who presided over the RMLC’s litigation against SESAC that settled on favorable terms for the RMLC last year. If that litigation is any indication, radio stations may soon see some of the same competitive restraints that limit other PROs’ ability to demand supracompetitive license fees imposed on GMR as well.

GMR certainly recognized the importance of this venue as it filed its own lawsuit in its home state of California back in December 2016 alleging anti-competitive behavior on the part of the RMLC, a move that seemed as much tactical – to force the litigation west – as substantive. We noted in a post earlier this year that it seemed more likely that the California litigation would be moved to Pennsylvania than the other way around, as the United States District Court for the Central District of California stayed its proceedings in the GMR-initiated lawsuit pending the outcome of a GMR motion in Pennsylvania to move that case to the left coast. As we wrote:

the California court stated that the RMLC case had been filed first and that under the so-called “first-to-file” rule, GMR’s later lawsuit, which involved the same parties and substantially similar issues, should be decided in Pennsylvania if that suit remained active. Rather than transferring GMR’s case immediately, the court stayed the case until the Eastern District of Pennsylvania court had the opportunity to rule on GMR’s own motion to move that case to California.

The court had a different view.

Continue Reading

LexBlog