The New Hampshire Association of Broadcasters and 45 other State Broadcasters Associations joined in filing comments in response to the FCC’s proposal to require television stations to post the bulk of their public inspection files, including their political files, on the FCC’s website.

We supported the Commission’s proposal to exclude from any online public inspection file requirement the multitude of letters and emails that television stations receive from the public.  We also expressed support for the Commission’s decision to offer to host the public inspection files on the FCC’s own website, but qualified our support by urging the Commission, as we did in earlier stages of the proceeding, to give stations the option of using the FCC’s website or its own website, with appropriate links to the FCC’s website, for their online public inspection files.

The State Associations did raise serious concerns however.  We expressed great concern that the Commission’s apparent focus in the proceeding had changed, and inappropriately so, from the FCC’s longstanding emphasis on encouraging local dialogues between local residents and their local stations about their programming service to a new emphasis on oversight of television stations by non-local, and in fact, distant researchers and public advocacy groups that have no local ties to or personal knowledge of the individual communities served by local television stations.

We also registered our strong objection to the Commission’s proposal to require television stations to place their political files online, including forcing stations to catalogue the political file materials by “subfolders” and “subdivisions,” in effect to standardizing the management of traffic at television stations.  We pointed out that there is no industry standard for managing traffic because many television stations use their own in-house trafficking software and many others use the products of at least fourteen outside vendors.  In addition, we opposed the Commission’s proposal to expand substantially the types of “sponsors” that must be identified on the lists that stations have long been required to maintain in their public files.  We argued that not only will each of these proposed new requirements be extraordinarily burdensome, they reflect a new “gotcha” regulatory attitude of the Commission with researchers, public advocacy groups and the Commission playing “stop watch” roulette if station political files go online or if the list of a television station’s “sponsors” must be expanded.  Given that the base fines for violations of the FCC’s political file and public inspection file rules are $9,000 and $10,000, respectively, we pointed out that the FCC will have a strong incentive to encourage the filing of “stop watch” complaints as well as to make adverse “willful or repeated” findings notwithstanding the good faith efforts of broadcasters.

The State Associations urged the Commission not to adopt an online political file requirement or to expand the types of sponsorships that must be listed by television stations in their public inspection files.  In the alternative, we suggested that the Commission defer a decision on whether to adopt an online political file requirement for television stations pending the outcome of its action with respect to replacing FCC Form 355.  We also urged the Commission, if it still intends to adopt an online public inspection file requirement for television stations, to conduct a pilot program before finalizing any online public inspection file rule as well as provide a reasonable phase-in period for compliance.  Furthermore, with the adoption of an online public inspection file requirement, we requested the Commission to remove as unnecessary the public file certification question from its application for renewal of broadcast licenses on FCC Form 303-S, as well as to reduce the base forfeiture amount for public inspection file violations which will become even more arbitrary and capricious in an online public file world.

Lastly, to acknowledge the high priority of dialogues between local viewers and local stations, the State Associations urged the Commission to require all persons and organizations having complaints about a station’s programming to certify, in any complaint, objection or petition filed with the Commission, that they have already made their concerns known, in writing or by email, to the affected station(s) and that they have not received either any response from the station(s) or a satisfactory response (along with the reasons why the response was not satisfactory) before the FCC will consider the matters contained in the person’s or organization’s complaint, objection or petition.

by Lauren Lynch Flick and Paul A. Cicelski

Pillsbury Law

All commercial and noncommercial educational digital television broadcaststation licensees and permittees must file FCC Form 317 by December 1, 2011.

The FCC requires all digital television stations, including all commercial and noncommercial educational full power television stations, digital low power television stations, digital translator television stations, anddigital Class A television stations, to submit FCC Form 317 each year. The report details whether stations provided ancillary or supplemental services at any time during the twelve-month period ending on the preceding September 30.

It is important to note that the FCC Form 317 must be submitted regardless of whether stations offered any such services. FCC Form 317 must be filed electronically, absent a waiver, and is due on December 1, 2011.  Ancillary or supplementary services are all services provided on the portion of a DTV station’s digital spectrum that is not necessary to provide the required single free, over-the-air signal to viewers. Any videobroadcast service that is provided with no direct charge to viewers is exempt.

According to the FCC, examples of services that are considered ancillary or supplementary include, but are not limited to,”computer software distribution, data transmissions, teletext, interactive materials, aural messages, paging services, audio signals, subscription video, and the like.”  If a DTV station provided ancillary or supplementary services during the 12-month time period ending onSeptember 30, 2011, it must pay the FCC 5% of the gross revenues derived from the provision of those services.

This payment can be forwarded to the FCC’s lockbox at the U.S. Bank in St. Louis, Missouri andmust be accompanied by FCC Form 159, the Remittance Advice.  Alternatively, the fee can be paid electronically using a credit card on the FCC’s website. The fee amount must also be submitted by theDecember 1, 2011 due date.

The New Hampshire Association of Broadcasters along with 44 other State Broadcasters Associations joined in filing Reply Comments in the FCC’s rule making proceeding to implement certain provisions of the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 that would require television stations to caption television programming disseminated over the Internet.  Because the NPRM raised the specter of a wide range of new regulations on television stations, the Associations sought to reduce those  burdens and regulatory risks in several ways.  First, we urged the FCC to adopt the SMPTE-TT, which was recommendated and the Video Programming Accessibility Advisory Committee and supported by the NAB, as the industry standard for the interchange format for receiving and passing through closed captioning.  We pointed out that SMPTE-TT would provide television stations and other parties in the distribution chain with needed certainty which, in turn, would save time and money during the online captioning process.  In line with the NAB, we also asked the Commission to allow SMPTE-TT to serve as a safe harbor for the FCC’s Internet captioning requirements.  Second, we urged the FCC to limit its captioning requirements to “full-length programmings” with the effect that the new requirements would not apply to excerpts or clips of full-length programs, such as individual segments of a local news program streamed online.  Third, we urged the FCC to extend by an additional six months the lead times when the new regulations would become effective, reasoning that without such an extension stations may be forced to reduce or eliminate online postings of live, near-live, and prerecorded, unedited programming until their captioning resources and other capabilities are fully developed.

The State Broadcasters Associations representing the fifty States, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, including your Association, filed Joint Comments with the FCC applauding the  Commission’s adoption of the Third Further Notice in a rule making dealing with the conversion of EAS to CAP.   The State Associations stated that the NPRM affords an important and timely opportunity for interested parties to provide a boots-on-the-ground assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the Commission’s current Part 11 Rules in a Common Alerting Protocol environment.  That type of assessment should lead to a more informed and judicious updating of those rules, taking into consideration the conversion of the Emergency Alert System to CAP.

As the record in earlier phases of this proceeding demonstrate, the State Associations, as representatives of the radio and television broadcast industries in their states and territories, have extensive, first-hand experience working with emergency management and public safety authorities at the state and local levels throughout the United States.  Based on that experience, it is their collective observation that, when it comes to utilizing EAS as well as appreciating the role that EAS has played and can continue to play in protecting the lives and property of citizens, there are significant differences among the states, counties and municipalities in terms of priorities, resources and training.  Those differences can translate into lack of use, as well as inefficient and inconsistent use, of EAS as an emergency management tool.  For those reasons, the State Associations encourage the Commission in this proceeding to exercise its expertise in overseeing EAS to ensure that every state, county, and local authority with public safety responsibilities understands that its active participation is needed in the design, updating, and execution of statewide EAS plans that serve as the centralized, federally approved, roadmap for the use of EAS throughout each state and territory.

The Commission should use the State Emergency Communications Committees as change agents to promote more robust EAS partnerships at the state, county and municipal levels.  While the commitment to EAS in many states is consistently exemplary, the track record nationwide has been uneven at best.  Furthermore, the budgetary constraints affecting state and local governments, from which virtually 100% of the EAS messages originate, are challenging the national goal to upgrade their EAS transmission capabilities to CAP as soon as possible.  The State Associations believe that if the Commission re-establishes its commitment to, and the authority and stature of, the SECCs, as described in these Joint Comments, such Federal institutional support, coupled with the sacred duty of governmental authorities at all levels to protect their citizens, will result in a more robust EAS partnerships among all stakeholders. Those partnership, in turn, will lead to a faster and more complete upgrading of the EAS system nationwide.  In sum, SECCs should be recognized by the Commission as too long underutilized, but critically important, engines of change that can help to take EAS, as used by state and local authorities, to the levels to which FEMA, the FCC and the broadcast industry aspire for the Nation.

The Commission should delete the gubernatorial preemptive override requirement.   The State Associations and others have demonstrated earlier in this proceeding that the gubernatorial override requirement is itself wholly unnecessary and problematic.  The State Associations submit that the willingness of broadcasters to respond when called upon by state and local emergency managers has never been an issue.  No one has ever suggested that broadcaster cooperation turns on who is issuing an alert about an emergency situation.  The nature of the event dictates that cooperation.  The record in this proceeding is replete with examples of the dedication and commitment that the broadcasters have had toward creating a better EAS for the benefit of all Americans.  Unquestionably, of the many ways that local broadcasters serve the public interest, nothing is more important to them than preserving the safety of their viewers and listeners.

The gubernatorial override right stands the FCC’s EAS protocols under Part 11 on their head.  The thrust of the EAS protocols is event based, not originator based.  There are in fact dozens of event-centric codes that focus on the type of events which put citizens at risk – those events in turn dictate the nature of the message and the corresponding code.  The Governor’s override right elevates the speaker over the event.  Moreover, a governor is already accounted for under one of the four “originator codes” under “Civil Authorities.”  He or she already works through the state emergency management and public safety authorities.  All of those authorities work very cooperatively with broadcast stations, cable systems and others.  Even the President does not have his own “originator code.”

The Commission should further extend the September 30, 2011, deadline by which EAS Participants must be able to receive CAP alerts.  The State Associations propose that a new 180- day extension be measured from the date when the Commission’s amendments to Part 11 become legally effective.  One of the important reasons why the first extension of the CAP deadline was sought was because it was not then known whether the FCC would institute a parallel certification process for the equipment that would be needed to fully comply with the CAP deadline.  That uncertainty has not gone away.  It is true that the Third Further Notice has been issued, but it remains uncertain whether the Commission will implement its own certification process. No EAS Participant should be required to purchase costly equipment not knowing whether it will be fully FCC compliant.  The additional time will also allow EAS Participants to take into consideration any and all changes in Part 11 before making final purchase decisions as well as before finalizing their planning for CAP-related installation, training, testing, and operations.

The State Associations also wish the Commission to consider a further extension taking into account an even broader context.  FEMA and the FCC have taken the lead on the conversion to CAP.  However, that initiative does not take into account the fact that virtually 100% of EAS originations currently emanate from state and local authorities and NWS that, with a few exceptions, do not have the resources to implement CAP from their end.  For some of those authorities, the conversion to CAP is viewed as a luxury which they cannot presently afford.  Given that the CAP will not be used for the vast bulk of EAS messages for the foreseeable future, the State Associations respectfully urge the Commission to weigh that factor favorably when considering whether to grant a further extension of the CAP-compliance deadline is appropriate.

From Senator Gordon Smith, President and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters

As I discussed yesterday (Thursday) in a webcast to our membership-at-large, this is a critical time for broadcasters – both television and radio stations – and it will require committed engagement from all of us to stave off any government actions that could hurt the future of broadcasting and our commitment to serving our local communities.

One of the greatest game-changing issues facing our businesses continues to be congressional and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposals to reallocate spectrum. These proposals could threaten free, local TV’s ability to innovate and provide viewers with the news, emergency information and high-quality programs that they expect and deserve. Currently, congressional and White House leaders are negotiating national debt ceiling legislation, which could include spectrum auction authority. The timeline for reaching a deal on the debt ceiling legislation is August 2 unless an extension is secured.

We need your help to send a strong message to Congress and beat back government intervention that could threaten the future of free, local television. You can engage in our on-air campaign by downloading the 30-second radio and TV spots at www.nab.org/TheFutureofTV. We ask that you air these spots as often as possible between now and August 2.

\”For Granted\” :30 English

As a reminder, you must fill out the PB-17 form that we have customized for stations airing these spots and place it in your public file.

On this website, you also will find additional tools and resources to help you educate your members of Congress, as well as listeners and viewers on the spectrum issue. These resources include a spectrum primer called Spectrum 101 and print and banner ads. You will also have the ability to call or send an email to your legislators to express your concerns that TV viewers are protected in any spectrum proposal that may be included in debt ceiling legislation.

We thank you for your support and participation in our efforts. Working together, we will ensure a strong future for broadcasting.

Sincerely,

Gordon H. Smith
NAB President and CEO

The FCC has asked for television’s participation in a webinar dealing with broadcast spectrum and incentive auctions.  It will be possible to submit questions “anonymously” through the NHAB.  The webinar will be done with all of the New England states.  To register for the webinar please visit here.

Save the Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 10am-12pm Eastern Time

FCC Webinar for Television Broadcasters

Please join FCC Media Bureau Chief Bill Lake and Rebecca Hanson, Senior Advisor, Broadcast Spectrum, in a live webinar that describes the financial opportunities offered by voluntary incentive auctions, as proposed in the FCC’s National Broadband Plan.  Incentive auctions for TV spectrum seek to offer broadcasters new business model options involving their voluntary contribution of some or all of their licensed spectrum, including options that allow broadcasters to participate and continue to broadcast. This webinar will give an overview of those opportunities and will provide an opportunity for the FCC representatives to respond to questions, including questions about the need to repack the remaining television channels following the auction. Specific topics will include:

How would an incentive auction work?

Broadcaster Opportunities, channel-sharing, and VHF

Repacking Implications

If you have any questions, please contact Jordan at jordan@nhab.org or 627-9600.

Posted February 3, 2011

By Scott R. Flick

Late today, the FCC released an Order laying the groundwork for the first national test of the Emergency Alert System. As we noted in an earlier post, the FCC began this process nearly a year ago, when it released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on the implementation of regular national EAS tests. Today’s order modifies the FCC’s Rules to authorize such tests as well as to establish the ground rules for conducting them.

Specifically, the Order:

• Requires all EAS participants to participate in national EAS tests scheduled by the FCC in consultation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
• Requires that the first national test use the Emergency Alert Notification code, the live event code used for nationwide Presidential alerts;
• Provides that the national test replaces the monthly and weekly EAS tests in the month and week it is held;
• Requires the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau of the FCC provide at least two months’ public notice prior to a national test;
• Requires EAS participants to submit test-related data within 45 days of the test;
• Requires that test data received from EAS participants be treated as presumptively confidential, but allows it to be shared on a confidential basis with other federal agencies and state emergency management agencies that have confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by the Freedom of Information Act; and
• Delegates authority to the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, in consultation with FEMA and other EAS stakeholders, to establish various administrative procedures for national tests, including the location codes to be used in the alerts and the pre-test outreach to be conducted.

While many following this proceeding had anticipated that the FCC might hold off on a national test until it had modified its rules to incorporate Common Alerting Protocol and the deadline for EAS participants to install CAP-compliant equipment had passed, it appears the first national test could occur as early as this Fall. The order specifically notes that the first “national EAS test is strictly of the legacy EAS system and is independent of the transition to CAP.”

The Order notes the need for significant public outreach prior to the test (to avoid public panic), and acknowledges that, at least for the first test, EAS participants will likely get more than the minimum two months’ warning to accomplish that public education objective.

Of particular note to EAS participants is the requirement that they record and submit to the FCC within 45 days of the test a fair amount of detail regarding that participant’s performance during the test (e.g., was the alert received and passed on successfully, what equipment was used, what was the cause of any problems that occurred, etc.). In order to facilitate the submission of that data, the FCC also announced that it will be creating an electronic filing system that EAS participants may elect to use to comply with the reporting requirement.

Because the FCC wishes to encourage EAS participants to be honest in reporting failures that occur during national tests, it did note that it would treat the required submissions as a “voluntary disclosure”. In the past, the FCC has considered a licensee’s voluntary disclosure of a rule violation to be a mitigating factor that can merit a reduction in the fine or other sanction imposed. Notably, however, the FCC did not foreclose itself from issuing fines or taking other action against an EAS participant reporting a failure of its equipment/performance in the national test, particularly where the violation is “repeated, egregious, or not promptly remedied.”

As a result of today’s Order, and the wheels it puts in motion, broadcasters, cable providers, and other EAS participants will need to make sure they and their EAS equipment are ready to participate in a national EAS test as early as this Fall. The FCC, FEMA and other governmental agencies also have much to do before a national test can occur. However, today’s action clears the initial obstacles away, and will allow the FCC to achieve its goal of assessing “for the first time, the readiness and effectiveness of the EAS from top-to-bottom, i.e., from origination of an alert by the President and transmission through the entire EAS daisy chain, to reception by the American public.” That assessment has been a long time coming, and while it does present some regulatory risks for EAS participants, most will be pleased to have confirmation that the EAS equipment they have maintained day in and day out, year after year, will serve its intended purpose should a national emergency require it.

From Radio Ink

January 6, 2010: FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski was an opening-day speaker at the Consumer Electronics Show, taking place now in Las Vegas. Genachowski focused on mobile broadband and spectrum in his remarks, saying, “We’re in the early stages of a mobile revolution that is sparking an explosion in wireless traffic.  Without action, demand for spectrum will soon outstrip supply.”
He continued, “If we don’t tackle the spectrum challenge, network congestion will grow, and consumer frustration will grow with it.  We’ll put our country’s economic competitiveness at risk, and squander the opportunity to lead the world in mobile. That’s why unleashing spectrum to support mobile innovation is at the top of the FCC’s 2011 agenda.”

Genachowski talked about the potential opportunities with mobile broadband, saying it “has created a tremendous new platform for innovation” and for commerce.”Everywhere you look,” he said, “mobile is becoming a staple of the workplace, increasing productivity and contributing to our economy.  From managing crops on a farm to managing inventory at Best Buy, mobile broadband is increasing productivity and contributing to our economy.”

Those innovations, he said, “require an invisible infrastructure that is up to the task.”And if the FCC doesn’t act to ensure that, “Frustrated consumers will be forced to choose between lousy service and rising prices, driving down both the adoption and utility of mobile broadband in the United States. If we don’t act, we will put our country’s economic competitiveness at risk.”

Genachowski said the FCC’s spectrum policies are outdated, and said “unleashing spectrum” is a top priority at the agency.

One of the ways the commission hopes to do that is through voluntary incentive auctions, with the spectrum supplied by licensees including TV broadcasters. Under the FCC’s plan, Genachowski said, “a broadcaster could choose to contribute the six megahertz they are using, or continue to broadcast by sharing a channel with one or more stations, or simply not participate and continue to broadcast as they do today.”

He said, “Since the DTV transition, some broadcasters are making effective use of the capabilities of their spectrum, but some are not. For those who are not, their spectrum could be put to higher use for other purposes. What we need is a mechanism to enable market forces to unleash the value of that spectrum for broadband use, and we believe that incentive auctions are that mechanism.”

Genachowski said the commission has already begun to pave the way for incentive auctions in several spectrum bands, and is preparing to act quickly when the agency gets congressional authority for the sales.

NHAB note:  The NAB maintains that “broadcast innovation and broadband development are not mutually exclusive goals.”  Spectrum reallocation will be a major component of the NHAB’s lobbying efforts in Washington DC in early March.  If you have an issue that you would like us to take to our Congressional delegation, email jordan@nhab.org.

From RBR.com

The five FCC commissioners approved Chairman Julius Genachowski’s middle-of-the-road approach to achieving a free and open internet on a 3-2 party line vote, and even among the three Democrats, the vote was split between approving of and concurring with the Order.

The Order provides for reasonable network management practices, notes that there will be a high hurdle to justify paid prioritization, saying such a practice was unlikely to clear the “no unreasonable discrimination” hurdle, and noted that the still-in-development mobile broadband universe would be handled differently.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The National Association of Broadcasters issued a statement today following an announcement that the Federal Communications Commission will be issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding retransmission consent. Retransmission consent is the market-based process by which a pay-TV distributor and a broadcast station negotiate carriage rights.

Commenting, NAB President and CEO Gordon Smith said:

“NAB strongly endorses educating consumers with the multiple options available to them in the exceedingly rare instance when a retransmission consent dispute arises, including the antenna TV option. In the final analysis, injecting Washington into private business negotiations that have a 99 percent success rate only serves to embolden pay-TV companies. If the pay-TV giants succeed, there will be further migration of premiere sporting events like the Super Bowl away from free TV, and a reduction in financial resources that sustains quality foreign language programming, local news and entertainment to a growing audience of more than 30 million Americans who rely exclusively on over-the-air television.”

About NAB
The National Association of Broadcasters is the premier advocacy association for America’s broadcasters. NAB advances radio and television interests in legislative, regulatory and public affairs. Through advocacy, education and innovation, NAB enables broadcasters to best serve their communities, strengthen their businesses and seize new opportunities in the digital age. Learn more at www.nab.org.