After seven wonderful years, I am leaving bGG Advertising  and in turn, the NHAB and moving on to other opportunities far away from the New England winters to reside in Hawaii. It has been an absolute pleasure getting to know the dedicated and talented broadcasters of this state and working on your behalf. I want to thank you for your continued support over the last two years after the passing of our former president, Al Sprague. Despite that immense loss and the difficult time our industry faced with a struggling economy and shift in Washington DC administration, your Association continues to be a vital organization with a strong Board of Directors and a committed member base.

I am pleased to introduce to you Jordan Walton, a hard-working broadcaster, who will join the Association management team at bGG Advertising and serve as the Executive Director of the NHAB. Jordan most recently served as an Account Executive for Steven Silberberg’s Northeast Broadcasting – a group of stations that borders New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Prior to that, he was a Marketing Consultant for Nassau Broadcasting in New Hampshire as well as on-air talent for two of their stations. With an innovative and creative approach, a proven track record of exemplary client service and sales, and keen sense of political awareness, Jordan will serve the broadcasters in New Hampshire with energy and purpose. His attention to detail and strong understanding of the broadcasting industry makes him the perfect candidate to for the daily management of the Association while his experience in sales, promotional and social media campaigns brings an opportunity to expand the NCSA programs and keep the organizations vital and growing. A media studies and political science major, Jordan received his degree from Sacred Heart University in Connecticut. Jordan is a Nashua, NH native and resides in Tilton with his wife and son.

For the past 20 years, the staff at bGG Advertising has worked hard on the daily management of your Association and will continue to ensure member stations are equipped with the resources they need. We welcome your feedback.

Jordan can be reached at jordan@nhab.org or 603-627-9600. You can also always contact Jennifer Ramsell in our office at jramsell@bggadvertising.com or 603-627-9600.

I thank you again for the opportunity to work with each and every one of you and look forward to the great things to come in the Association’s future.

- Deanna Raymond

Article from Media Daily News

by Wayne Friedman, Yesterday, 5:50 PM

TV station groups’ mobile initiative efforts have now evolved into a business — a proposed national service of up to 50 channels.

The new mobile venture, called Pearl Mobile DTV Company LLC, which was announced on Tuesday during the National Association of Broadcasters event in Las Vegas, includes stations Post-Newsweek, Gannett, NBC, Fox, Ion Media, Belo, Cox Media Group, Scripps, Hearst Television, Media General, Meredith and Raycom Media.

TV content will include broadcast and cable network programming. Shows from NBC’s cable networks, such as USA Network, Syfy, MSNBC, Oxygen, Bravo, and CNBC, and Fox’s Fox News Channel and FX are part of the lineup.

According to TVNewsCheck.com, the size of the national service will be a function of how much spectrum the business can generate in local markets. Dave Lougee, president of Gannett Broadcasting, declined to give a timetable when the new mobile TV business would begin. The joint venture is not an exclusive arrangement for its participating members.

The business venture grew out of the mobile coalition, the Open Mobile Video Coalition, a group of broadcasters and technology companies that began in 2007.

Last year, the group gained ground with the Advanced Television Systems Committee adopting a mobile DTV standard, a key effort in kick-starting TV stations’ mobile push.

April 16, 2010: A majority of the House has signed on to a resolution opposing performance royalties, but the other side has picked up some powerful support, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told a Recording Academy event in DC, “The rights of performers are not forgotten.”

The Hill reports that Pelosi told event attendees they have an “army of advocates by your side — from both parties — on Capitol Hill.” She also said she looks forward to finding “a way forward on the issue of performers’ rights,” reports National Journal.

The Performance Rights Act, which would impose performance royalties on broadcast radio, has passed in the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, both of which are chaired by original co-sponsors of the respective bills, but no vote has been scheduled in either body.

Opposition to those royalties is being expressed in the form of the Local Radio Freedom Act, a non-binding resolution that has gained steady support in the House since it was introduced, while a Senate version of the resolution has the backing of nearly 30 senators. The Hill reports that original LRFA House sponsors Mike Conaway (R-TX) and Gene Green (D-TX) are circulating a letter currently on Capitol Hill reiterating the potential harm a royalty could do to artists and radio

If a vote were scheduled on the Performance Rights Act, a lawmaker who supported the Local Radio Freedom Act would not be obligated to vote against the PRA.

Chairman calls broadcasters “connective tissues” holding communities together

By John Eggerton — Broadcasting & Cable, 4/13/2010

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said many broadcasters were helping to hold their communities together in his keynote speech to the National Association of Broadcasters convention Tuesday (Apr. 13) in Las Vegas.

Before trying to assuage broadcasters’ fears about the FCC’s plan to encourage them to give up spectrum for wireless broadband–it is a voluntary program, he insisted, and is about giving them more choice not less–he talked about his respect for the work they do and the important service they render to the country, as well as his history on that side of the equation.

He pointed out that the last time he was at an NAB convention, it was as a broadcaster–both chief of business operations and general counsel for Barry Diller’s  IAC/InterActiveCorp/USA Broadcasting–where as he was “trying to make sure we got our DTV license applications in on time — protecting our basic must-carry rights, and hoping we might get digital must carry.”  Protecting must-carry rights carries new meaning as the Supreme Court considers whether to take Cablevision’s challenge of the rules.

The chairman said he had “enormous respect and admiration” for broadcasters who do both good business and good work through news and programming that serves their communities. “Many broadcasters still supply important connective tissue holding our communities together,” he said, implying that to kill the industry, which he said in no uncertain terms the FCC is not trying to do, would also be a serious wound to those communities.

He cited broadcasters move onto other platforms, saying that in addition to being a broadcast lifeline during the recent D.C. snowstorms, a station like WRC-TV there “used its robust Web site and Twitter feed to help residents who had lost power get up-to-the-minute information through their computers and phones.”

An Advisory from the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman

by Lauren Lynch Flick and Scott R. Flick

The FCC’s Media Bureau has announced that a new version of the Biennial Ownership Report Form for commercial broadcast stations, FCC Form 323, will be available on its website as of April 9, 2010. All commercial broadcast station owners must file their biennial ownership reports using the new form by July 8, 2010. However, the data used to complete the form must be accurate as of November 1, 2009.

The FCC originally announced its intent to implement a new version of the Form 323 in an Order released in May 2009 as part of its Promoting Diversification in the Broadcasting Services proceeding. The revision required, among other things, that each holder of a direct or indirect attributable interest in a licensee secure an FCC-issued Federal Registration Number (“FRN”). The revision also mandated that information regarding attributable interest holders and their other broadcast interests be reported repeatedly and in a precisely structured manner. As a result, the number of reports and the time to complete each report increased dramatically for many broadcasters with the ultimate result that the FCC’s electronic filing system ground to a near halt and did not reliably save information entered into it. Based on these technical difficulties, the FCC stayed the filing obligation until it could improve the functioning of the form to account for these difficulties.

The FCC sent its revisions to the form to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for approval on March 25, and OMB approved the modified form on March 26. The revised form uses a new XML Spreadsheet template that will allow information to be entered into the spreadsheet and then uploaded to the form, thereby reducing the time and effort needed to enter the data. The spreadsheet must be downloaded from the FCC form and comes with detailed instructions regarding the proper use of the XML Spreadsheet. Of particular note are the following:

The XML Spreadsheet comes with 25 empty rows for data entry that contain embedded validation codes necessary for the proper functioning of the form. Any licensee needing more than 25 lines must copy and paste the original 25 lines as many times as necessary and not create new lines.

The XML Spreadsheet must be saved with an .xml extension, not the .xls or .xlsx extensions that the Excel program will assign by default. Licensees must not change or delete any data in Cell B1. Information must be entered in all capital letters. The new version of the form also retains the requirement that each attributable interest holder secure an FRN. The instructions state that where, after a good faith effort, a licensee is unable to secure an interest holder’s social security number, which is needed to  complete the FRN registration process, a button on the form will allow the licensee to secure a Special Use FRN. The instructions to the form state that the Special Use FRN can only be used for the Biennial Ownership Report filing, and not for any other filing, such as a post-consummation Ownership Report filing.

The Commission’s May 2009 Order also adopted November 1 as a new uniform reporting date for all commercial stations nationwide, regardless of the station’s license renewal filing anniversary (the deadline previously used by the FCC). Because the original November 1, 2009 filing requirement was stayed while the form was revised, the reports filed by the new July 8, 2010 deadline must still reflect the ownership data as it existed November 1, 2009.

The substantial difference in time between the new filing deadline and the time for which ownership information is being reported leads to some interesting questions. For example, where a station has been sold since November 2009, should the report be filed under the name of the new licensee or the prior licensee? If it is to be filed by the new licensee, how will the FCC deal with the fact that the new licensee may not have any personal knowledge of the prior licensee’s November 2009 ownership structure? These questions may be answered by a follow up public notice from the FCC, but if not, we will be pursuing them with the FCC’s staff.

Article from The Hill

By Tony Romm and Kim Hart – 04/06/10 10:55 AM ET

A federal appeals court on Tuesday dealt a significant legal blow to the Obama administration and net neutrality advocates, ruling that the Federal Communications Commission has no authority to regulate how Web providers manage their network traffic.

The decision overturns the FCC’s order in 2008 that Comcast cease blocking subscribers’ peer-to-peer file sharing applications, including BitTorrent, which the company said had over-burdened its strapped broadband network and slowed users’ connections.

Previously, the FCC argued that a smattering of federal laws, policy statements and court cases endowed the agency with the implicit authority to regulate Internet service providers’ (ISP) Web practices. It invoked that authority in late 2008, when it ordered Comcast to stop blocking or “throttling” traffic to BitTorrent.

But the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. on Tuesday disagreed with the agency’s assessment and subsequently ruled on a 3-0 vote to toss the FCC’s landmark order.

According to the court, “The Commission may exercise this ‘ancillary’ authority only if it demonstrates that its action—here barring Comcast from interfering with its customers’ use of peer-to-peer networking applications—is ‘reasonably ancillary to the . . . effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities.’”

However, the judges noted, “The Commission has failed to make that showing. It relies principally on several Congressional statements of policy, but under Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit case law statements of policy, by themselves, do not create ‘statutorily mandated responsibilities.’”

Neither Comcast nor the FCC have released a statement responding to the decision.

Still, the court’s move ultimately doubles as a major roadblock for the FCC, which drafted its comprehensive National Broadband Plan this year under the assumption that it possesses regulatory power over the Internet and the companies that provide users’ access to it. Many of its provisions also include clarion calls for net neutrality, which the agency may no longer have the authority to institute and enforce on its own.

Net neutrality is a top priority for President Barack Obama, who won the allegiance of the tech community during his campaign by promising to support an “open-Internet” regime.

The decision is a set-back for lawmakers that are trying to legislate net neutrality, also with the assumption that the FCC has the authority to codify such rules. Senators including Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) have been big backers of net neutrality. In the House, Rick Boucher (D-Va.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have repeatedly pushed for formal net neutrality rules.

It’s also a major defeat for Google, Skype, Amazon.com and other Internet firms that have been huge propoents of net neutrality. Google has led the charge for “open” platforms that prevent Internet service providers and wireless companies from discriminating against certain applications and devices.

FCC Chairman Juilus Genachowski has indicated he will try to reclassify broadband as a Title II service in the communications statute, which would allow the FCC to enact net neutrality. Currently, broadband is classified as a Title I service, which, according to the court, does not give the FCC the necessary authority.

The court’s decision is a victory for big telecom companies that provide the bulk of U.S. broadband services. AT&T and Verizon are on Comcast’s side in this debate and have forcefully pushed back against net neutrality. The top Washington lobbyists for both AT&T and Verizon have said that the FCC will wind up back in court if it tries to reclassify broadband

By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology Writer – 1 hr 49 mins ago

WASHINGTON – A federal court threw the future of Internet regulations into doubt Tuesday with a far-reaching decision that went against the Federal Communications Commission and could even hamper the government’s plans to expand broadband access in the United States.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation’s largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC’s authority to impose such “network neutrality” obligations on broadband providers.

Supporters of network neutrality, including the FCC chairman, have argued that the policy is necessary to prevent broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against certain Web sites and online services, such as Internet phone programs or software that runs in a Web browser. Advocates contend there is precedent: Nondiscrimination rules have traditionally applied to so-called “common carrier” networks that serve the public, from roads and highways to electrical grids and telephone lines.

But broadband providers such as Comcast, AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. argue that after spending billions of dollars on their networks, they should be able to sell premium services and manage their systems to prevent certain applications from hogging capacity.

Tuesday’s unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel was a setback for the FCC because it questioned the agency’s authority to regulate broadband. That could cause problems beyond the FCC’s effort to adopt official net neutrality regulations. It also has serious implications for the ambitious national broadband-expansion plan released by the FCC last month. The FCC needs the authority to regulate broadband so that it can push ahead with some of the plan’s key recommendations. Among other things, the FCC proposes to expand broadband by tapping the federal fund that subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural communities.

In a statement, the FCC said it remains “firmly committed to promoting an open Internet and to policies that will bring the enormous benefits of broadband to all Americans” and “will rest these policies … on a solid legal foundation.”

Comcast welcomed the decision, saying “our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation.”

The case centers on Comcast’s actions in 2007 when it interfered with an online file-sharing service called BitTorrent, which lets people swap movies and other big files over the Internet. The next year the FCC banned Comcast from blocking subscribers from using BitTorrent. The commission, at the time headed by Republican Kevin Martin, based its order on a set of net neutrality principles it had adopted in 2005.

But Comcast argued that the FCC order was illegal because the agency was seeking to enforce mere policy principles, which don’t have the force of regulations or law. That’s one reason that Martin’s successor, Democratic FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, is trying to formalize those rules.

The cable company had also argued the FCC lacks authority to mandate net neutrality because it had deregulated broadband under the Bush administration, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005.

The FCC now defines broadband as a lightly regulated information service. That means it is not subject to the “common carrier” obligations that make traditional telecommunications services share their networks with competitors and treat all traffic equally. But the FCC maintains that existing law gives it authority to set rules for information services.

Tuesday’s court decision rejected that reasoning, concluding that Congress has not given the FCC “untrammeled freedom” to regulate without explicit legal authority.

With so much at stake, the FCC now has several options. It could ask Congress to give it explicit authority to regulate broadband. Or it could appeal Tuesday’s decision.

But both of those steps could take too long because the agency “has too many important things they have to do right away,” said Ben Scott, policy director for the public interest group Free Press. Free Press was among the groups that alerted the FCC after The Associated Press ran tests and reported that Comcast was interfering with attempts by some subscribers to share files online.

Scott believes that the likeliest step by the FCC is that it will simply reclassify broadband as a more heavily regulated telecommunications service. That, ironically, could be the worst-case outcome from the perspective of the phone and cable companies.

“Comcast swung an ax at the FCC to protest the BitTorrent order,” Scott said. “And they sliced right through the FCC’s arm and plunged the ax into their own back.”

The battle over the FCC’s legal jurisdiction comes amid a larger policy dispute over the merits of net neutrality. Backed by Internet companies such as Google Inc. and the online calling service Skype, the FCC says rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from prioritizing some traffic or degrading or services that compete with their core businesses. Indeed, BitTorrent can be used to transfer large files such as online video, which could threaten Comcast’s cable TV business.

But broadband providers point to the fact that applications such as BitTorrent use an outsized amount of network capacity.

For its part, the FCC offered no details on its next step, but stressed that it remains committed to the principle of net neutrality.

“Today’s court decision invalidated the prior commission’s approach to preserving an open Internet,” the agency’s statement said. “But the court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end.”

Advisory from law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman:

by John K. Hane, Scott R. Flick, and Paul A. Cicelski

The National Broadband Plan (“NBP”) proposes immediate and sweeping steps that, if adopted, could displace many television broadcasters from their existing spectrum. Specifically, FCC staff proposes a “voluntary” surrender by some television broadcasters of their spectrum as well as repacking of the spectrum to minimize the portion dedicated to television broadcasting. An expected flood of FCC proceedings and possible surprises still to play out are likely to keep television broadcasters playing catch-up. The growth of both broadband and broadcasting are not necessarily incompatible goals if the proper mechanisms are put in place. However, the current version of the NBP places the broadcast industry in a defensive position by assuming that broadband can only grow by displacing television broadcasters.

Introduction

Details of the NBP, released yesterday, have been widely reported. This Alert summarizes the highlights, but focuses on what the NBP means for television broadcasters and what is likely to happen next. A more detailed analysis of the reallocations proposed by the FCC will be discussed in a separate Pillsbury Client Advisory.

Highlights

The NBP proposes a fast-track rulemaking process that will focus on five steps for reducing the spectrum used for television broadcasting. The FCC reportedly will circulate a draft working paper soon, leading to one or more notices of proposed rule making relating to these steps. The proceedings would address:

• Shrinking the service areas of television stations to reduce spectrum usage and facilitate aggressive repacking of broadcast licenses.
• Establishing rules for two stations to share one 6 MHz channel. These rules would apply to both voluntary and forced sharing arrangements.
• Setting rules for an auction of broadcast spectrum by 2012 or 2013, with band clearing by 2015.
• Exploring technical, policy and other options to reclaim broadcast spectrum if service area shrinkage, voluntary give-backs, and repacking do not free up the desired quantity of spectrum for wireless broadband.
• Taking other steps to encourage efficiency of spectrum usage in the television band, including spectrum fees, digital conversion of LPTV stations, and rule changes to  improve television broadcast service in the VHF bands, which will need to accommodate many of the re-packed stations.

The FCC’s Message: The Commission Does Not Need Congressional Authority to

Undertake Wholesale Restructuring and Reduction of the Television Broadcast Service

The Broadband Task Force has previously expressed frustration with broadcasters’ generally cool reception to the prospect of turning in spectrum for a share of auction proceeds. The tone and substance of the NBP reflect the task force’s response to that coolness. In the text and the subtext, the NBP takes the position that the FCC does not need congressional authority to shrink service areas, reduce licenses to less than 6 MHz, force channel sharing, require broadcasters to adopt costly changes to their technical facilities or impose financially damaging spectrum fees.

Whether or not the FCC chooses to attempt these steps and whether or not they are politically viable, the subtext is that the FCC believes it already has the necessary tools at its disposal and may be prepared to use them.

What Happens Next?

Expect to see many rule making proceedings launched and hearings scheduled in the coming weeks and months. The deadlines will be short and the issues will be challenging. It is likely that broadcasters will face pressure from other sources too, both from inside the Administration and from some in Congress. Reallocation proponents have already drafted proposed legislation to advance their cause, and their allies in the House and Senate will circulate and introduce bills to that end. Many members of Congress are skeptical of a broadcast reallocation, particularly given that Congress is currently considering legislation that would require the Federal government, as a threshold matter, to determine what spectrum is currently being used and the efficiency of that usage.

The FCC has created extensive models to analyze various reallocation scenarios. The models have not been made available to broadcasters, but the NBP indicates that summaries of the results will be released at a later date. Those models will reveal the extent of service area reductions and other technical changes that the NBP anticipates. The models will show significant reductions in broadcast spectrum usage in the dozen or so largest markets, but the ripple effects will probably extend to most, if not all, markets nationwide. The models will probably show more stations packed into the VHF bands and most or all stations above Channel 30 being packed into the lower UHF and the VHF bands.

Stations already in the VHF band or in the lower UHF bands may not be immune from these proceedings. Channel changes, reduced service areas, or other adverse factors may come into play for all stations in order to accommodate band clearing.

We recommend that broadcasters obtain and analyze these models at the first opportunity to assess the likely impact upon their stations. More generally, broadcasters need allies at the FCC and in Congress, and allies include voting members and influential staff members.

Broadcast trade associations are ramping up for the broader questions being raised in these proceedings, but each television station licensee, with the assistance of their engineering and regulatory advisors, needs to make its own assessment of the likely impact on it of the various approaches the FCC is considering. In that regard, this process will be similar to navigating the DTV transition, where stations have to keep an eye on both the big picture changes as well as each station’s individual legal and technical situation.

The idea of an upside for individual stations from such spectrum reallocation seems unlikely, even for those inclined to “sell” their spectrum, given the number of ways such auction proceeds would need to be divided (assuming Congress allows the licensee any share of auction proceeds at all). Overall, some of the NBP’s recommendations represent a huge negative for the broadcast industry. However, even while asserting that it will implement some of its stated goals by regulatory force, the Broadband Task Force has acknowledged that it needs the cooperation of broadcasters to achieve the best results for all. If substantial reduction in broadcast service nationwide is a topic of credible debate, then substantial reform of broadcast regulations should be on the table as well.

The FCC has set-up an online tool to help you better understand how this country’s spectrum allocation works. The Spectrum Dashboard allows new ways for citizens to search spectrum in the United States. Use the dashboard to find out how spectrum is being used, who owns spectrum licenses around the country, and what spectrum is available in your county.

http://reboot.fcc.gov/reform/systems/spectrum-dashboard

Good news for those of you who participate in our Association’s Alternative Broadcast Inspection Program.  As a result of the efforts of the National Alliance of State Broadcasters Associations (“NASBA”), of which your Association is an active member, I am pleased to report on two recent decisions of the FCC’s Media Bureau, one relating to radio and the other to television, that significantly expands the benefits of successfully participating in your Association’s ABIP Program.  In the radio case, the Audio Division awarded a station a significant “downward adjustment” in a fine for a public inspection file violation (that the licensee disclosed to the Commission in its application for renewal of license) due to the station’s successful participation in the Virginia Association of Broadcasters’ ABIP Program.  In the television case, the Video Division relied upon “the licensee’s responsive efforts and participation in a review and certification by the Iowa Broadcasters Association as to its public file compliance” in concluding that the petitioner had not raised an issue with respect to a violation of “any specific FCC rule or requirement.”  NASBA’s Counsel, Dick Zaragoza, recommends that stations which have disclosed, or may be required to disclose in the future, public inspection violations to the FCC should consult with their communications counsel to determine the applicability of these new decisions to their circumstances.   If you currently hold a Certificate of Compliance under our ABIP Program, I urge you to renew it.  If you have not participated in our ABIP Program, I urge you to give serious consideration to doing so by signing up today.