CommLawBlog

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission’s 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review (2014 Quad Regulation Review) decision has now been published in the Federal Register in two separate parts -- one covering the Report and Order component and the other covering the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) component.

As a result, we now know when the new TV joint sales agreements (JSAs) rules for TV licensees will take effect – that would be June 19, 2014. We also know that comments on the various proposals in the NPRM are due by July 7, 2014 and reply comments by August 4.

While the new JSA rules require that TV JSAs old and new be submitted to the Commission (and placed in stations’ online public inspection files), that requirement will not kick in on June 19. Because that aspect of the rules constitutes an “information collection”, it must first be run past the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the hilariously-named Paperwork Reduction Act. As a result, we don’t expect the file-with-the-FCC/place-in-the-public-file component to take effect for another four-six months or so.

[Commentary] When it comes to emergency alerts, a broadcaster’s lot is not enviable. It is often difficult simply to marshal, in very short order, the important details and reduce them to reliable words and images that can be grasped quickly and accurately by the audience.

There are regulatory concerns: even the best-intentioned broadcaster doing his or her utmost to get the word out to the public can be unpleasantly whacked after the fact by the Federal Communications Commission for an inadvertent failure to comply 100% with certain regulatory requirements. And let’s not forget members of the audience, occasionally ungracious and unappreciative, who call to complain when emergency reports interrupt their favorite program.

In other words, broadcasters might have considerable reason not to jump at the opportunity to break into their programming with bad news about bad weather. Still, emergency alerts save lives and property. It is difficult to conceive of a public service of greater importance. And despite the difficulties and risks to their own operations, broadcasters have historically stepped up to the plate over and over again to serve their audiences in this valuable way.

The Federal Communications Commission has adopted new rules designed to increase its ability to monitor, and correct, the “frequent and pervasive” problem of failed telephone calls to small towns and rural areas.

While those new rules took effect several months ago, it appears that a number of bugs, or possible bugs, still need to be worked out in the reporting system. We know this because a number of requests for waivers have already been filed, and the Commission itself is wondering whether certain categories of call attempts described in Appendix C of the Rural Call Completion Order need to be clarified or modified.

AT&T, for instance, wants to report only the sample of data contained in the Originating Access Charge Verification records. Midcontinent Communications, by contrast, is looking to temporarily report only aggregate data -- until Midcontinent serves 250,000 retail access lines or until 2017, whichever period is shorter.

As to the Commission’s own proposed changes, the issue is whether the Appendix C categories of “answered” and “ring no answer” call attempts need to be defined differently (or at least clarified) in light of certain practical, technical considerations. Comments on the two waiver requests are due by May 12, 2014; reply comments are due by May 19. Comments on the possible tweaks to Appendix C are due by May 13, 2014.

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission just gave broadcasters another reason to answer the door graciously. The FCC whacked a Pennsylvania Class A Television broadcaster with an $89,200 Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) for refusing to allow FCC inspectors to inspect the station's facilities, not just once, but on three different occasions.

It is rare to see the FCC show its irritation in an NAL, but the language used by the FCC in this particular NAL leaves no doubt that the Commission was not happy with the licensee, particularly with what the FCC believed was blatant disregard for its authority. As the FCC put it, "this is simply unacceptable."

In hindsight, it seems very unlikely that, even had the station been in a state of disarray or total chaos, any potential fine from the FCC could have exceeded the nearly $90,000 fine the licensee instead received for refusing access. The obvious lesson learned here if is that if the FCC comes knocking at your door, let them in.