FCC calling for comments on rule changes and simplification

[davideduardo]

While one of the big issues facing the FCC is ownership, there are many others like the "never visited" public files and EEO record keeping and submission.

In particular, some of the major complaints about regulation are not even FCC mandates. Here is attorney David Oxenford's comment on those:

I’ve heard some suggest that political broadcasting rules should be changed. But most of the FCC-administered political broadcasting obligations are imposed by statute, not by FCC rule. The FCC cannot significantly change these obligations without the intervention of Congress. So lowest unit rates, equal opportunities, no censorship, and the political file rules for candidates and issue advertisers are likely here to stay absent Congressional intervention.

For a full commentary on possible areas of FCC rule changes, see this post:

Less Than a Week to Go Before “Delete, Delete, Delete” Proposals on Eliminating Unnecessary FCC Regulations Are Due – What Should Be Included?

A few weeks ago, FCC Chairman Carr announced the beginning of the “Delete, Delete, Delete” proceeding at the FCC - looking at “alleviating unnecessary

www.broadcastlawblog.com

 

[TheBigA]

The NAB already responded to the FCC's call for comments last week

Lawmakers Urge FCC To Fast-Track Media Ownership Rule Reforms.

The FCC’s latest update to media ownership rules has been stuck in neutral as a court case about the previous proceeding makes its way through the courts. But as FCC

www.insideradio.com

Typically, the way the FCC works is it uses the comments to justify their own agenda. We already know most of the comments will be negative. So far, Carr has been negative in terms of the big radio companies. He already has investigations of iHeart and Audacy. I don't see him giving them what they want.

 

[davideduardo]

The NAB already responded to the FCC's call for comments last week

Typically, the way the FCC works is it uses the comments to justify their own agenda. We already know most of the comments will be negative. So far, Carr has been negative in terms of the big radio companies. He already has investigations of iHeart and Audacy. I don't see him giving them what they want.

The NAB has focused on ownership. That does not help the small owner in Macon or Flagstaff or Muskegon. There needs to be a cleansing of the rules that make non-productive work for understaffed radio stations.

The first thing the FCC needs to realize is that radio and TV are not separate from streaming audio and video and all the other internet connected options people have. I could buy every station in my market, and I still would not have a monopoly in the audio and video areas.

 

[TheBigA]

The first thing the FCC needs to realize is that radio and TV are not separate from streaming audio and video and all the other internet connected options people have. I could buy every station in my market, and I still would not have a monopoly in the audio and video areas.

The problem there is the FCC has no jurisdiction over streaming or internet services. They might like to, but they don't.

 

[davideduardo]

The problem there is the FCC has no jurisdiction over streaming or internet services. They might like to, but they don't.

But my point is that over-regulation of broadcast stations does not help. The more the "new" FCC steps on content, while instilling fear among licensees, the worse it is for broadcast radio and TV.

 

[TheBigA]

But my point is that over-regulation of broadcast stations does not help. The more the "new" FCC steps on content, while instilling fear among licensees, the worse it is for broadcast radio and TV.

Carr views big media the same as big tech. However, he likes local stations. So he might loosen rules for station operations, but not corporate ownership rules.

 

[ted chittenden]

While one of the big issues facing the FCC is ownership, there are many others like the "never visited" public files and EEO record keeping and submission.

In particular, some of the major complaints about regulation are not even FCC mandates. Here is attorney David Oxenford's comment on those:

I’ve heard some suggest that political broadcasting rules should be changed. But most of the FCC-administered political broadcasting obligations are imposed by statute, not by FCC rule. The FCC cannot significantly change these obligations without the intervention of Congress. So lowest unit rates, equal opportunities, no censorship, and the political file rules for candidates and issue advertisers are likely here to stay absent Congressional intervention.

For a full commentary on possible areas of FCC rule changes, see this post:

Less Than a Week to Go Before “Delete, Delete, Delete” Proposals on Eliminating Unnecessary FCC Regulations Are Due – What Should Be Included?

A few weeks ago, FCC Chairman Carr announced the beginning of the “Delete, Delete, Delete” proceeding at the FCC - looking at “alleviating unnecessary

www.broadcastlawblog.com

What struck me about Oxenford's article was his shying away from the political ad rules because those can only be changed by Congress. On paper, that may well be true, but the current Federal administration seems hellbent on destroying rules and agencies created by Congress in other areas so why not ignore Congressional laws when it comes to radio and TV! And this administration has already won one round in the U.S. Supreme Court regarding changes at the Department of Education with the Court deciding last Friday to not even hear the case! So yes, I think there is a big chance that the current Administration will ignore past Congressional efforts in some areas when it comes to radio as well.

 

[TheBigA]

the current Federal administration seems hellbent on destroying rules and agencies created by Congress in other areas so why not ignore Congressional laws when it comes to radio and TV!

The president likes and trusts Brendan Carr. These investigations Carr is doing support the president's agenda. So I think Carr has carte blanche. They haven't cut his budget. They haven't threatened him at all. I expect that whatever rules Carr deletes will have the approval of the president.

 

[TheBigA]

BTW, currently, the FCC is balanced with 2 dems and two repubs. Next week the senate will hold hearings for the president's nominee to give him a majority. I expect she will be confirmed pretty easily. The timing is such that the comments period will end when the new GOP majority begins. So there will be no need to get bi-partisan approval:

FCC Nominee Olivia Trusty’s Confirmation Hearing Set For Next Week.

Olivia Trusty, President Trump’s pick to fill an open seat on the Federal Communications Commission, will go before the Senate Commerce Committee next week. She is currently an aide to

www.insideradio.com

 

[Megatron]

It's time to get rid of the outdated rules at The FCC and make it somewhat fair for the boardcasters to complete with Big Tech in my opinion.

 

[PTBoardOp93]

The NAB has focused on ownership. That does not help the small owner in Macon or Flagstaff or Muskegon. There needs to be a cleansing of the rules that make non-productive work for understaffed radio stations.

Such as? The FCC already has a very light touch on day-to-day operations.

The only regulation that comes to mind which creates non-productive work are the public file requirements. I have never had a member of the public come view my public file, so the work was simply putting documents into a filing cabinet that would never see the light of day again.

But even that is ... maybe 10 minutes once a week? Perhaps slightly more during political seasons.

 

[b-turner]

The two things I'd like to change require an act of Congress: eliminate the public file, especially quarterly reports and political advertising rules.

I have been in radio since 1978. Number of times somebody other than an FCC Field Agent wanted to see the Public Files: ZERO. I hate that I have to figure out the issues are that quarter and run programming that helps bring awareness or resolve the issue and write a summary I get to file each quarter within a 10 day window when the listeners don't care.

Why do I have to give politicians a discount/lowest rate and let them see what the others are buying. I would never do this for any other client.

If I had to have a third, it would be that early Sunday morning public affairs. Even the FCC knows radio listeners don't want to hear it which is why it aira when it does. What's the point in airing what my audience doesn't want to hear and won't listen to?

For those not in radio, we are required to do some sort of public affairs programming and we have to place a written description of each program it in the public file every quarter by the 10h of the month or be subject to a fine for being late. In other words, why does the FCC make me broadcast what my listeners don't want to hear and then offer a written detailed report on each one of those programs and file it quarterly. Seems like a bunch of useless and pointless work when I already don't have the time. The FCC makes me keep a record of political advertising and to offer the lowest unit rate charged. Any mistake by anyone on my staff and the station is subject to a fine. The political advertising has specific requirements making it more time consuming. Why do I have to subject myself to a legal of FCC issue and charge the lowest unit rate when I could sell another retailer. That commercial advertiser requires less work and maybe a better per unit cos. Plus they might stay with me beyond election day.

 

[ted chittenden]

The two things I'd like to change require an act of Congress: eliminate the public file, especially quarterly reports and political advertising rules.

I have been in radio since 1978. Number of times somebody other than an FCC Field Agent wanted to see the Public Files: ZERO. I hate that I have to figure out the issues are that quarter and run programming that helps bring awareness or resolve the issue and write a summary I get to file each quarter within a 10 day window when the listeners don't care.

Why do I have to give politicians a discount/lowest rate and let them see what the others are buying. I would never do this for any other client.

If I had to have a third, it would be that early Sunday morning public affairs. Even the FCC knows radio listeners don't want to hear it which is why it aira when it does. What's the point in airing what my audience doesn't want to hear and won't listen to?

For those not in radio, we are required to do some sort of public affairs programming and we have to place it in the public file every quarter by the 10h of the month or be subject to a fine for being late. In other words, why does the FCC make me broadcast what my listeners don't want to hear and then offer a written detailed report on each one of those programs and file it quarterly. Seems like a bunch of useless and pointless work when I already don't have the time.

When reading your comments, I'm reminded of the restaurant owner who said, "I don't want to have to serve vegetables on my menu anymore. I know they're good for you and they're required for a balanced diet but my customers just won't eat them and they go to waste."

I'm also reminded of the comment that, if memory serves, can be traced back to Thomas Jefferson. The comment (if memory serves again) was: "If you expect to keep a democracy with the public having no truthful information about the issues, then you are expecting that which has never been, is not now, and never will be."

The current administration is going after public radio because it dares to air factual information and comments that criticize him. And many commercial broadcasters do not want to meet even minimal public service requirements because it drives away their listeners. Yes, I'd say we are headed for trouble.

 

[b-turner]

It's not that I am against public affairs and political advertising, it is that they are minefields that, if I misstep can result in a hefty fine. Eliminate the minefield and I'm good. Consider that country station or CHR is not the exclusive source of information. There are many media sources and some are perfect for tackling the issues and problems because their audience is looking to learn about those. That 10 in a row country station is not the place. It's much like prior to 1981 when everybody had newscasts because they had to in order to fulfill their non-entertainment commitment to the FCC. Many formats had listeners that didn't want hourly or half hourly news. They could get news channels on TV, a 50kw all news or news/talk station. Now there are other sources.

 

[secondchoice]

Can commercial radio stations not air any political commercials at all? I get the talk stations which thrive on "name calling " of whoever disagrees with the host, but a music station IMHO literally runs off a lot of listeners and your regular clients commercials get buried and most likely has "tuned out" after 10 or 1enegative commercials in a row

I get some folks are over leveraged am need every single dollar to push back the visit to bankruptcy court. Shame is they end up there anyways.

 

[davideduardo]

The current administration is going after public radio because it dares to air factual information and comments that criticize him.

We have to be aware of the fact that the immense majority of people involved in news reporting, whether it be print, online or traditional radio and TV, are either registered Democrats or vote or voted "Democrat" in relevant and current elections. The current administration seems to see this as a barrier to unbiased reporting and is, from their perspective, leveling the playing field... by removing the turf!

And many commercial broadcasters do not want to meet even minimal public service requirements because it drives away their listeners.

What good is a regulation or requirement if nobody listens?

This is like the now-abandoned full scale "ascertainment of community needs" we had to do back in the later 60's and 70's and into the 80's. When license renewal rolled around, every mayor, police chief, health department head, Red Cross manager, board of education head, chamber of commerce president and the like hid from radio stations. That's because every local station had to interview community leaders and present their evaluations of "issues and problems" and show the FCC how we would address them.

The responses we got were polished platitudes, and generally meaningless. The programs we created to address those issues tried to get the same "leaders" to participate, but they would not.

Radio wasted other peoples' time and spent hours and hours on programs nobody listened to. Nobody benefited from that. The result is that users of audio simply go where there are no such programs and no commercials and no PSAs.

Of course, the FCC never considered that entertaining the community was, of itself, a public service.

 

[TheBigA]

We have to be aware of the fact that the immense majority of people involved in news reporting, whether it be print, online or traditional radio and TV, are either registered Democrats or vote or voted "Democrat" in relevant and current elections.

Proof? There is none. Any source you claim is biased because nobody tracks the political party of people in the media. If anyone asked me (no one ever has) I'd say none of your business. At the same time, how anybody votes is their right. Reporters shouldn't be hired based on their political party. Being a journalist is a profession. Professionals know they must remove personal bias from their work. At NPR, there is a multi-level editorial process that stories go through to check accuracy. This idea that you need a certain number of repubs in a newsroom is discrimination. Like you need to hire a certain number of minorities.

What good is a regulation or requirement if nobody listens?

Brendan Carr insists that owning a radio station is a privilege and as such, owners must serve the public, whether they listen or not. He doesn't base enforcement of rules on the ratings. His basis will be about expense, both on the station side, and the enforcement side.

 

[NoWayNoCC]

City of license has turned into a joke.

 

[davideduardo]

City of license has turned into a joke.

It never was the right thing to do. Stations serve the audience their signal covers, irrespective of city limits and suburbs and the like. And radio ratings cover "markets" and not specific towns within them.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

Delete, delete, delete the public file requirement in any form. Its a collosal, useless waste of time... ive known 3 people in 22 years of radio to read a PF.. Me, the late brian dodge and another friend of mine.

KSKO is exempt from maintaining an online or paper public file thanks to a little known law .. but ive dealt with it before and its a lorse of frozen moose dung that exists solely to be able to fine stations!