Recent Updates Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Rick Kaplan 1:04 pm on July 12, 2018 Permalink

    Common-Sense Reforms for Children’s TV 

    More than 20 years ago, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) created rules that require over-the-air TV broadcasters – and only over-the-air TV broadcasters – to air a specific amount of children’s educational programming, at specific times, in specific formats and in specific ways. The FCC’s rules implemented the Children’s Television Act of 1990, which was passed into law before the advent of the internet as well as the hundreds of cable and satellite channels that exist today. But while the world around the FCC’s highly prescriptive rules has dramatically changed, the agency didn’t seem to notice.

    Thankfully, this FCC – following the lead of Commissioner Mike O’Rielly – decided it was finally time for the agency to open its eyes and take a peek.

    The result is that the Commission is bearing witness to what everyone else plainly already sees. More to the point, what every kid sees. Namely, that children today have infinitely more options to engage with interactive video content, on myriad platforms and at times of their choosing. Children don’t have to make an “appointment” for their favorite programs; they are available around the clock. Kids can also turn to a variety of sources. Indeed, with the explosion of cable and satellite programming, we’ve seen the development of entire channels dedicated to content for kids. And now with the internet, kids have access to all kinds of new programming – including from over-the-air broadcasters – in ways no one even imagined in 1990.

    Given the unassailable fact that the children’s TV world has changed, the FCC has an obligation to examine its rules in light of those changes. The need for a closer look is especially ripe, because the government’s rules single out over-the-air broadcasters; they act as if broadcast TV is the only way kids are exposed to age-appropriate programming. The FCC’s rules don’t apply to cable programming. They don’t apply to satellite programming. And they don’t apply to the internet (surprise, surprise).

    None of this is to suggest that the FCC should jettison its responsibilities under the Children’s Television Act. It’s merely time – past time, actually – for the Commission to recognize that the world around those rules is very different than the one when they were written in the 1990s. Given the explosion of kids’ content in the marketplace, it is also unnecessary and unduly burdensome (and likely unconstitutional) for the federal government to require that broadcasters air children’s programming on each digital program stream. In addition, the FCC could incentivize better children’s programming were it to count short-form or special block programming towards monthly, quarterly or annual targets.

    Some groups have asserted that the Commission does not have enough data to propose new, more flexible rules. These claims are misguided. The FCC has a wealth of data on the state of the video marketplace. Beyond that, one can simply hit the power switch on his or her TV, computer, tablet or smartphone. The evidence is all on the screen. Today’s kids – from any background – have access to an unprecedented level of educational and informational programming.

    Rather than turning a blind eye to all of the incredible innovations in children’s programming, we should all get down to the business of figuring out what rules still make sense in light of the dramatic changes in the relevant marketplace over the past two decades. It’s a process the agency should take seriously. Leaving rules in place that govern a bygone age is evidence of a government that is abdicating – not pursuing – the responsibilities to which the American public has entrusted it. We are pleased the FCC has taken an important step in the right direction.

  • alisonneplokh 2:04 pm on April 25, 2018 Permalink
    Tags: , ,   

    Shake It Off, Taylor Swift’s Spectrum Advice 

    Our Love Story begins in 2009. As part of the National Broadband Plan, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had a bold idea to fix what it foresaw as a looming spectrum crunch for wireless broadband service. The FCC would broker an auction/exchange between television broadcasters and wireless carriers, and shuffle channels around as necessary. In other words, the wireless industry saw broadcast spectrum and said, “You Belong With Me.

    But how much spectrum should be moved from television to mobile broadband? Nobody knew. Wildly optimistic predictions about the demand for mobile spectrum fueled visions of reallocating as much as 144 MHz of spectrum away from television broadcasters. Others, however, wondered if the auction would succeed at all. When it came time for the FCC to change the frequency allocations, there was only one conclusion: put everything on the table. So, in 2015, when the FCC adopted rules for the incentive auction, it put a Blank Space where the number of MHz to be allocated for wireless broadband would go. And, just in case its Wildest Dreams came true, the Wheeler FCC also made a dual allocation (for both TV and wireless broadband) across the entire UHF TV band domestically, and also lobbied for changes to the international table of frequency allocations at the 2015 World Radio Conference.

    In 2017, the incentive auction closed, with 84 MHz being reallocated from television stations to wireless carriers. While the auction was a success, the anemic bidding in late rounds, lower than expected prices per MHz-pop, and unsold spectrum blocks in large markets like Los Angeles and San Diego suggests a complete lack of lingering demand. So, with all of the questions now answered, the FCC said, “Look What You Made Me Do” to the industries and removed the wireless allocation from spectrum at 512-608 MHz, as well as the broadcast allocation from 614 MHz and above.

    Now, in 2018, it is time to go back to the International Telecommunications Union and update the international spectrum tables once again. The market has spoken. Everything has Changed. There is no reason to keep a wireless allocation below 608 MHz. For the wireless companies to keep a claim to something they have no intention to use is pure greed. That spectrum is for broadcasting Forever and Always. This is our End Game.

  • alisonneplokh 9:32 am on March 13, 2018 Permalink  

    The Negative Sum Game 

    Microsoft would have you believe their proposal to require broadcasters to hold open at least one additional channel in the broadcast band for unlicensed use is not a zero-sum game. They are right, but not in the way they want you to believe.

    TV white spaces held a lot of promise over a decade ago. Perhaps it still does today – by letting unlicensed devices use channels TV stations aren’t using, there is the possibility to make more efficient use of spectrum and provide new services, potentially including additional options for rural broadband access. Broadcasters don’t have any problem with letting Microsoft use truly vacant channels, provided that broadcasters don’t permanently cede their rights to build on those channels in the process. NAB has and will continue to work with Microsoft and other TV white spaces proponents to make reasonable rule changes that improve the ability of unlicensed devices to make use of vacant TV channels.

    But that’s not at all what Microsoft’s “vacant channel” ask is about. Microsoft’s ask is not about using vacant channels, it’s about creating vacant channels. Microsoft is asking the Federal Communications Commission to require that, before broadcasters can make any changes to their existing licenses, they first ask whether there would still be at least one channel available for unlicensed use throughout their entire service area. This creates several costs to broadcasters and their viewers:

    1. No matter what Microsoft says, this is not a win-win proposal. The only way this creates extra space for unlicensed use is by denying a broadcaster a channel. Whether this broadcaster is a major network affiliate delivering high-demand programming and top-notch local and national news, a public broadcaster delivering high-quality educational programming, or an independent broadcaster delivering in-language programming to minority communities, this policy means one less voice in the media market. Microsoft maintains this would be a very rare scenario. But that evades the point that this policy is either irrelevant (because there are plenty of empty channels) or is harmful because it deprives viewers of service.
    2. Broadcasters would have to hold open a channel, even if nobody has any interest in using it. Whether it’s that the particular market in question has no demand for white spaces or that the whole white spaces idea is never successful, broadcasters can’t retain or expand broadcast service, because it would violate Microsoft’s proposed rule. White spaces is supposed to be about letting people camp on empty lots, not forcing broadcasters to leave their lots empty just in case someone wants to come along and pitch a tent, even if nobody ever does. Effectively, Microsoft gets squatters’ rights without even having to go through the trouble of squatting.
    3. Even if there is plenty of space available, broadcasters have to spend money to prove that. A few thousand dollars to conduct a study might sound like a small issue when you envision a large broadcast group, but this also applies to rural low-power television stations and TV translators that operate on a shoestring budget and are often community funded. And, multiply that “small number” by thousands of broadcast stations across the country, and you get to a really big problem.

    Calling this a zero-sum game is actually optimistic. At best, this proposal creates winners – the massive Microsoft Corporation – and losers – local broadcasters and their viewers. But most likely, everyone loses.

  • Ann Marie Cumming 3:07 pm on March 6, 2018 Permalink  

    Local Broadcasters: A Lifeline in Florida 

    Day in and day out across America local broadcasters are a trusted source of critical news and information.  Never is that role more important than in times of emergency and severe weather when broadcasters become a lifeline to communities in need.

    Less than a week after Hurricane Harvey struck the east coast of Texas, Hurricane Irma barreled down on the Caribbean Islands before hitting Florida’s west coast, prompting massive evacuations and leaving more than 6 million people without power.  Florida broadcasters were steadfast in their mission to keep viewers and listeners safe.  News crews hunkered down – battling the elements, tracking the storm, galvanizing communities and providing lifesaving information.

    NAB and the Broadcast Education Association storm chasers set out once again to document the indispensable role that local radio and television stations serve as “first informers” during times of emergency.  We are pleased to present the fifth installment in this powerful video series.


    Interviews with dozens of Florida broadcasters reveal their dedication to journalism and commitment to serving communities:

    “In a crisis, it’s time to communicate to your community because you might be the only thing they have.” Jeff Zito, Program Director/Host, Beasley Media Group’s WRXK “96 K-Rock” – Ft. Myers

    “As reporters, we were standing at the phonelines, and we were telling people, ‘this is available if you need help and you don’t know what to do.’” Jess Doudrick, Multimedia Journalist, Raycom Media’s WWSB ABC 7 – Sarasota

     “Our program director, Nio Fernandez, stepped up tremendously to help the Hispanic audience (providing in-language programing).” Tee Gentry, Operations Manager, Beasley Media Group – Tampa

    “We had more than 20 of our reporters and meteorologists, even sports people, out in the field to give people an idea of where this storm was, how it was going to affect their lives, and when it would arrive.” Steve Jerve, Chief Meteorologist, Nexstar Media Group’s WFLA NBC News 8 – Tampa

    “If I can show myself out there (in the storm), there’s nowhere else I’d rather be than covering a hurricane to let our viewers know what’s happening.” Michael Paluska, Reporter, Scripps’ WFTS ABC Action News – Tampa

    “In the Keys, radio was king. It was everything.” Julie Guy, Show Host, Entercom’s “Lite FM 101.5” WLYF – Miami

    “I think that this storm was proof, to a lot of people in our community that we’re here for them and that we’re trying to give them an accurate portrayal of what is going on.” Whitney Burbank, Reporter, Hearst’s WPBF ABC 25 – West Palm Beach

    Many thanks once again to Media Arts Professor Scott Hodgson from the University of Oklahoma and Chandra Clark, professor of Journalism and Creative Media at the University of Alabama. Scott and Chandra, along with their students, compiled extensive footage and conducted dozens of interviews for a video account of broadcasters’ heroic efforts in covering Hurricane Irma.

    The 2017 hurricane season caused major devastation in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Caribbean Islands, while wildfires and mudslides decimated parts of California. Through it all, broadcasters have been on the front lines. As cell phone service went down and cable was rendered obsolete, broadcasters remained on the air, going above and beyond to keep viewers and listeners safe and informed.

  • Ann Marie Cumming 12:16 pm on February 21, 2018 Permalink  

    Local Broadcasters: Hurricane Harvey Heroes 

    NAB and the Broadcast Education Association are pleased to present the fourth installment in a powerful video series demonstrating the indispensable role that local radio and television broadcasters serve as “first informers” during times of emergency.

    This film focuses on broadcasters’ heroic response to Hurricane Harvey, which in late August 2017 dumped more than 40 inches of rain in four days, causing historic flooding in east Texas and leaving tens of thousands of residents homeless.

    The 5-minute mini-documentary features dramatic footage of the devastation and examples of broadcasters’ Herculean efforts to provide life-saving emergency information and community assistance.

    Stations devoted enormous resources as staff risked their own safety to provide essential coverage, coped with flooded stations, and overcame technical difficulties to stay on air – all while many station staff members experienced their own property damage and were displaced from family members.

    Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, who visited Houston shortly after the hurricane, shared with the documentary team his appreciation for broadcasters.  “People really want information when there’s something that’s threatening them and their families, and broadcasters step into the breach and provide that information,” said Pai.

    Interviews with more than 45 broadcasters reveal their dedication to journalism and commitment to serving communities, particularly in times of need.

    “(Covering the storm) was our most difficult hour and our finest hour.” Len Cannon, Anchor, KHOU 11, Houston, TX

    “The role of local media in a disaster like this is to really be a lifeline for our viewers.” Sally MacDonald, Anchor, KRIV Fox 26, Houston, TX

    “It’s almost an instinct.  You go out, and you do it, and you cover it because this is something that affects not only you personally or your family, but also millions of people.” Lester Gretsch, Sports Anchor, KXLN Univision 45, Houston, TX

    “(Broadcasters) are their eyes and ears… If they had power, they were tuned in.” James Ware, Reporter, KFDM CBS 6, Beaumont, TX

    “(Supporting the recovery efforts) is really when it means something special and when it’s expected of broadcasters.” Scott Sparks, Air Personality and Music Director, KHPT 106.9 “The Eagle,” Houston, TX

    Many thanks once again to Media Arts Professor Scott Hodgson from the University of Oklahoma and Chandra Clark, professor of Journalism and Creative Media at the University of Alabama. Scott and Chandra, along with their students, compiled extensive footage and conducted more than 45 interviews for a video account of broadcasters’ heroic efforts in covering this devastating storm.

    Previously released videos in the series include a feature on broadcasters’ response to tornadoes that struck Joplin, MO and Tuscaloosa, AL; the second film documented broadcast coverage of Superstorm Sandy; and the third video examined broadcasters’ lifeline role as deadly tornadoes ripped through Moore, OK.

  • Patrick McFadden 9:11 am on November 9, 2017 Permalink  

    New American Hustle: Cable Opposes a Free, Innovative Service for Viewers 

    In one week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will vote to approve the voluntary use of a new broadcast television transmission standard, Next Generation TV. This standard has the potential to revolutionize the viewing experience, offering consumers a better product and enhancing competition in the delivery of video programming. This is an exciting moment for the broadcast industry, television viewers and fans of innovation and competition in the video programming marketplace.

    You might think it would be hard to line up against innovation and a superior free service. Unfortunately, when anything benefiting consumers involves free, over-the-air TV, some special interest groups are ready to put on a show to demonstrate their opposition.

    Later today, the New America Foundation will be hosting a panel discussion on the upcoming FCC vote to authorize Next Gen TV. New America assembled a panel of five guests representing the American Cable Association, the American Television Alliance, NTCA – the Rural Broadband Association, Consumers Union and the Alliance for Taxpayer Protection. If you’re scoring at home, that’s three cable panelists, two “public interest” groups and a #techinterestgroup host. (Actually, one of the cable panelists is the outside counsel for another, so maybe it’s just two and a half cable panelists? Or is it one and two halves? I digress.)

    Every one of these groups has expressed concerns about Next Gen TV before the FCC. They have all largely focused on the cable talking point that broadcasters will somehow use retransmission consent negotiations to compel carriage of Next Gen signals at pay-TV consumers’ expense. In fact, two of the panelists and the moderator himself got together for a press call on October 26 to bash the Next Gen TV proposal on just those grounds. This panel is not a discussion, in other words, it’s a stage play in service of the pay-TV industry. Perhaps New America is looking for a new funder beyond Google?

    Now, again, three (kind of three?) of these folks are cable representatives. You can understand their self-interest in stymying competition so they can continue their uninterrupted and ongoing quest to bilk their customers with fees and extraneous charges as long as possible.

    But for the consumer groups, this is puzzling. First, just as a matter of optics, it takes serious chutzpah to call yourself a consumer advocate and show up as the chorus line for cable companies. After all, these are some of the most hated companies in America precisely because they are so effective at demonstrating their ongoing commitment to not caring at all about their customers. Second, as a substantive matter, wringing your hands over technological innovation in support of a free competitive option – the only free option – in the video market is…well, let’s charitably describe it as counterintuitive.

    New America’s staging of this cable opera is particularly galling. New America has devoted substantial time and energy to flogging its clients’ patrons’ donors’ pet projects around getting spectrum for free at the direct expense of existing broadcast services viewers rely on. Broadcasters also have substantial and unparalleled public interest obligations attached to their spectrum; obligations that New America has fervently attempted to help half-trillion dollar companies avoid while they pursue access to free spectrum.

    Here’s the bottom line. Broadcasters are seeking permission to invest their own capital to offer a better service to viewers without government mandates or subsidies while maintaining their current obligations. It’s obvious why this might concern pay-TV competitors. But if “consumer advocates” can’t see the public benefit in next week’s FCC decision, it might be time to audition for a different role.

    In the meantime, I hope rehearsals for today’s show are going well. I expect they are; after all, everyone has the same lines.

  • alisonneplokh 10:00 am on November 7, 2017 Permalink  

    Next Gen TV: Something to be Thankful For 

    With Thanksgiving coming up, I’m practicing my Olympic-caliber skills at dodging awkward conversations about politics, religion or when I’m going to have children. And that means having an answer to the question “what are you working on?” that does not immediately cause eyes to glaze over.

    Spectrum policy is really interesting to me, but I have to accept the fact that not everyone shares my passion for more efficient modulation or how in the world 984 television stations are going to change channels in a mere 39 months (now closer to 32). So, this year, I hope to hold people’s attention a little longer celebrating the FCC’s success in setting the stage for the future of television by approving Next Generation TV.

    But “what,” they ask, “is Next Gen TV?” It’s better pictures, better sound, enhanced emergency alerting with the ability to wake up TVs when there is major trouble headed your way, more interactivity, personalized programming and more. That should keep us busy for a while.

    But here’s my silver bullet for when the conversation starts to turn back toward when I’m having children. Next Gen can also offer a whole new way of bringing educational programming to children. As the Association for Public Television Stations pointed out last year [1], Next Gen TV brings with it the possibility of distance learning on a customized local level. Children could get lessons and materials customized to their curriculum at home without needing a broadband connection. Educational videos could be downloaded to Next Gen TVs in non-real time to be viewed on the student’s schedule, and applications could be delivered to practice these new skills.

    PBS Kids programming has proven to be very effective in improving kids’ academic scores [2]. Not to mention, its content is the most-watched educational programming out there. Low-income families in particular stand to benefit from the interactive educational features of Next Gen TV becoming available over the next several years.

    And, of course, I can remind everyone that those football games are going to look even better in 4K. I’m already looking forward to dessert.

    [1] APTS Ex Parte

    [2] Public Television comments, page 5

  • Suzie Raven 9:44 am on October 30, 2017 Permalink  

    Delivering Radios to Hurricane-Ravished Puerto Rico: A First-Person Account 

    Author’s Note: To view photos of my trip to Puerto Rico, click here.

    I recently had the opportunity of a lifetime. I was asked by my employer – the National Association of Broadcasters – to travel to Puerto Rico to help distribute 10,000 battery-operated radios to people in hurricane-ravaged island and the Virgin Islands.

    The idea for the radio hand-out stemmed from a meeting where President and CEO Gordon Smith asked: “What can NAB and our industry do to help?” NAB swung into action, purchasing, shipping and delivering the radios in just 18 days.

    radio1I had seen pictures of the devastation in Puerto Rico, but nothing compares to seeing it in person. Most of Puerto Rico remained without power and drinkable water during our visit. Even in the Capitol of San Juan, power came almost exclusively from generators that had to be refilled with fuel or diesel daily by hand, sometimes every four hours. Police directed traffic at intersections.

    People wait from six to 14 hours over three days to get tarps to cover the roofs of their houses. It’s common for people to wait in line for three hours to enter grocery stores, where bottled water is sold in rationed quantities. We saw 100-year-old trees uprooted, bringing concrete sidewalks with them and toppling power lines. We saw people living in cars or in tents on the beach. Recovery in areas away from the coast, where mountains and rain forests dominate the landscape, is occurring at a snail’s pace.

    radio5Seeing the devastation drove home the need for reliable communication. Cellphone connections and Internet service are non-existent in many parts of Puerto Rico. Broadcast radio continues to connect people to critical information, five weeks after Maria made landfall. Residents in remote mountain areas and along the edge of the rain forest have limited information on accessing resources. My colleague, Louis Abanez, and I, visited several remote locations to distribute radios.

    People in 25 Puerto Rican municipalities, plus the U.S. Virgin Islands, received radios from our shipment of 10,000 devices. Donations from NAB, the National Alliance of State Broadcasters Associations (NASBA) and multiple U.S. radio companies covered the cost of this project.

    We received enormous logistical support from Pat Roberts, head of the Florida Association of Broadcasters, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Puerto Rican authorities ensured that the radios were distributed to those most in need. We also received Congressional support from Florida Sens. Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio, Congressman Darren Soto and Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine.

    radui3Crowds gathered for two events that Mayor Lornna Soto arranged in Canóvanas on October 18.  It was touching to see the faces of Puerto Rican children light up when we handed them a new radio. People literally danced in the streets with their new radios.

    Rio Grande Mayor Gonzalez drove with us down narrow, winding, mountainous roads on the edge of El Yunque National Forest, where we delivered radios from the back of his pick-up truck. Residents flocked to us, particularly after dark when our vehicles provided the only lights for miles. We also walked to houses set back on dirt roads.   Two hundred families personally received radios that day, with Mayor Gonzalez planning to distribute another 200.

    On October 19, we delivered radios to Mayor Anibal Melendez in Fajardo, where challenges remain in reaching residents in the mountains. We also had a memorable experience in Loiza, a municipality with a median household income under $10,000.  With cell phone ownership rare in Loiza, we knew that our radios were making a positive impact.

    radio2Several mayors convened at a hotel near the San Juan Convention Center October 19 – 20 for meetings and to pick up supplies, including food, water, baby formula, diapers, and AM/FM radios. Word-of-mouth was key in making the mayors’ offices aware of our initiative. Some mayors only became aware of our radio distribution upon arriving in San Juan. Without cell service, they could not receive messages about our efforts.

    Other municipalities that received radios included Aguas Buenas, Barceloneta, Camuy, Carolina, Cataño, Cayey, Cidra, Coamo, Guayanilla, Guayama, Gurabo Juana Díaz, Naranjito, Manati, Morovis, Ponce, San German, Toa Baja, Villalba, Vega Alta, and Yauco.

    The Puerto Rico Association of Broadcasters is distributing 500 radios to residents. Executive Director José Ribas Dominicci and President Raul Santiago Santos continue to work tirelessly to ensure that stations have the resources they need to continue broadcasting.

    This was an incredible trip and an honor to represent NAB.

  • Jerianne Timmerman 10:00 am on October 27, 2017 Permalink  

    Modernizing the Mother of All Media Regulations 

    Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) at long last announced its intention to reform its woefully outdated broadcast ownership rules. At its open meeting in November, the FCC plans to vote on an order eliminating the ban on owning a print newspaper and any radio or TV station in the same market; removing the restrictions on owning radio stations along with a TV station in the same market; revising the rule that very strictly limits the ownership of TV stations in local markets; and reversing its previous decision effectively banning the joint sale of even modest amounts of advertising time by two same-market TV stations. The FCC also plans to establish an incubator program to promote the ownership of broadcast outlets by new entrants and seeks comment on the details of that program. NAB has for decades supported measures, including an incubator program, to promote new entry and increased diversity in the broadcast industry.

    To say that these changes are past due is an understatement. The FCC has strictly regulated the local ownership of broadcast outlets since the World War II era. It adopted rules prohibiting the common ownership of TV stations serving substantially the same area in 1941, and similar rules for FM and AM stations in 1940 and 1943. Over three-quarters of a century later, the FCC still prohibits the common ownership of two TV stations in most markets. The two cross-ownership rules are positively youthful by comparison, dating only from the 1970s.

    Clearly, not every long-standing FCC rule should be eliminated or modified just because of its age. But the broadcast ownership rules fail to reflect today’s digital media marketplace, and the FCC’s past failures to update its rules flew in the face of Congress’ directive that the Commission must every four years determine whether its rules remain “necessary in the public interest as the result of competition” and “repeal or modify” those that are not.

    Most importantly, these rules for years have caused real harm to daily newspapers and their readers, the public’s free, over-the-air broadcast services and local TV stations’ ability to compete against consolidated pay-TV and broadband providers and huge social media and technology companies.

    The absurdity of the broadcast ownership rules is made clear when juxtaposed against the FCC’s treatment of every other industry within its purview. For example, about a year after the FCC refused to grant a six-month temporary waiver of the radio/TV cross-ownership rule to facilitate the assignment of a single full-power TV station and related satellite and low-power stations, it approved the merger of AT&T and DIRECTV and then the combination of Charter, Time Warner Cable and Bright House. Notably, no FCC media ownership rules stood in the way of those massive mergers creating two pay-TV and broadband behemoths.

    The Commission even has maintained its now 42-year-old ban on radio or TV broadcasters owning or significantly investing in print newspapers, despite the precipitous decline of the newspaper industry, as well chronicled over the past decades including by a website called Newspaper Death Watch. While giant social media, technology and pay-TV/broadband companies face no barriers in acquiring daily newspapers, the owner of just a single radio or TV station remains barred from having an ownership interest in a local paper.

    The FCC’s past decisions retaining the local ownership rules depended upon the agency closing its eyes and covering its ears to avoid recognizing what is clear to any consumer with a TV remote or a smart phone – that local broadcast stations and newspapers do not exist in a vacuum and that broadcasters and newspaper owners must compete with myriad other outlets for viewers, listeners, readers and advertisers. Indeed, in other contexts, the FCC has proclaimed that the “Internet is America’s most important platform for economic growth, innovation, competition [and] free expression.”

    The action yesterday, in contrast, shows that the FCC finally not only recognizes the realities of the 21st century media marketplace, but also is willing to take the manufactured political heat that will undoubtedly accompany this update of the rules. While some opponents of any rule changes likely will pretend that the FCC’s action was undertaken for the benefit of one TV station company (which doesn’t even own any newspapers), reform of these restrictions are, in fact, essential for the broadcast industry to flourish.

    Political rhetoric aside, actual evidence – including dozens of studies by the FCC and private parties – shows that broadcast stations cross-owned with newspapers produce more and higher quality news and informational programming and that TV stations with higher revenues produce more local news and public affairs programming. Combinations between two TV stations, between radio and TV stations and between broadcast stations and newspapers create economies of scale permitting broadcast outlets to maintain or increase their provision of local news, weather, sports and emergency journalism. And make no mistake – broadcast services offered free, over-the-air to the public are costly to provide. Covering a significant emergency or natural disaster, such as a hurricane, can easily cost stations hundreds of thousands of dollars, with the expense of coverage (e.g., overtime for personnel, equipment, etc.) and advertising lost due to 24/7 coverage of the emergency. The public clearly values this service, as a survey following Hurricane Harvey found that 89 percent of respondents in Texas cited local broadcast TV as their top choice for information about the storm.

    Stations struggling to compete against much larger and less regulated entities, and lacking the necessary financial and personnel resources, are simply unable to offer extensive local services. TV stations in medium and small markets lacking a substantial advertising base often are unable to maintain local news operations at all. As long ago as 2002, the trade press and publications like the Columbia Journalism Review were documenting the elimination of local news at stations across the country, due to economic stresses. The reformed local TV rule will permit two local stations to combine and jointly bear the substantial costs of maintaining local news operations, improving their weather and sports coverage, obtaining popular entertainment programming, purchasing equipment and upgrading their plant. Empirical studies have shown that TV stations commonly owned or in a joint services agreement with another station in the same market are more likely to carry local news and public affairs programming.

    Despite the availability of many other options, consumers value their local TV and radio stations. As the cost of pay-TV services inexorably rise, more viewers are cutting the cord and increasingly relying in whole or in part on over-the-air broadcasting. And the Pew Research Center last year found that civic engagement is strongly tied to local news habits, especially the frequent consumption of local TV news. Modernizing the FCC’s ownership rules and other outdated regulations that unnecessarily hobble local broadcast stations will benefit consumers in communities across the country. As the Commission concluded 25 years ago when loosening its local radio ownership rules, a broadcaster’s “ability to function in the ‘public interest, convenience and necessity’ is fundamentally premised on its economic viability.” NAB and its members are pleased that the current Commission has recognized this basic truth.

  • Sam Matheny 2:38 pm on October 18, 2017 Permalink  

    Setting the record straight on FM radio in iPhones 

    In recent months, the Southeast U.S., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands have been pummeled by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.  The wildfires in California have been equally devastating.  These storms and fires have wreaked havoc on communications networks and challenged public safety officials’ ability to get lifeline information to affected residents.

    At a time when many Americans have come to rely on their smartphones, massive cellular outages were suffered from Texas to Florida on an even greater scale than in Superstorm Sandy five years ago, and California has also suffered major outages in key locations.  In Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, it may take weeks and even months to fully restore cellular service because of the damage to the electric grid.  This has been a painful reminder of the need for a redundant and pervasive communications infrastructure, especially in times of disaster and emergency.

    Radio, television, cellular, satellite, and other communications networks all have a role to play in a crisis.  In the wake of these storms, a passionate discussion about activating FM radio in smartphones – and, specifically, Apple’s iPhone – has emerged. This discussion was started by those most impacted by Irma when the South Florida Sun-Sentinel editorialized on the issue and Senator Bill Nelson of Florida called for activating FM chips in smartphones.  FCC Chairman Ajit Pai also issued a public statement calling for Apple to activate FM chips to promote public safety and FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel also weighed in with her support.

    There has been a good bit of technical back and forth since these calls to “light up the chip,” and this is my effort to try and set the record straight.

    Here is the BLUF – Bottom Line Up Front

    Apple has built and offered a wonderful FM app in their iPod Nano for many years.  They know how to make FM work, and work well, in their mobile devices.  Apple even wrote its own Nano app that allows the user to pause live radio and buffer up to 15 minutes of content.

    However, Apple has specifically chosen not to offer this functionality in their iPhone. Indeed, Apple has disabled FM chips despite the capability being available on the communications module within the iPhone.  This means other app developers cannot offer FM apps either.

    Apple CEO Tim Cook hails from Mobile, Alabama and attended Auburn University. Mobile has been impacted by at least 10 different hurricanes since 1969 and that was prior to Nate, which brought a nearly six-foot storm surge and flooding, so I have to believe Mr. Cook has a personal appreciation for the damage these storms can inflict.  We invite him and Apple to reconsider activating FM radio in iPhones, and we stand ready to work together to enable this important service.

    Here are the details

    1. FM capability is in the iPhone

    Tear-down reports from multiple research firms indicate the iPhone has long used a communications module that supports three key wireless networks: WiFi, Bluetooth, and FM radio.  NAB has been commissioning tear-down reports from ABI Research on the top-selling smartphones since 2012.  In the last report we received, the iPhone was the only such smartphone that did not have FM activated on at least one major U.S. carrier.

    1. Apple deliberately disables FM

    Apple has chosen to only use the WiFi and Bluetooth aspects of the communications module.  They have admitted as much for all phones through the iPhone 6 series, at which point they claim FM capability was removed from the 7 series and 8 series. Yet, tear-down reports indicate the iPhone 8 contains the same 4357 chip family, which manufacturer Broadcom clearly states includes an integrated FM radio core. You can check out these independent tear-down reports:

    1. Apple purposefully does not connect the antenna

    While the communications module has FM capability, it must also have access to an antenna to receive this signal.  This is commonly done via the wire for your headphones.  Again, Apple enables the antenna for the Nano, so it has the experience and expertise to make FM radio capability work.  And from a competitive standpoint, other manufacturers of best-selling smartphones such as Samsung, LG, and HTC have enabled FM radio reception in the U.S. and around the world.

    1. This is a global issue

    FM radio is a global standard in much the same way as WiFi and Bluetooth are.  That is one of the reasons why chip manufacturers combine all three capabilities into a single module.  It can and should be activated everywhere.  Apple creates global product SKUs for their products, so it fits very well with their production model. Other smartphone manufacturers are doing this as well.

    1. This is not NAB vs Apple

    Various media outlets, politicians, and regulators raised the issue in the wake of the recent hurricanes.  We are certainly an interested party and we believe Apple and their customers would benefit from “lighting up the chips” in future iPhones.  NAB is not alone – national and international bodies, governments, and institutions share our belief in the importance of activated FM radio chips in smartphones:

    1. Apple’s ‘know-how’

    Apple is a very successful company, and as evidenced by its Nano product, it knows how to do FM radio well.  Activating the FM capabilities in their phones would be simple for them to accomplish if they wanted to, and I believe it would be supported by consumers.


    Here is why it matters

    • People turn to radio in times of crises.  In the days following Hurricane Harvey, NextRadio, the popular FM radio application on Android smartphones, saw a 160% increase in listening.
    • During Irma, NextRadio usage was even higher. In the Fort Myers area alone, listenership was up 1,127% from the average day.
    • In Puerto Rico, there continues to be widespread cellular service outages following the storm, leaving many residents without access to vital information.
    • The Japanese communications ministry reports that radio was the number one source for news the day of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami.
    • FM radio consumes approximately five-times less battery than streaming, so it is very battery friendly, which is especially important in times of long power outages and poor communication.
    • FM radio in smartphones is free and available to everyone, regardless of their data plan.
    • FEMA has designated radio stations that operate especially hardened transmission facilities as the primary source of initial emergency information so they can be the lifeline service that everyone can depend on.
    • During the California wildfires, there have been reports about widespread problems with the wireless emergency alert (WEA) system for mobile devices, which has left many residents without critical information about fast-approaching danger.

    Bottom line

    NAB welcomes the opportunity to collaborate with Apple, even though Apple doesn’t need our help from an engineering perspective.  Apple’s iPhone is a phenomenal device and does so many things well. We hope they recognize that activating the FM capability would make it even better for all of their customers around the world.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
%d bloggers like this: