Broadcast Law Blog🔒 SSL Verified

Table of Contents

• ↓ Authority Metrics: Score 56/100
• ↓ Global Reach of Broadcastlawblog
• ↓ Competitor Analysis for .COM Domains
• ↓ Top Alternatives to broadcastlawblog.com

6-Month Traffic Trend Estimate

Official Contact & Profiles

Visual representation extracted from broadcastlawblog.com

Content Snippets from broadcastlawblog.com

"Discussion of FCC, copyright, advertising and other legal issues of importance to radio and television broadcasters and other media companies"

"Two weeks ago, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit heard an oral argument on the challenge by a number of Democratic candidates to the FCC Media Bureau’s March Public Notice which purported to “remind” broadcasters of their obligations to give Lowest Unit Rates not only to ads purchased by political candidates and their own campaign committees but also to Joint Fundraising Committees and Political Party ads when those ads are authorized by a candidate.  We wrote here about the issues raised by the Public Notice and the importance of the pending appeal and other requests for clarification, as the Notice did not address many issues crucial to broadcasters, especially when we are in the middle of an important election season.  The oral argument and its aftermath at the FCC should have broadcasters regularly refreshing their newsfeeds prior to the September 4 start of the Lowest Unit Charge window for the November election to see how they should be treating these ads during the window.  A decision of the court could come down before September 4, and that decision could dictate whether or not broadcasters and local cable operators need to give LUC to political parties and joint fundraising groups when their purchases are coordinated with federal candidates."

"At the argument, two of the three judges appeared skeptical of the FCC’s defense of the Media Bureau’s actions, directing many questions to the FCC’s attorney as he attempted to argue that any action by the court was premature, as the Media Bureau action was not a final decision over which the court had jurisdiction given that the full Commission had not had a chance to rule on the application for review by the same Democratic candidates.  Those candidates have sought review of the Media Bureau Public Notice by the Commissioners.  Historically, it has been rare that courts review decisions of the FCC staff until the Commissioners have first had the opportunity to review the staff decision and decide if that decision was correct."

"In this case, counsel for the Democratic candidates argued that the plain language of the law governing court review of FCC decisions did not require that the FCC actually rule on an application for review of a staff decision before the court could review that decision, only that the application for review be filed.  And, given the impending September 4 deadline, the skeptical judges asked whether, by not acting by the September 4 deadline, the FCC might have constructively denied the application for review as, without a ruling, the guidance in the Media Bureau Public Notice would stand during the upcoming LUC window (and FCC counsel indicated that he did not expect a ruling by the full Commission by September 4).  The oral argument was light on discussion of the substance of the issues raised by the Public Notice, and it was instead much more focused on the procedural questions of whether the court could review the issues at all.  Since the argument before the court, unexpectedly, there have been further actions from the FCC and responses to those FCC actions at the court, all seemingly looking to head off a court decision on the case."

Key Topics & Focus Areas for broadcastlawblog.com:

Authority Metrics: Score 56/100

Global Reach of Broadcastlawblog

Competitor Analysis for .COM Domains