WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Federal Communications Commission has adopted a proposal that the agency believes will support local journalism and incentivize the production of local programming by prioritizing the processing and review of applications from broadcast stations that invest in and prioritize local programming in communities across the country.

“We want to ensure our policies support local journalism because it is so vital for our communities and our country.  This creative proposal offers a new way to do just that,” said Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel.

The adoption of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sets in motion a process of seeking public comment before the FCC votes on the final rules and issues a Final Order. 

Specifically, the FCC said that it “proposes to adopt an application processing policy that, with respect to applications for renewal, transfer, or assignment of a license, would prioritize evaluation of those applications filed by stations that certify that they provide locally originated programming.  These applications would be the first to be reviewed, which would likely result in quicker action and, if the application is granted, quicker approval of these applications.”  

The idea was opposed by commissioner Nathan Simington who complained it was a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” that was really a “collateral attack on the Commission’s elimination of the Main Studio Rule.”

“It purports to serve localism by providing an incentive to broadcasters to create or retain sources of `locally-originated programming.’" he said in a statement. "If broadcasters wish to have their broadcast license applications fast-tracked,—that is, timely processed—and those applications are otherwise encumbered by a hold, petition to deny, or `other processing issue’ (left to the staff’s discretion), then staff will timely act on the application.  While the language of the item suggests that this means that broadcasters with locally-originated programming have a leg up, what it actually means is that any broadcaster who originates news for Market A from a studio in Market B might now have any application—at least for which a `processing issue’ credibly can be discovered or manufactured—slowed.  This is a collateral attack on the Commission’s elimination of the Main Studio Rule, and the item all but says so.”

Simington also noted that “if, as it turns out, local broadcasters with locally-originated programming, per the item’s definition, pour in to thank the Commission for its leadership in correcting a longstanding issue with application processing time, I will happily admit my mistake, eat humble pie at an Open Meeting, and may even vote to approve the final order…Instead, what I think more likely is that broadcasters will come in worried, as I am, about weaponization of application processing, and may even demonstrate by a review of application processing times that this item, unlike a refresh of the vMVPD record, is an answer to a question that no one asked.”

Responding to the proposal, commissioner Brendan Carr noted that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was once again raising the issue of the main studio rule. “When I read the item, I was surprised to learn that it did something entirely different and separate from just proposing the prioritization of locally originated programming,” he said in a statement. “It also raised the FCC’s 2017 decision to repeal the main studio rule and determined—even though this is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with no evidentiary record before the agency—that this 2017 decision was an error.  Of course, there is no basis for asserting that conclusion here, but more fundamentally there is no reason to get into that rule at all in this Notice.  There are plenty of ways that the FCC can ground its prioritization proposal in the agency’s long-standing and statutorily-grounded commitment to localism.”  

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was adopted on January 10 and released on January 17. The date for comments is 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register and the Reply Comment Date is 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register.

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has denied a petition from Prometheus Radio Project that it effectively stay the FCC's November vote to deregulate local broadcast ownership. The court suggested the jury was still out on the FCC's response to the court's direction on ownership diversity and that Prometheus did not make a case for direct action from the court.

That court denial of the writ request means the FCC's decision to eliminate crossownership rules and loosen other local ownership restrictions goes into effect and could mean that Sinclair Broadcasting can keep more stations in the Tribune deal than under the old rules or if the court had granted the writ of mandamus Prometheus sought.

“The third Circuit's decision gives the green light to M&A in the broadcast sector and has been seen as a good sign by Wall Street,” said Adonis Hoffman, chairman of Business in the Public Interest.

[Main Studio Rule Change May Bring Cost Savings] 

The Justice Department currently has a Feb. 11 deadline for either blocking the deal or signing off on it, though that could be extended. Sinclair had signaled it was adjusting the stations it would try to keep in the deal based on the loosened regs, and the court decision paves the way for such an adjustment.

“The emergency petition for writ of mandamus is denied as Petitioners have not satisfied the exacting standard for obtaining such relief,” the court said (observing that a writ of mandamus “may issue only if the petitioner shows (1) a clear and indisputable abuse of discretion or error of law, (2) a lack of an alternate avenue for adequate relief, and (3) a likelihood of irreparable injury.”

Prometheus had argued the FCC's deregulatory moves were undertaken without the vetting of their impact on media ownership diversity the court had required. The FCC said it had vetted that impact, including proposing an incubator program as part of the decision.

“The Court notes that the exact design of the FCC’s new incubator program is subject to public comment through April 9, 2018,” the Third Circuit said.

It directed the FCC to “file a report on or before August 6, 2018 regarding the status of the incubator program."

“We’re grateful that the court rejected the mandamus request and that meaningful reform of outdated broadcast ownership rules can go forward,” said National Association of Broadcasters EVP Dennis Wharton. NAB had petitioned the court to let it back the FCC's opposition to the Prometheus writ.

Longstanding opponents of the FCC's broadcast ownership rule decisions—under both Democratic and Republican Administrations—Prometheus asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to force the current FCC to address diversity issues that court has long told the commission to address and delay any deregulation of local ownership rules until that happens.

That came in the emergency request for a writ of mandamus filed by both Prometheus Radio Project and Media Mobilizing Project.

They also wanted the court to stop the FCC from approving any license transfers that would not comply with the FCC's previous ownership rules, which could potentially affect the Sinclair-Tribune deal.

The FCC under chairman Ajit Pai changed course from the commission of his predecessor, Tom Wheeler, and eliminated some local ownership rules—the newspaper/broadcast and radio/TV crossownership rules—and modified others.

[FCC Eliminates Main Studio Rule] 

But both the Wheeler and Pai approaches needed to be responsive to a remand of the Third Circuit to take the impact of diversity into account when making those decisions, say the groups, and neither did so.

Prometheus and Media Mobilizing Project, which challenged the Wheeler reg review as insufficiently regulatory and the Pai review as really insufficiently regulatory, says neither FCC based their decisions on sufficient diversity impact information and so filed the emergency request for the writ of mandamus, which would be the court demanding that the FCC follow its mandate.

They wanted the Third Circuit to stay implementation of the Pai media ownership deregulatory changes.

On Nov. 17, as part of the congressionally mandated Quadrennial media ownership reg review, the Republican FCC majority, under Pai assailed by FCC Dems who strongly dissented, eliminated some decades-old broadcast regulations and tweaked others in what broadcasters have argued is necessary to allow them to remain relevant in a sea of less-regulated competitors.

The order eliminated the newspaper-broadcast and the radio-TV cross-ownership rules; allowed dual station ownership in markets with fewer than eight independent voices after the duopoly, creating an opportunity for ownership of two of the top four stations in a market on a case-by-case basis (the FCC is not calling it a waiver); eliminates attribution of joint sales agreements as ownership; and creates an incubator program.

In doing so, the FCC reversed a decision by the previous FCC Democratic majority to leave most of the rules in place. Prometheus had challenged that decision, too, not because it had left most of the rules in place, but because Prometheus said it, again, did not sufficiently take diversity into account, which would have led to imposing more regs, not simply leaving most in place. That earlier challenge has yet to be resolved and Prometheus also asked the court this week to consolidate this challenge with that one.

Prometheus argued that the Pai FCC also failed to respond to the Third Circuit's direction, in remanding a previous attempt to deregulate, that it get better data on ownership diversity before deregulating.

The recent FCC decision under Pai did also initiate a rulemaking on creating a diversity incubator program and to consider the definition of eligible entity, but that did not cut it with Prometheus.

This story first appeared on TVT's sister publication B&C. 

WASHINGTON—The new FCC rule eliminating a nearly 80-year old requirement that each AM, FM and TV station maintain a main studio in its community of license will take effect Jan. 8, 2018.

The effective date—30 days after publication of the rule in the Federal Register, which occurred Dec. 8.—also applies to other elements of the new rule, including the elimination of the requirement that the main studio have full-time management and staff on hand locally during normal business hours and that the studio have the ability to originate programming. Broadcasters, however, must continue to maintain a local or toll free telephone number.

The FCC adopted the rule change Oct. 24 by a vote of 3-2. At the time, the agency said eliminating the rule should “produce substantial cost-saving benefits for broadcasters….” The savings, it said, “could be used for programming, equipment upgrades, newsgathering and other services that benefit consumers.” Consumers now have access to local station files online and can take advantage of other ways of reaching broadcasters than actually visiting their studios, it said.

Critics of the change, however, say eliminating the main studio rule is another regulatory rollback that will promote further consolidation of media ownership. They contend large broadcast groups will now be able to produce newscasts and other content centrally and push it out to localities for broadcast there—especially in smaller markets—without regard to the needs of the local communities involved.

An Oct. 25 article by Andy Kroll at MotherJones.com cited experiments by Sinclair Broadcast Group as an example of how this strategy can at times produce “shaky” results. Sinclair in 2016 decided to produce local newscasts for WNWO in Toledo, Ohio, from a centralized studio in South Bend, Ind., which has resulted in “slip-ups and mistakes,” he wrote.

Sinclair is already the crosshairs of those opposed to further media consolidation who wish to derail the broadcast group’s $3.9 billion acquisition of Tribune Media and its 33 stations. 

In comments accompanying the vote to eliminate the rule FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, however, wrote that viewers and listeners in small towns and rural areas will be better served as a result of the agency’s action because “the cost of compliance [with the main studio rule] dissuades broadcasters from even launching stations.” Pai added that “…continuing to require a main studio would detract from, rather than promote, a broadcaster’s ability and incentive to keep people informed and serve the public interest.”

WASHINGTON—The FCC’s decision to dump the main studio rule, and eliminate the associated minimum staffing and program origination capability requirements, will likely have broadcasters across the country quickly reviewing their operations for potential cost savings if they haven’t done so already.

Banishment of the main studio rule will present significant savings opportunities for television and radio broadcasters, which could then be pocketed or invested in programming and equipment, industry observers say. The FCC said so itself in its Report and Order: “Eliminating the main studio rule will produce substantial benefits. Broadcasters will be able to redirect the significant costs associated with complying with the main studio rule to programming, equipment upgrades, newsgathering and other services to the benefit of consumers.”

‘UNNECESSARY MAIN STUDIOS’
Industry observers say even though the FCC’s main studio rule typically impacted more radio broadcasters than TV, some television broadcasters believe there will be savings. Nexstar Broadcasting, which owns 160 television stations, submitted comments during the FCC proceeding in support of the move to eliminate the main studio rule. Nexstar said in its comment providing a broadcast service to the public is expensive.

“The cost of the equipment required to distribute broadcast signals, plus a (main studio) building and at least two full-time employees result in expenditures well into and beyond six figures annually between lease and/or structure payments and salary and benefit obligations. The funds expended to maintain unnecessary main studios can be better spent to provide local news, additional local programming or better transmission services.”

Meanwhile, Forum Communications Company, which operates four local broadcast television stations in North Dakota, told the FCC the elimination of the main studio rule would enhance the broadcaster’s “service to the public by allowing certain station personnel to dedicate more time to engage in sales, newsgathering, technical, promotional and other activities during periods of the day that are currently devoted to maintaining the minimum staffing requirements of the main studio rule.”

In addition, small, independent broadcasters like Los Angeles-based Venture Technologies, which owns several Class A television stations, could reap “instant benefit from the rules’ purge, gaining the flexibility to allocate capital toward the acquisition of new, diverse programming or improved equipment,” according to comments the company filed with the commission.

MEDIA OWNERSHIP
While co-locating studios is likely a bigger deal for radio than TV, observers say that could change as the commission loosens multiple ownership restrictions, which could happen as soon at the FCC’s November meeting. For example, the expected elimination of the newspaper cross-ownership prohibition combined with the elimination of the main studio rule may make newspaper/TV deals more feasible.

Several broadcast industry observers contacted for this story believe broadcasters will be eager to wring out as much savings as they can through various measures. But they also caution that those who turn away from servicing their local communities could suffer consequences.

Communications attorney Harry Cole at Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth says broadcasters have been keeping a close eye on FCC proceedings since the latest studio requirement rulemaking was proposed back on May 18, 2017. The rule change takes effect once the decision is published in the Federal Register, which is expected to be by early November.

“Since the elimination of the rule has been in the works for some time now, with the ultimate result largely pre-ordained, I would expect that most broadcasters who perceive the opportunity of cost savings have been planning out their moves in advance,” Cole said. “It would not surprise me to see a number of moves in the near-term intended to take advantage of the change. The elimination of the studio requirement will allow consolidation of staff, equipment and operations, and relieve licensees of various costs like rent, insurance, duplicative staffing, equipment, etc. I assume that, at least for some if not many, the savings could be substantial.”

Cole said he believes there will be job losses as a result of broadcaster’s further consolidating operations. “I’m guessing that one of the anticipated sources of cost savings will be in reduction of staff. If I’m right, then the more stations that abandon their main studios, obviously the more jobs are likely to be eliminated. I don’t know how drastic the effect is likely to be.

“However, it does occur to me that wholesale abandonment of any and all local presence in a station’s community could be a short-sighted move,” Cole added. “A crucial aspect of broadcasting’s service that has long distinguished the industry from other media sources is its localism, a quality often touted by broadcast representatives. Moving station operations out of town will very possibly undermine broadcasting’s claimed identity as a local service, which could have eventual adverse repercussions in the overall regulatory approach,” Cole says.

‘SIGNIFICANT INCENTIVES’ TO MAINTAIN ROOTS
John Crigler, a partner with Garvey Schubert Barer in Washington, told TV Technology that the elimination of some of the supplemental requirements, such as staffing requirements, would have an immediate economic effect. “In fact, the elimination of the two-person staffing requirement may have a greater short-term effect than elimination of physical location requirements.”

Crigler also warns broadcasters that potential cost savings earned by shutting down main studios are likely to be offset by several countervailing economic forces.

“Even without a main studio requirement, commercial and noncommercial stations will have significant incentives to maintain roots in their local communities,” Crigler said. “FCC allocation rules, of course, require them to provide signal coverage of their communities of license, but a broadcast station that doesn’t attract an audience isn’t much of a station no matter where its studios are located, and audiences are generally loyal to local talent and their perspective on local concerns, including local weather and emergency information. No local support, no station.”

The FCC’s decision this week to dump the main studio rule will likely have broadcasters across the country quickly reviewing their operations for potential cost savings if they haven’t done so already.

Banishment of the main studio rule could present significant savings opportunities for broadcasters. The FCC said so itself in its Report and Order: “Eliminating the main studio rule will produce substantial benefits. Broadcasters will be able to redirect the significant costs associated with complying with the main studio rule to programming, equipment upgrades, newsgathering, and other services to the benefit of consumers.”

Broadcasters appear to believe it, too. Cumulus Media in comments submitted during the FCC proceeding detailed how the elimination of the main studio rule would enable the company to save “significant costs in at least six markets by no longer having to maintain a separate satellite main studio.” Meanwhile, Cox Media told the FCC its radio group “could reallocate $20,000–$50,000 per year in certain markets” if the main studio rule was eliminated. And Crawford Broadcasting, which owns 14 AM and 9 FM commercial broadcast stations, estimated base costs associated with a separate local main studio can “easily run $60,000 or more per year with a small space and minimal staffing, a significant amount by any measure,” according to comments it filed with the commission.

Several broadcast industry observers contacted for this story believe broadcasters will be eager to wring out as much savings as they can through various measures. But they also caution that those who turn away from servicing their local communities could suffer consequences.

Communications attorney Harry Cole at Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth says broadcasters have been keeping a close watch on the FCC proceedings since the latest studio requirement rulemaking was proposed back on May 18, 2017. The rule change takes effect once the decision is published in the Federal Register, which is expected to be by early November.

“Since the elimination of the rule has been in the works for some time now, with the ultimate result largely preordained, I would expect that most broadcasters who perceive the opportunity of cost savings have been planning out their moves in advance. It would not surprise me to see a number of moves in the near-term intended to take advantage of the change. The elimination of the studio requirement will allow consolidation of staff, equipment and operations, and relieve licensees of various costs like rent, insurance, duplicative staffing, equipment, etc. I assume that, at least for some if not many, the savings could be substantial,” Cole said.

Cole tells Radio World he believes there will be job losses as a result of broadcaster’s further consolidating operations. “I’m guessing that one of the anticipated sources of cost savings will be in reduction of staff. If I’m right, then the more stations that abandon their main studios, obviously the more jobs are likely to be eliminated. I don’t know how drastic the effect is likely to be.”

He adds, “However, it does occur to me that wholesale abandonment of any and all local presence in a station’s community could be a short-sighted move. A crucial aspect of broadcasting’s service that has long distinguished the industry from other media sources is its localism, a quality often touted by broadcast representatives. Moving station operations out of town will very possibly undermine broadcasting’s claimed identity as a local service, which could have eventual adverse repercussions in the overall regulatory approach.”

John Crigler, a partner with Garvey Schubert Barer in Washington, told Radio World in an email that the elimination of some of the supplemental requirements, such as staffing requirements, would have an immediate economic effect. “In fact, the elimination of the two-person staffing requirement may have a greater short term effect than elimination of physical location requirements. The purpose of the staffing requirement — artificially applied to the main studio rule by enforcement actions rather than rulemaking — was to insure licensee control and not serve local needs.

“From the beginning, the staffing requirement was designed not to make business sense. It required a licensee to keep two full-time employees on payroll even if they had only symbolic duties to carry out. That loud tapping noise you hear is the sound of LMAs being rewritten this very minute,” Crigler said.

Crigler also warns broadcasters that potential cost savings earned by shutting down main studios are likely to be offset by several countervailing economic forces.

“Even without a main studio requirement, commercial and noncommercial stations will have significant incentives to maintain roots in their local communities. FCC allocation rules, of course, require them to provide signal coverage of their communities of license, but a broadcast station that doesn’t attract an audience isn’t much of a station no matter where its studios are located, and audiences are generally loyal to local talent and their perspective on local concerns, including local weather and emergency information. Without that audience, local advertisers will abandon commercial stations. In addition to a strong philosophical commitment to public service, noncommercial stations are directly dependent on support from listeners for operating revenues. No local support, no station,” Crigler says.

This story first appeared on TVT's sister publication Radio World. 

WASHINGTON—A move that has been much debated in recent months has been made official, as a 3-2 vote by the FCC has eliminated the broadcast main studio rule.

The main studio rule had been in place for nearly 80 years and required AM, FM and TV stations to have a main studio located or near its local community. At the time, the rule was meant to facilitate input from community members and the station’s participation in community activities.

The FCC, in its official announcement, said that it recognizes that the public can now access information via broadcasters’ online public file and that stations and community members can interact directly through alternative means such as email, social media and the telephone, making the main studio rule “outdated and unnecessarily burdensome.”

“Given these facts, continuing to require a main studio would detract from, rather than promote, a broadcaster’s ability and incentive to keep people informed and serve the public interest,” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai in his official statement.

The commission predicts that the elimination of the main studio rule should produce cost-saving benefits for broadcasters that can be used for things like programming, equipment upgrades, newsgathering and other services. The commission also sees this as a way to help prevent stations in small towns from going dark and help launch new stations in rural areas.

Pai supported these claims in his statement when he referenced a commenter after FM Auction 94 said the cost for building stations in South Dakota and Montana were too great with the main studio rule.

One requirement from the main studio rule that remains is that stations will still need to maintain a local or toll-free telephone number to provide ready access for consumers to their local stations.

Pai, along with Commissioner O’Rielly and Commissioner Carr (the FCC's Republicans) approved the elimination. Commissioner Clyburn and Commissioner Rosenworcel (Democrats) dissented.

Outside of the FCC, the NAB has released a statement supporting the FCC’s elimination of the main studio rule, contributed to Dennis Wharton, NAB executive vice president of communications:

“NAB supports elimination of the main studio rule, which has outlived its usefulness in an era of mobile news gathering and multiple content delivery platforms. We’re confident that cost savings realized from ending the main studio rule will be reinvested by broadcasters in better programming and modernized equipment to better serve our local communities. We applaud the FCC for continuing to remove unnecessary and outdated broadcast regulations.”

Others were not as pleased with the decision. Free Press, a nonpartisan organization, who believes that this decision provides clear benefits to the Sinclair Broadcast Group, who is currently seeking to approve a merger between it and Tribune Media, which would see it control more than 233 local TV stations reaching 72 percent of the U.S. population.

“With today's vote Chairman Pai has given another massive handout to his friends and political allies at Sinclair,” said Dana Floberg, Free Press policy analyst. “By eliminating this rule, the commission has blasted open a path for conglomerates like Sinclair to move even more resources—including broadcast facilities and staff—away from underserved communities. The main studio rule was a vital way to preserve broadcast media's local roots and to hold local stations accountable when they fail to serve the people they're licensed to cover.”

WASHINGTON—As the Federal Communications Commission prepares to decide the fate of the main studio requirement, the MMTC has added its voice to a growing number of organizations calling for the eradication of the 78-year-old rule.

According to the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council (MMTC), the main studio rule offers a textbook example of a rule aimed at advancing one laudable objective — advancing localism — that actually undermines the agency’s pursuit of another equally laudable objective — that of promoting diversity.

In a letter to the FCC (which followed a same-day phone call with staff members representing Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel), the MMTC reiterated its stance that the main studio rule is frankly unnecessary and noted that the rule has particularly harmful effects on minority-owned and ethnically programmed stations.

Pointing to data that it released back in 2008, the MMTC study found that minority-owned or ethnically programmed clusters had one third fewer stations per required studio.

“The [main studio rule imposes] a far greater disadvantage on broadcasters who entered the industry later and were thus unable to assemble clusters of stations which each shared the same community of license,” the MMTC said in a filing it submitted along with the data from 2008. This is in effect a “tax on Blackness and Brownness,” said David Honig, MMTC president emeritus and senior advisor, in the Oct. 17 letter.

Requiring broadcasters to keep a brick-and-mortar facility in a community of license hinders investment in minority-owned and/or ethnic programming stations, the group said.

It’s time for a change, Honig said. ’“Technology has rendered the [main studio] rule an anachronism and it is overdue for repeal,” he said.

While the FCC should continue to ensure that all broadcasters provide program service that meets local needs, “the methods by which they do so should be left to the discretion and creativity of broadcasters,” Honig said.

On Tuesday Oct. 24, the FCC plans to address just that. It will formally vote on whether to eliminate the main studio rule, which requires a TV or radio station to maintain a primary studio in its community of license. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has said in the past that the rule was outdated and this move by the Republican-led commission is “another step toward the long-overdue modernization of rules governing the media industry,” he said in a blog post on Oct. 3.

“This requirement dates to 1939 and was enacted in part to ensure that stations would stay accessible and responsive to the public,” Pai said. “But today, this rule is unnecessary; most consumers get in touch with stations over the phone or through electronic means,” pointing to the fact that public inspection files are mostly online and technology enables stations to produce local news without a nearby studio. 

Eliminating the rule will also make it easier for new broadcast stations to operate in small towns and rural communities, Pai said, a notion that MMTC agrees with.

WASHINGTON—The fate of the Main Studio Rule could be determined by the end of the month, as the FCC has revealed that a discussion on eliminating the rule is on the agenda for its October Open Commission Meeting.

The Commission will consider MB Docket No. 17-106, a Report and Order eliminating the rule that requires each AM, FM and television broadcast station to maintain a man studio located in or near its community of license. The Main Studio Rule has been a much debated topic in recent months.

Also on the docket for the October meeting, per the FCC’s press release, is additional support for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; promoting investment in the 3550-3700 MHz band; and updates to rules governing ancilliary/supplementary services and broadcast public notices.

The open meeting will take place on Oct. 24 at 10:30 a.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the FCC. It will also be streamed live at www.fcc.gov/live.

WASHINGTON--Big voices continue to call for elimination of the main studio rule, among them the National Association of Broadcasters.

In a filing with the Federal Communications Commission on whether stations must maintain a main studio near its community of license, the NAB said the rules were unwarranted in relation to the way we communicate today, limit broadcaster’s ability to deploy resources elsewhere and do little to ensure that a station will remain connected to its community of license.

The NAB’s voice is riding a wave of big broadcaster sentiment against the main studio rule, among them National Public Radio, Univision and Cumulus Media.

Rather than assuming that a physical location will ensure licensee involvement, it should be left to marketplace conditions to push stations to engage regularly with their local communities, the NAB said.

The NAB is one of several organizations and large broadcasting groups to point out that the main studio rules were put into place 80 years ago; today, the NAB said, widespread use of electronic communications means that communities can communicate effectively with their stations without the need for a physical presence of a studio.

The NAB hauled out examples: It quoted one general manager who reported that in 39 years, only one person has come to see the public file at one group of stations’ main studio. When one adds that to the fact that stations no longer need to keep a public correspondence file at the main studio, the NAB said that elimination of the main studio rule will have no impact on stations’ connection to their local communities.

“Stations will continue to have strong incentives to know and understand the needs and interests of their communities of license, and the public will continue to interact with their local stations in ways that are not dependent upon the existence of a studio — using social media, telephone, email, letters and websites maintained by both stations and the FCC,” the NAB said in its filing.

Eliminating the main studio rule will also allow broadcasters to determine the most efficient way to operate their stations — whether that is maintaining their current studio or making changes such as deploying staff differently.

Directly addressing those commenters who said elimination of the main studio rule would negatively impact their ability to deliver local programming and services, the NAB said it would instead allow broadcasters to reallocate funds and staff to improve community engagement and coverage of local news and events.

The NAB also believes that a telephone staffing requirement is not necessary and would be unduly burdensome, particularly for smaller stations. Instead, the NAB said, stations should be required to maintain a local or toll-free number.

But other organizations, from REC Networks to individual listeners, have expressed the exact opposite, saying that elimination of the rule would be the final nail in the coffin for anything that resembles real local radio service.

“I have been in small market broadcasting full time for over 40 years, and time and time again I have seen small towns lose their radio stations to corporate interests who move control to nearby regional centers,” said one listeners from Minnesota. “Oh, they say they'll continue use to serve the needs of the community but it doesn't happen.

“Radio's very existence depends on stations serving their local communities, offering programming they can't get anywhere else,” he said. “Moving the studio completely out of a community certainly does not help to achieve that goal.”

Reply comments are still being accepted on the main studio issue through July 17. Commenters should go into the ECFS database using MB Docket No. 17-106.

One in a series of stories about public comments filed with the FCC about whether U.S. broadcasters should still be required to maintain a local main studio.

Why even require a phone number, when an email address would do?

That’s the kind of discussion that has arisen in debate over the main studio rule. For some, the question of whether to repeal that requirement is not just a yes/no decision.

The Federal Communication Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to eliminate the longstanding requirement that stations maintain a properly staffed main studio in or near their communities of license. But the commission also invited alternate ideas and variations.

The National Federation of Independent Business supports small and independent businesses, including broadcasters. It agreed that this change would increase opportunity for small and independent businesses to operate stations efficiently. Eliminating the requirement and the associated staffing and program origination capability requirements opens a range of cost-saving options, it believes.

However, the federation thinks stations should have more flexibility with telephone numbers. The current rules say stations must be required to maintain a local telephone number or toll-free number, and the FCC’s proposal would keep that rule. The association though suggests that each station could provide some sort of means of reasonably communicating, but it could be an email as well as a local or a toll-free number.

Another commenter is REC Networks, a consultancy that does a lot of work with smaller broadcasters including low-power FMs. Founder Michelle Bradley called for “universal” local accountability.

Doing away with a local presence requirement “will result in a major disconnect between the broadcaster and the community that they are licensed to serve,” she wrote. REC said it can understand that maintenance of a brick-and-mortar public location can be a cost burden for stations, including some that REC supports; but the lack of a local person would eliminate a true presence that helps ensure stations connect with listeners. And a toll-free number answered somewhere out of state will not press a station to demonstrate accountability to its community of license, she said.

Bradley suggests that the FCC eliminate the brick-and-mortar requirement but keep a staff requirement. “We feel that every broadcast facility must have a local contact person,” she wrote. This person should be physically within 25 miles of the center of the community of license, REC said. It also asked that the FCC consider applying this local contact requirement to all facilities — including those currently on main studio waivers.

“Licensees with multiple full-service facilities must be required to maintain a management contact person in each of their facility’s local area,” REC said. “This way, if someone wants to contact their local radio station, they are reaching a local person and not the call center in California. … If an owner does not want to be accountable to their community, then we need to stop rubber-stamping renewals and allow the community to truly challenge these out of town owners so they can get their local station back,” REC said.

Comments on the main studio are being accepted in the ECFS database by July 3, with reply comments due by July 17. Refer to MB Docket No. 17-106.

In its NPRM, the commission invited suggestions about other ways to approach the main studio question. “For example, should we only eliminate the rule for a certain subset of stations, such as those that are located in small and mid-sized markets or those that have fewer than a certain number of employees?” it asked. “Commenters advocating this approach should explain with specificity how we should define those stations that will be permitted to eliminate their main studio. We have proposed to eliminate the main studio rule and the associated requirements for all AM, FM and television broadcast stations. Is there any reason to distinguish between our treatment of AM, FM, and television broadcast stations in this context? We also invite comment on alternative ways we can reduce main studio-related burdens on broadcast stations.”

This story originally appeared on TVT's sister publication Radio World. 

WASHINGTON—Many broadcasters have strong opinions about the potential elimination of the main studio rule, but the deadline to share those thoughts with the FCC is coming up.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 2, and the Media Bureau announced that July 3 is the deadline to file comments on MB Docket No. 17-106, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Matter of Elimination of Main Studio Rule. And 15 days later, July 17, is the deadline to submit reply comments.

The commission announced the NPRM on May 18. Read it here. 

This story first appeared on TVT's sister publication, Radio World. 

WASHINGTON—When it comes to the impact that the removal of the main studio rule could have on the broadcast industry, comments run the gamut.

In the Federal Communications Commission’s ECFS comment database, words like “archaic,” “counterproductive” and “outdated” are being used to support elimination of the rule — as are comments like “essential,” “necessarily” and “I want my station to stay local.”

On May 18, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes to eliminate the requirement that each AM, FM and TV broadcast station maintain a main studio located near its community of license and that it be properly staffed.

“This is 2017. This is the electronic and digital era,” said Randal J. Miller, president of Kaskaskia Broadcasting and of Miller Communications, licensees of AM and FM stations and translators across Illinois.

“It is rare that a person comes to any of our buildings seeking information on our stations or submitting information to air,” Miller said in the first comments filed in ECFS on the issue. He called for elimination of the main studio rules for AM and FM broadcast radio stations, including the staffing and program origination requirements.

“Most, if not all, of that communication is by email, through our websites, or by phone,” he said.

For small-market broadcasters, the opportunity to eliminate costs for associated staffing and program origination capability requirements will enable those stations to allocate greater resources to programming, Miller said. “[This rule’s] time has definitely passed,” he said.

Others agreed. These rules constitute an unnecessary regulatory burden in the context of today’s connected community, said Dennis Jackson, owner of stations WCLX(FM), WPUT(FM), WQQQ(FM) and WRIP(FM), licensed to towns in New York and Connecticut..

These rules are ripe for elimination assuming stations meet two fundamental requirements, he said: that the station’s public file is posted online, and the station maintains a toll-free number in its community of license to allow the public to reach station personnel.

The same sentiment was expressed by Great Plains Media, who said in a comment filing that the main studio and staffing rules are outdated, anachronistic and a considerable unnecessary economic burden.

The cost to maintain main studio staffing and toll-free access phone lines for KMXN(FM) in Osage City, Kansas, amounts to some $5,000 per year, while the in-person requests to view the public file or other operational information for those five years totals exactly zero, said Gary C. Liebling, chief operator for the station, in comments with the FCC.

“For small-market broadcasters, it is a considerable financial hardship to maintain the existing required main studio and support personnel,” he said.

Others were not so sanguine about scrapping the rule.

Aurora Broadcasting said it strongly opposes a blanket repeal of the main studio rule. The reason the licensee gave was the same reason that spurred FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn to express concerns about a blanket repeal: the importance of a local connection.

“While technology has made some aspects of program creation more easily centralized, maintaining local presence is essential to keeping local radio relevant amongst increasing competition,” said Aurora Broadcasting President Matthew Butler, which is licensee of WMSM(AM).

Contrary to what some believe, Butler said, the removal of main studios will not increase investment in or renew focus on local programming concerns. Rather, the removal of a local presence will further disconnect radio stations from their communities of license.

“It has already been seen as a result of consolidation that smaller stations have been moved into group studios and focused on more lucrative metropolitan areas,” he said.

In smaller markets, the local studio performs a valuable function by allowing for interaction with the public and increased coverage of local issues — with community members routinely bringing in public service and news items, being interviewed on-air and interacting with sales and production departments, he said.

The costs of maintaining a local presence are not only reasonable, but also beneficial to broadcaster's relationship to their communities and broadcast radio as a local medium, Butler said. “In fact, our local presence ensures we stand apart from our digital competitors and reminds our audiences and advertisers daily that we view our license as a public interest and trust.”

Comments on the issue are being accepted in the ECFS database using MB Docket No. 17-106.

This story originally appeared on TVT's sister publication Radio World. 

WASHINGTON—On Thursday the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would eliminate the Main Studio Rule. In response, the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council released a statement supporting the commission’s decision.

The MMTC wrote that the FCC’s action will “favorably impact minority broadcasters by removing an archaic rule that historically has worked to their disadvantage.”

The Main Studio Rule dates back to 1946 and required that all full-power broadcasters maintain a studio either within their city of license, or at another site either within 25 miles of the city of license or within the city-grade contour of any station licensed to the same city of license as the station.

MMTC filed comments a year ago to the FCC urging it to repeal the Main Studio Rule, citing that the rule “locks in the present effects of past discrimination against minority licensees.” The organization noted that minority and ethnic broadcasters were at a disadvantage to broadcasters who were able to enter the industry earlier, as well as larger broadcasters who had a single studio for all of their stations. The MMTC also said the main studio staffing requirements were detrimental and no longer served a purpose once unattended station operation was permitted via another FCC rule.

“The Commission’s NPRM—adopted today by a vote of 3-0—is a welcome step in the direction of removing this disproportionately unfavorable, anti-minority market entry barrier,” MMTC wrote in its statement.

The full statement is available here.

WASHINGTON—It’s an idea that could bring major change to the way that broadcast businesses manage their facilities, staff and content distribution.

The Federal Communications Commission has formally released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, proposing to eliminate the main studio rule. It requires each AM, FM and television broadcast station to have a main studio in or near its local community. The commission had indicated earlier that it planned to do so as new Chairman Ajit Pai moves quickly to pursue his agenda of removing what he sees as outdated or unnecessary regulations, which he outlined at NAB.

The proposal would be a major change, removing a business restriction that U.S. broadcasters have taken as a given for decades yet chafed under. The notice also proposes to eliminate the requirement that the main studio have full-time management and staff present during normal business hours and the requirement that it be able to originate programming.

“The main studio rule, which the FCC adopted more than 70 years ago, was originally implemented on the premise that local access to the main studio facilitated input from community members and the station’s participation in community activities,” the commission stated Thursday.

“Today, modern communications enable stations and community members to interact more directly, without the presence of a local broadcast studio. In addition, community members already, or soon will, have online access to a station’s public file, removing the need for community members to visit the main studio to access the file. Television broadcasters completed their transition to the online public file in 2014, and radio broadcasters will complete their transition by early 2018.”

In commenting on the vote, which all three commissioners approved, Pai gave the example of a broadcaster in Minnesota who would like to build out a construction permit for an AM station in a nearby town, but who told Pai that the “Main Studio Rule is a killer; the cost to maintain a staff—it would make the construction of this facility a ticket of doom.” Read Pai’s full statement below.

Docket number on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is No. 17-106.

Below is the text of Chairman Pai’s statement on the action:

Re: Elimination of Main Studio Rule, MB Docket No. 17-106. The first commercial radio broadcast in the United States took place in Pittsburgh on November 2, 1920. That night, KDKA reported the results of the presidential election between Warren Harding and James Cox. The studio used for that broadcast was a tiny, makeshift wooden shack on top of the Westinghouse Company’s plant in East Pittsburgh.

Broadcast studios have changed a lot over the last 90-plus years—including KDKA’s, which I’ve had the privilege to visit. And so too have the purposes that a studio serves. That brings us to the FCC’s main studio rule.

The FCC first conceived the main studio rule almost 80 years ago. The rule requires each AM, FM, and television broadcast station to maintain a main studio located in or near its community of license. Back then, perhaps, this made sense. Local access to a station’s main studio enabled the local public to provide input, and it allowed stations to participate in community activities. But today, the rule appears outdated, unnecessary, and unduly burdensome. Community access and engagement remain important in the digital era, but technology has rendered physical studios unnecessary for those purposes. That’s because such activities are much more likely to occur via social media, email, or phone rather than through an in-person visit to a broadcast studio.

Furthermore, broadcasters have shown that the main studio rule is a continuous cost that keeps them from serving their local communities in meaningful ways, like broadcasting additional local programming. Recently, a broadcaster in Minnesota wrote to me saying that the “archaic” rule has “outlived [its] usefulness.” He added that he’d like to build out his construction permit for an AM station in a nearby town, but that the “Main Studio Rule is a killer; the cost to maintain a staff—it would make the construction of this facility a ticket of doom.” Unfortunately, despite his belief that he’d be able to air meaningful local content without a main studio, it appears that the cost of complying with the rule may make it hard for him to extend service to that nearby community.

The proceeding we begin today could grant this broadcaster and all others affected by this rule the flexibility to use their limited resources in a way that best serves their communities.

Today’s Notice is an important step towards bringing the FCC’s media rules into the digital age. And for that, we have Michelle Carey, Martha Heller, Holly Saurer, and Diana Sokolow from the Media Bureau to thank. We will continue to rely on your expertise as we move forward with modernizing many more media rules to reflect today’s marketplace.

The author is owner at the law firm Garvey Schubert Barer.

For more than 50 years, the Federal Communications Commission has required radio and television stations to maintain a “main studio” within or near their communities of license. This requirement may have made sense decades ago, but today it imposes unjustified costs, while doing nothing to ensure the original goal of the law — local content and programming.

That’s why we filed a petition with the FCC a few weeks ago asking the commission to get rid of the Main Studio Rule, and now the FCC chairman himself has announced that he agrees and plans to launch a rulemaking at the commission’s May 18 meeting.

Here are three reasons why the Main Studio Rule must go:

THERE WILL BE NO IMPACT ON BROADCASTERS’ “BEDROCK” PUBLIC INTEREST OBLIGATIONS 

Eliminating the Main Studio Rule will not reduce or remove broadcasters’ “bedrock” obligation to serve the needs and interests of their local communities. Instead, the commission must recognize the technological and economic realities of today’s broadcast marketplace — stations can serve their communities while realizing substantial and necessary cost savings; and that most listeners and viewers contact their local stations by telephone, email or online.

Furthermore, the commission has already eliminated the underlying local program origination requirement and, more recently, has provided that licensees must make their public files available entirely online, thereby further undermining any rationale for maintaining a local main studio location.

GETTING RID OF THE MAIN STUDIO RULE WILL HELP SMALL STATIONS REMAIN COMPETITIVE

As the commission acknowledged as far back as 1987, the broadcasting industry continues to face challenges from dramatic changes, including radical competitive, financial and technological transformations.

The current rule places a significant financial burden on small stations, which must devote scarce resources to maintaining their main studios during business hours and employing full-time managerial and staff personnel. Also, many co-owned stations are unable to realize efficiencies that would come from co-locating their operations and offices.

At NAB Show in Las Vegas, Chairman Pai singled out the main studio rule as “outdated” and acknowledged that “technical innovations have rendered local studios unnecessary.” And Commissioner O’Rielly recently commented that eliminating or severely modifying the rule could not only “allow for cost savings that could make a real difference for some stations,” but also could provide stations “a security dividend through more efficient channeling of public access.”

MODERN TECHNOLOGY MAKES THE RULE OBSOLETE

Commissioner O’Rielly has pointed out that the justification for the Main Studio Rule has been “significantly weakened” due to the public’s virtually universal choice to contact their local stations via telephone or online. In fact, this change in consumer preference has been recognized by the commission in rulemakings since at least 1987.

The modern reality of, and overwhelming preference for, remote communication will allow stations to continue to be responsive to local interests and concerns — and to do so without the added regulatory cost of maintaining a main studio.

Normal competitive marketplace forces will ensure that stations remain accessible and responsive to their audiences, but will do so through today’s modern communications channels.

As the FCC noted when it moved the public inspection files online, the “evolution of the internet and the spread of broadband infrastructure have transformed the way society accesses information today. It is no longer reasonable to require the public to travel to a station or headquarters’ office to review the public file and make paper copies when a centralized, online file will permit review with a quick, easy, and almost costless internet search.”

The commission has already eliminated most, if not all, of the primary justifications for the Main Studio Rule — including the program origination requirement, public inspection file location and the local correspondence file rule.

All that remains is an arcane requirement that has come unmoored from its underlying policy rationales, and therefore no longer serves the public interest. When the commission launches its rulemaking proceeding on May 18, every broadcaster should strongly consider filing comments to let the FCC know — loud and clear — that it’s finally time to eliminate the Main Studio Rule.