The Consumer Technology Association told the Federal Communications Commission last week that it believes the current Emergency Alert System is highly effective and, if expanded, could create more problems than it solves.

The association’s comments were in response to an NPRM issued by the commission last month in which it said it would explore whether fundamental changes to the Emergency Alert System—which provides emergency alerts to the public via radio, television, satellite and cable systems, and Wireless Emergency Alerts—which provide emergency alerts to supported mobile devices—would make them more effective, efficient, and better able to serve the public’s needs

The CTA told the commission that while it appreciated its efforts towards reassessing the state of emergency alerting in the U.S., adding more regulations to current rules would be expensive and time-consuming.

“Expanding EAS and WEA beyond the media and devices they reach now would require overcoming resource-intensive and complicated technical hurdles, while duplicating the alerting that the public already receives,” the CTA said in its filing. “Because the public safety community has expressed concern with alert fatigue, avoiding unintended consequences also requires the careful evaluation of any new requirements and guidelines.”

With nearly all Americans (98% as of 2024) owning a cellphone, CTA said the current system works well.

“The integration of wireless phones into consumers’ lives means that the shift in behavior from traditional television and radio to online media and connected devices does not frustrate the alerting ‘systems’ objectives of widespread public notification about emergencies,” the association told the FCC.

The CTA added that “most Americans receive emergency and public safety information through WEA to mobile devices, not terrestrial radio or broadcast television.”

When a combined WEA-EAS test was conducted in October 2023, the association conducted a survey to determine how Americans received the emergency alerts, and found that approximately 245 million U.S. adults (95%) received or heard the emergency alert via their phone. Specifically, 92% of U.S. adults (approximately 237 million) indicated they received the alert through their smartphone.

“The results of this survey illustrate the ubiquity of cellphones and smartphones and the effectiveness of the WEA system in reaching device users,” the CTA said.

Even when watching TV or listening to the radio, consumers usually have their mobile devices close by, CTA added.

“Consistent with CTA’s 2023 nationwide test survey findings, other data also indicate that most people watch television while engaging with a second screen such as a phone or tablet,” CTA said. “Thus, even if a person streams television content or other forms of entertainment not capable of receiving EAS, WEA could still successfully notify the individual of an emergency using a nearby cellphone or cellular-connected/paired wearable.”

Although the CTA all but dismissed broadcast alerts as obsolete, it did admit that because the current EAS model is built on broadcast-based architecture, adding new rules would cause technical barriers because most OTT services stream content on-demand and not live.

“Over-the-top (OTT) streaming and other internet services are different in fundamental ways from broadcast technologies, creating challenges to the technical feasibility of using such services to transmit EAS alerts," CTA said. "Many OTT services cannot broadcast real-time content, limiting their ability to transmit real-time alerts, or only allowing them to do so on a limited basis.

“These OTT services are more accurately described as on-demand file services with content on the edge of networks or in content delivery networks,” the CTA added. “Such services are not designed to broadcast real-time or near-real-time content like EAS alerts,“ the consumer electronics trade group continued. “Effectively transmitting internet alerts would also require gathering, analyzing, targeting and parsing location information beyond the current EAS capabilities. Many streaming services and internet-connected devices do not have or are not designed to transmit content based on location in the way that EAS alerts require. EAS participants and relay stations directly transmit to a specific geographic area based on the location of the participants and relevant stations, such as the relevant state or locality. Many internet-connected devices, in contrast, do not readily identify their location beyond country or world region.”

The fragmented nature of viewing SVOD services on multiple devices is another technical hurdle, CTA said.

“Multiple users on the same account in more than one location can often use a streaming service simultaneously, complicating the targeting of local and state alerts,” the association said. “Using a service in multiple, disparate locations presents a challenge to the precise location targeting of the vast majority of alerts, such as during hurricanes and other weather events.”

Unlike broadcast, which uses standards such as ATSC 1.0 or 3.0 that ensure compatibility, streaming devices do not, CTA said, adding another technical burden.

“Ensuring interoperability among the different streaming technologies and EAS is another obstacle to technical feasibility,” CTA said. “Streaming companies do not have a 'core technology' to use to transmit EAS alerts, unlike traditional ATSC 1.0 broadcasting or the Advanced Emergency Alert in ATSC 3.0. The large variety of internet-capable end-user devices provides an additional challenge for ensuring compatibility with a uniform format for EAS transmissions.”

The association suggested that the FCC may have bitten off more than it could chew in the current notice of proposed rulemaking.

“Given the high-level nature of the inquiries in the NPRM, CTA anticipates that a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would be appropriate to allow industry and other stakeholders to evaluate and comment on any specific new requirements and identify implementation challenges,” the association said. “If the Commission develops new proposals, CTA urges the Commission to refrain from proposing any user interface or equipment mandates, which risk both exceeding the FCC’s legal authority and stifling innovation by locking in regulator-dictated design choices. In addition, any new rules should provide a sufficient implementation period, as well as provide for waivers, including class waivers, where appropriate.”

WASHINGTON—The FCC has launched a public inquiry into updating the rules that guide the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, noting that a recent increase in consumer complaints warrants the commission to take a “second look.”

FCC Chairman Carr announced his intentions to revisit the Act earlier this month and at its February meeting on Thursday, all four current members voted to approve the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 25-16). (President Trump’s nomination for the sixth member, Olivia Trusty, is awaiting Congressional approval).

Although the vote was unanimous, Commissioner Geoffrey Starks raised issues about the NPRM, noting that the commission’s initial desire to extend the rules to streaming could conflict with the Act’s original focus, which was on broadcast TV.

“Many of the complaints that triggered this item were against streaming providers,” Starks said during the commission’s meeting on Thursday. “While the Commission has generally considered these providers to be outside the scope of our authority, at least under the Communications Act, this item seeks comment on our authority to extend commercial loudness requirements to these providers, under either the CALM Act or the CVAA. I believe this would be a new reading of these laws… so we must tread carefully.”

Starks thanked Carr for eliminating the streaming provision.

“Addressing commercial loudness regulations must not— like the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing—morph into this Commission expanding its authority to cover streamers in other, more substantive areas,” he said. “I expressed these concerns to my colleagues, and I want to thank the Chairman for agreeing to my edits that make two things clear. First, that this item proposes no specific regulations on streaming providers. And second, that the Commission will not proceed with any such regulation against any streaming provider without first seeking public comment in a subsequent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – not today’s NPRM. We must provide ample notice and develop a substantial record in order to justify any future novel action."

Congress passed the CALM Act in 2010 and by 2012, the FCC implemented rules requiring television stations, cable operators, and satellite video providers to ensure that commercials are transmitted at appropriate volume levels. The FCC says it initially saw a decrease in the number of consumer complaints after these rules became effective. Over the past several years the Commission received thousands of complaints about loud commercials on broadcast, cable, and satellite television, but the high number of complaints took a troubling jump last year, which warrants a second look, the commission said.

“Today’s action seeks input from consumers and industry on the extent to which the CALM Act rules are effective in controlling and preventing loud commercials on programming provided by television broadcasters and pay TV providers like cable and satellite. The NPRM also considers what actions the Commission, industry, or standard developers could take to further minimize consumer harm,” the commission said.

Carr chimed in.

“If there’s one thing TV viewers hate more than annoying commercials, it would be loud, annoying commercials,” Chairman Carr said. “And judging from my own experiences talking recently with neighbors and relatives at family gatherings, this issue is top of mind for a lot of people—second only, perhaps, to concerns about robocalls. I want you to know that I hear you clear and loud. And I want to see what the FCC can do to help. After all, this is not the first time this issue has come up. Back in 2010, Congress provided the viewing public with some relief from these audio assaults when it passed a law called the CALM Act. Then in 2011, the Commission adopted rules to implement this law in an effort to eliminate the scourge of shouty ads at volumes far above normal listening levels.

“In the years immediately following the FCC’s adoption of those rules, consumer complaints about loud commercials dropped significantly. But unfortunately, in recent years, as my own experience confirms, we’ve seen an uptick in consumer complaints. So today, my FCC colleagues and I are taking action.”

The FCC is seeking public comment on whether the commission should require cable and satellite pay-TV providers to refund subscribers who face programming blackouts on their cable or satellite television subscription. 

In its “Customer Rebates for Undelivered Video Programming During Blackouts” NPRM, the FCC took note of the increasing rate of local TV station blackouts between station groups and pay-TV providers. The release of the NPRM is the second of two proposals targeting blackouts FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel previewed last fall; the first proposal targeting reporting rules for blackouts was dropped late last year. 

While blackouts have increased in frequency over the years, they get more notice during the NFL season, and in particular the playoffs—now in full swing—so announcing such a proposal now is more likely to get attention.

“Over the past decade, subscribers have faced an increasing number of programming blackouts because their cable operators and satellite television providers have failed to reach “retransmission consent” agreements for carriage of local broadcast stations with the licensees of those stations,” the commission said in a statement. “Even though those subscribers lose access to video programming that they expect to receive, they do not always receive a rebate for the loss of service.  The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on whether and how to require cable and satellite providers to issue rebates to subscribers in the event of a blackout.” 

Rosenworcel added her two cents:

“When viewers lose the ability to watch the local news, their favorite show or sports team on their cable or satellite service because of a retransmission blackout, they are not getting what they paid for,” she said. “And that’s not right. That’s why we’re starting a conversation about the best way to ensure that when viewers turn on that screen, they get what they pay for.”

The proposal got some pushback from Republicans on the commission, including Nathan Simington who said the proposal creates "zero consumer welfare," noting that many consumers aren't even aware when blackouts occur or when they're resolved and that, in many cases rebate amounts would be so small, it's not worth the bureaucracy it would take to impose such a policy.

"Is the consumer who may not have even noticed the blackout made whole, or do they get a couple of bucks' worth of credit on their next bill that they didn't anticipate, don't understand, and may call about?" Simington mused. "And does the sports fan who was deeply impacted and personally offended by the blackout feel satisfied with a rebate that gives him change back from a Costco hot dog? (And, recall, this is more than consumers are likely to get for a time increment like this once this scheme is implemented.) "

"And yet this will be the new normal as it relates to blackout rebates: a confusing, yet fairly distributed, pittance that costs money to administer, creates consumer confusion, and makes literally not one consumer psychologically whole—at the expense, to be clear, of marginally higher MVPD costs driven by marginally higher retransmission consent rates that I have every reason to expect will swamp whatever consumer welfare could have even arguably been contained in this item."

Pay-TV advocate American Television Alliance issued a statement, noting that 200 blackouts occurred in 2023 alone and criticizing broadcasters' "greed," that has seen retrans fees increase by "1,529%" since 2010. 

“Every single service disruption involving broadcast stations occurs because broadcasters want consumers to pay more money and cable and satellite providers want consumers to pay less money,” said ATVA spokesperson Cora Mandy. “So, in proposing to require cable and satellite companies to offer refunds when they refuse to meet broadcasters' outrageous pricing demands, the FCC seeks to punish the wrong set of parties. In doing so, it will cause higher bills for the consumers it hopes to protect.”   

This proposal is the latest consumer protection effort from the FCC under Chairwoman Rosenworcel. In addition to its NPRM on new rules on reporting station blackouts, the commission and has also proposed requiring “all-in” pricing information in cable and satellite billing and promotional materials, and limiting junk fees—like early termination fees—on cable and satellite services.

Specifically, the FCC wants feedback on how cable and satellite pay-TV providers currently handle blackouts and what methodology to calculate the rebate amount, and perhaps most importantly, whether the FCC has the authority to impose such blackout rules on cable and satellite TV. This could perhaps provide a preview of how such authority could be expanded to cover so-called “virtual” MVPDs like Hulu+ Live, Sling TV and Youtube TV, services that mimic pay-TV packages but are currently exempt from retransmission rules. 

WASHINGTON—The FCC is moving forward with a new proposal that would update the disclosure requirements for content that is paid for by a foreign government, and is now seeking comments on the issue.

Following a proposal by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai in September, the FCC unanimously adopted the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would establish new requirements for foreign-sponsored programming on TV and radio. Altering section 73.1212 of the commission’s rules, the proposal requires a specific disclosure at the time of broadcast if a foreign government entity has paid, directly or indirectly, to air material, or if the programming was provided for free as an inducement to broadcast the material.

As to what would fall under this new requirement, the FCC laid out five examples. 1) a “government of a foreign country” as defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA); 2) a “foreign political party” as defined by FARA; 3) an entity or individual registered as and acting as an “agent of a foreign principal” under FARA; 4) an entity designated as a “foreign mission” under the Foreign Missions Act; or 5) any entity meeting the definition of a “U.S.-based foreign media outlet.”

The FCC would also provide standardized disclosure language for stations to use in such instances to specifically identify the foreign government involved: “The [following/preceding] programming was paid for, or furnished, either in whole or in part, by [name of foreign government entity] on behalf of [name of foreign country].” 

The disclosure must occur at the time of broadcast—at the beginning and end—and be displayed in letters equal to or greater than 4% of the vertical picture height and visible for not less than four seconds. For programming longer than an hour, it must appear at least once per hour.

The FCC says that it has not updated its sponsorship identification rules since 1963. “With the passage of nearly 60 years and the growing concerns with foreign government-provided programming, the time is ripe to update our sponsorship identification rules. The instant NPRM seeks to ensure that, consistent with our statutory mandate, foreign government program sponsorship over the airwaves is evident to the American Public,” the NPRM reads.

FCC Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks, the commissions’ Democrats, were the only commissioners to release statements on the NPRM. Both said that dangers of foreign-sponsored government providing misinformation, particular in regards to elections or the overall democratic process, is a chief reason for the need of an updated proposal.

“... [I]t’s mindboggling that the FCC has yet to update its policies under Section 317 to ensure that the public knows when foreign actors who may wish to us harm are paying to access our airwaves and influence our citizens,” said Rosenworcel.

Interested parties can now file comments on the NPRM within 30 days of the NPRM’s publication in the Federal Register (Oct. 26); reply comments are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

The full NPRM is available online. 

WASHINGTON—A proposal to establish new disclosure requirements for broadcast TV and radio content sponsored or provided by foreign governments has been made by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.

Pai’s proposal comes in the form of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which would amend section 73.1212 of the FCC’s rules to require a specific disclosure at the time of a broadcast if a foreign governmental entity provided the content.

The current rules, according to the commission’s announcement, do not specify how and when foreign government sponsorship of content should be disclosed to the public. The proposed rules would provide standardized disclosure language for stations to use in such instances to specifically identify the foreign government involved.

“American TV viewers and radio listeners have the right to know if a foreign government is behind the programming they are consuming,” said Pai. “With some station content coming from the likes of China and Russia, it is time to update our rules and shed more sunlight on these practices. I hope my colleagues will act quickly to approve this proposal so we can help the American public be informed when they may be watching or listening to foreign-government propaganda.”

The existing rules date back to the Radio Act of 1927 and were designed to prohibit stations from disguising advertising as program content, the FCC says. Pai believes that these new rules would expand transparency by applying it to foreign government and political parties.

WASHINGTON—The FCC has set a timeline for interested parties to share their thoughts on new “broadcast internet” services that can be part of the transition to the ATSC 3.0 NextGen TV standard, asking for all comments due on or before Aug.  17.

The commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on June 9 that seeks comment on whether or how existing rules should be clarified or modified to promote ancillary services that emerge during the transition to NextGen TV. In the NPRM, the FCC says it “seeks to promote and preserve free, universally available, local broadcast television by providing a clear regulatory landscape that permits licensees the flexibility to succeed in a competitive market and incentivizes the most efficient use of prime spectrum.”

PLUS: What Is 'Broadcast Internet?'

Specifically, this includes general comments on the potential new uses of the new technological capability, as well as any current regulatory barriers to deployment. The commission then wants to know if any changes or clarifications are needed to the ancillary and supplementary service fee rules and the rules defining derogation of service and analogous service.

“In doing so, we seek to encourage the robust usage of broadcast television spectrum capacity for the provision of broadcast internet services consistent with statutory directives,” the FCC said.

In the late '90's at the beginning of the DTV transition, the commission set in place rules that allowed broadcasters to provide ancillary services within their digital signal (most of which took the form of "diginets") that incurred a fee on revenues from these services. The commission is seeking to revise these rules in its broadcast internet proceedings. 

Already, industry organizations like NAB and American Public Television Stations have issued thoughts on broadcast internet. The FCC has even already come out and said that current TV ownership rules do not apply to these new services. But this opportunity will allow for official comments submitted to the commission.

Comments can be filed electronically over the internet using the FCC’s ECFS system, or as a paper filing, though the FCC now has only one paper filing location available.

Again, the deadline for submitting comments is going to be Aug. 17; reply comments will then be due on or before Aug. 31.

The official NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 16. 

WASHINGTON—The FCC is eyeing an expansion of its video description rules that would benefit blind or visually impaired viewers in 40 markets by 2025.

The 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 had the FCC to adopt rules requiring certain TV broadcast stations and MVPDs to provide video descriptions—inserted audio that describes key visual elements in between dialogue—for a portion of video programming they offer.

Under the current rules, broadcast TV stations in the top 60 markets are required to provide video descriptions. The new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking from the FCC would expand the number of markets offering video descriptions by 40 over a four year period—10 a year starting Jan. 1, 2021. This would apply to TV markets 61-100. The NPRM also proposes that the costs be looked at for further expanding video description rules to markets 101 and beyond in 2023.

In addition, the NPRM seeks to modernize terminology in the FCC’s regulations to use “audio descriptions” rather than “video description,” a change it says would more accurately reflect industry standards and consumer expectations.

The NPRM was based on a recommendation from the FCC’s Disability Advisory Committee.

For more information, read the official NPRM (MB Docket No. 11-43) on www.fcc.gov.  

WASHINGTON—The FCC today adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would modernize its Distributed Transmission System rules to enable TV broadcasters to enhance coverage from NextGen TV (ATSC 3.0) single frequency network on the edge of coverage areas.

“America’s Public Television Stations applaud the action taken today by the FCC, a welcome endorsement of changes in the current rules that will allow broadcast television stations to unlock the benefits of NextGen TV through DTS operations that better serve their viewers while preserving their commitment to localism and avoiding interference issues,” said Patrick Butler, president and CEO of APTS.

The NPRM seeks comment on technical changes proposed by APTS and NAB to the agency’s rules to allow—with certain limits—signals from SFN sites to “spill over” beyond the authorized service area of a station “by more than the ‘minimal amount’ currently allowed” by the rules, the FCC said.

In an October 2019 rulemaking petition filed by APTS and NAB, the organizations asked the FCC to permit stations to deploy SFNs in which the noise limited service contour (NLC) of a DTS transmitter “may exceed the reference facility’s (i.e. the station’s primary transmitter’s) NLC. However, in the case of UHF stations, the 36 dBu F(50, 10) interference contour of a DTS transmitter may not exceed reference facility’s 36 dBu F(50, 10) contour.

The petition noted that the value was proposed because it will ensure interference protection for co-channel Class A and LPTV station operators. Similar interference avoidance was proposed for low- and high-VHF channels.

“These small changes will improve coverage throughout local public television stations’ service areas and improve their ability to offer robust mobile service. It will also enhance spectrum efficiency by reducing the need for television translators operating on redundant channels,” said Butler.

NAB and APTS noted in its petition that the proposed changes are needed to allow broadcasters and viewers alike to benefit fully from the potential of ATSC 3.0. 

In its NPRM, the agency seeks comment on whether it should change its spillover limits. “In particular, we seek comment on Petitioners’ claim that such a rule change is needed now as the industry embarks on ATSC 3.0 deployment,” the NPRM said. The commission is also seeking comment on whether to adopt the 36 dBu F(50, 10) interference contour as the limiting contour for spillover.

The FCC also seeks comment on the Comparable Area Approach adopted as part of its 2008 DTS Order and whether to retain it as part of its 2017 NextGen TV Order. It also wants to know if the proposal would make it possible for broadcasters to serve additional areas without going through a competitive bidding process, and seeks comment on how such changes would affect the agency’s policy goal of promoting localism.

NAB welcomed news of the NPRM. “NAB applauds the Commission for proposing deployment of single frequency networks allowing broadcasters to better serve viewers while preserving our commitment to localism,” said NAB President and CEO Gordon Smith. “These SFNs could improve service throughout a station’s coverage area and, in particular, near the edge of the coverage area. SFNs could also improve mobile reception and allow more efficient use of broadcast spectrum. FCC staff is to be commended for moving this item quickly, and we look forward to establishment of final rules.”

The NPRM is available on the FCC website.

WASHINGTON—The FCC has some proposed changes on the table to the rules governing the resolution of programming disputes between video programming vendors and MVPDs, like cable and satellite operators, and is now seeking comments on them.

The two proposed changes cover the statute of limitations for program carriage disputes and the rule governing review of initial decisions of program carriage disputes by an FCC administrative law judge.

In regards to statute of limitations, the proposed change would have the statute of limitations be triggered when a defendant MVPD has denied or failed to acknowledge a request for program carriage, rather than at the notice of intent to file a complaint on that basis. For consistency, the FCC also proposes to similarly revise the statutes of limitations for program access, open video system and good-father retransmission consent complaints.

The other proposal eyes to “harmonize the review procedures of ALJ decisions regarding program carriage, program access and OVC complaints with the commission’s generally applicable review procedures,” the FCC said. The goal is to make the procedures more consistent and encourage the timely resolution of program carriage disputes, per the FCC.

This is another effort by the FCC in the Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative.

These proposals were combined in a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 20-39). The vote was approved unanimously by Chairman Ajit Pai and the FCC commissioners.

WASHINGTON—The FCC could be opening up TV white spaces to a wider range of devices if proposed changes go through.

In response to a petition field by Microsoft, the FCC has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (passed unanimously among Chairman Ajit Pai and the commissioners) that would update the FCC’s rules to allow “for more robust service and efficient use of white space devices particularly in rural areas, without increasing the risk of harmful interference to protected services in the TV bands.”

White space refers to the portions of the broadcast television bands that are not used by TV stations, which proponents for these rules believe can be used to provide improved broadband coverage for rural Americans.

The specifics of the NPRM includes allowing higher transmit power and antenna height above average terrain for fixed white space devices in less congested geographic areas to create greater reach by white space devices. It would also permit higher power mobile operation within defined geographical areas and revise the rules to provide flexibility for these devices to participate in the Internet of Things.

The FCC is now seeking comment on methods that could be used to allow higher power operation by white space devices when adjacent TV channels are occupied.

The debate over white space has been developing for several months, with broadcasters open to collaboration, but clear that their services should not be interfered with.

Dennis Wharton, NAB executive vice president of communications, issued the following statement on the FCC’s NPRM:

“The NPRM the FCC has adopted reflects significant discussion and compromise. We hope the commission will continue to pursue a consensus-based approach in this proceeding, and we hope the commission will move swiftly.”

Connect Americans Now Executive Director Richard T. Cullen had his own statement praising the FCC for this action.

“By supporting innovative solutions, like TV white space, as part of a mixed-technology approach, more of America’s farmers and ranchers will be able to capitalize on advancements in precision agriculture that can increase yields and conserve resources; more seniors and veterans will have access to telehealth solutions that can reduce costs and enhance quality of life; more students will be empowered to reach their full potential out from behind the homework gap; and economic opportunity can be increased in thousands of rural communities. With so much at stake, we encourage the commission to move swiftly to finalize and implement rules in 2020 that support greater utilization of TV white space to enhance the pace, scale and cost-effectiveness of rural broadband deployments.”

WASHINGTON—FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and all of his commissioners were in agreement that it is time to consider eliminating the 30-day window cable operators are currently required to provide customers of a potential change to their cable service.

Voted on during the FCC’s December Open Meeting, this decision results in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that will seek comment on whether to change the rules that require cable operators providers to notify subscribers 30 days in advance in regards to service changes related to programming or retransmission issues (i.e. blackouts) to instead doing so “as soon as possible.”

In addition, the NPRM will also seek comments on removing what the FCC described as redundant rules regarding notifications cable operators must provide local franchise authorities.

Many retransmission deals are completed in the final hour before the previous agreement is set to expire. Pai believes that changing the notification time to as soon as possible would help eliminate confusion among customers.

However, though all commissioners supported the NPRM, Commissioner Geoffrey Stark did have some reservations.

“This NPRM proposes to amend our statutorily mandated consumer protection rules in a way that, I fear, could result in less information being shared with consumers and more unwelcome surprises in the form of blacked out channels and lost service,” said Starks.

Starks, according to his statement, decided to vote for the NPRM after Chairman Pai added questions about potential consumer harm that could result from a customer learning about a blackout after it had already begun.

The other commissioners supported the initiative and were able to add questions to the NPRM that they believe would provide more critical information.

No deadline for comments has been set as of yet.

For more information on the NPRM, visit the FCC website.

WASHINGTON—Times have changed since 1945, and the FCC wants to make sure that it is keeping up with those changes, seeking to update many of its media rules that may no longer be relevant. The latest such attempt comes with rules dealing with who has access to antenna sites.

The commission announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (MB Docket No. 19-282) on Friday, Oct. 25, seeking comment on whether current rules originally crafted in 1945 should be eliminated or revised. Specifically, the rules prohibit the grant, or renewal, of a license for a TV or FM station if the applicant or licensee controls an antenna site that is suitable for broadcasting in the area and does not make the site available for use by other similar licensees.

The FCC says that since the rules were introduced, there has been an increase in antenna sites suitable for broadcasting, a majority of which it says are owned by non-broadcast entities. Calling them “rarely invoked,” the FCC seeks comment on whether the rules are necessary in today’s environment to promote competition and a variety of broadcast sources.

All five commissioners approved of the NPRM.

“These rules date back to 1945,” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. “At the time, there was a freeze on broadcast station construction in order to conserve equipment and material needed for World War II. The commission was also concerned about developing the still-nascent FM radio and TV services at a time when broadcasters were still the predominant antenna site owners. But that was a long, long time ago; today there are abundant FM and TV stations, the tower site market is flourishing and commission staff has been unable to find a single instance where these rules were successfully invoked. What they have found are parties citing these rules without a factual basis for doing so, resulting in unnecessary delay of commission proceedings.”

“We must keep up the effort to free traditional, regulated industries from regulatory burdens where appropriate; otherwise, they will continue to fight with one, or both, of their proverbial hands tied behind their backs,” wrote commissioner Michael O’Rielly in his statement.

No deadline for comments has been given at this time.

WASHINGTON—Interested parties have about a month to make their comments known about the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding notification rules for cable and satellite TV providers, specifically transitioning the requirement of some paper notifications to email delivery. The FCC has set a comment deadline of Sept. 4; reply comments are then due by Sept. 19.

The FCC originally voted on the above NPRM on July 10, but it was published in the Federal Register as of Monday, Aug. 5., which adhering to the commission’s traditional deadlines of 30 and 45 days for comments and reply comments, sets the deadlines to the dates mentioned above.

Currently, upon starting service in a new market, or when deleting or repositioning a broadcast station, cable operators must notify broadcasters by mail, certified mail or hand delivery. This NPRM would allow for such notifications to be delivered over email to the station’s designated inbox according to its FCC filing. It also asks whether email delivery should be allowed for satellite MVPD notices to stations as well.

In addition, the NPRM seeks comment on how to extend email notifications to low-power stations without Class A status and certain noncommercial translator stations.

All comments must be filed according to the instructions provided in the NPRM, which is available in full on the FCC website.