Documents in a suit against the FCC over its media ownership order were moved to the 9th U.S. Appeals Court in San Francisco, in a Thursday order by the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit. On Newspaper Association of America v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit said motions to unconsolidate challenges to the partial lifting of a ban on common ownership of a paper and radio or TV station in the same market aren’t overridden by the possibility of exclusive jurisdiction. The appeal of cross-ownership rules will stay at the 9th Circuit (CD March 12 p13) at least for now, said Media Access Project President Andrew Schwartzman, a participant in the case. Once the 9th Circuit gets other courts’ paperwork on the case, some being sent by the D.C. Circuit, it will decide whether to keep the case or send all or part of it back to D.C. or the 3rd U.S. Appeals Court in Philadelphia, he added.
Tribune’s suit against the FCC was put on hold Wednesday by the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case will held in abeyance until the FCC acts on petitions for reconsideration of FCC approval of Tribune’s $8 billion sale to Sam Zell and employees, said a court order. It ordered the agency to file status reports every 60 days. Tribune sued the FCC over agency enforcement of a ban on a single company owning a daily newspaper and radio or TV station in the same market (CD Dec 7 p12). In putting the case on hold, the court granted a request by the Media Alliance and United Church of Christ, Media Access Project President Andrew Schwartzman, representing the groups, said. They contend the court can’t hear the case because it only has jurisdiction when the commission blocks a license transfer. The agency approved the deal 3-2 Nov. 30. The court’s request for more information on jurisdiction is “quite significant” and “indicates that it considers the question non-frivolous and worthy of oral argument,” said Schwartzman. A Tribune spokesman declined to comment.
Two prominent Democratic lawmakers asked the FCC to probe networks’ use of military analysts to see if the analysts properly disclose ties with the Defense Department and companies that do billions of dollars in business with it. The probe was sought in a letter released late Tuesday by House Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell of Michigan, and Connecticut’s Rosa DeLauro, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, the FDA and Related Agencies. The letter, sent to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, expressed “deep concern” about an April 20 New York Times report on the practices of 75 retired officers who appeared as “analysts” on cable and broadcast network news shows.
The FCC Thursday released a revised consumer handbook on radio and TV station regulatory duties, said a public notice. The Public and Broadcasting was updated by the Media Bureau after a commission localism proceeding found that people don’t understand broadcaster obligations and how the FCC enforces its rules. The publication explains how to assess whether stations serve their communities and how to alert the agency to concerns. Every station’s public inspection file must contain a copy of the handbook, and broadcasters must mail a copy to anyone requesting one, the agency said. It named two broadcast information specialists in the bureau to deal with public inquiries, one for radio and one for TV, but didn’t name the employees. Media Access Project President Andrew Schwartzman, a frequent critic of media consolidation, said the update shows FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is “attentive to the commission’s obligations to the public.” The guidebook is at www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html.
The 9th U.S. Appeals Court has suspended acceptances of some filings on appeals of the FCC’s media ownership rules, said an order Thursday from the clerk of the court. The order doesn’t say when the court again will accept such submissions. The 9th Circuit was picked to consolidate challenges to the order (March 12 p13), which commissioners approved 3-2 on Dec. 18, allowing some combinations of daily papers and radio or TV stations in top-20 markets. By stanching the tide of filings, the 9th Circuit order buys time to get documents from 3rd U.S. Appeals Court in Philadelphia and U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia, where appeals also were made, before filings resume, said Media Access Project President Andrew Schwartzman.
A Comcast executive and others on a panel Thursday sought a broad revamp of FCC procedures to limit how long the agency has to consider a wide array of issues and to bring transparency to ex parte meetings. Comcast Senior Vice President Joe Waz said the text of orders should be made public within 30 days of approval by the commissioners, and orders shouldn’t be changed after last-minute lobbying. Some other speakers on the American Bar Association panel on FCC reform also sought changes, but two panelists said the commission does a good job. An FCC spokeswoman said Comcast’s complaints stem from the commission’s review of one of the company’s deals.
The idea of an FCC bureau for broadband regulation mostly drew unfavorable response at a Thursday American Bar Association panel. The proposal was floated by moderator Randolph May, Free State Foundation president and a frequent critic of regulation. A broadband bureau seems unnecessary now that the agency oversees various communications services in the same way, said Sam Feder, a former FCC general counsel. A new bureau probably would be “more trouble than it’s worth,” judging by previous renamings and realignments of other bureaus, said Andrew Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project.
The idea of an FCC bureau for broadband regulation mostly drew unfavorable response at a Thursday American Bar Association panel. The proposal was floated by moderator Randolph May, Free State Foundation president and a frequent critic of regulation. A broadband bureau seems unnecessary now that the agency oversees various communications services in the same way, said Sam Feder, a former FCC general counsel. A new bureau probably would be “more trouble than it’s worth,” judging by previous renamings and realignments of other bureaus, said Andrew Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project.
The Department of Justice didn’t give sufficient weight to the competition between XM and Sirius when it said last week that it wouldn’t block their proposed merger or impose conditions (CD March 25 p1), said the NAB-supported Consumer Coalition for Competition in Satellite Radio. In a pair of filings at the FCC, which is now evaluating whether transferring the XM’s licenses to Sirius is in the public interest, C3SR urged the commission “to restore competition and ameliorate consumer harms.”
The Supreme Court probably will hear oral arguments in late 2008 on whether the FCC can fine broadcasters for airing one obscenity during a show, industry lawyers said. The high court agreed to hear U.S. v. Fox during its fall term (CD March 18 p3). But that may not occur until November, said Media Access Project President Andrew Schwartzman. He took part in the case at the 2nd U.S. Appeals Court in New York. “The Supreme Court has already taken a lot of cases for next year,” making a late 2008 hearing likely, he said. The court’s fall term lasts until June 2009. The government’s brief in the case is due 60 days from last Monday and respondents’ briefs 30 days later. But extensions of the deadlines are frequent, and the court will likely rule in 2009, he said. A decision “will give broadcasters clarity regarding the use of profanity, even fleeting profanity, on the public airwaves at times when children are most likely to be in the audience,” FCC Commissioner Deborah Tate said in a written statement late Monday.