Radio broadcasters upset with FCC recommendations.

Ars Technica published a story which stated that there is a bunch of fuss going on between broadcasters and the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) over local broadcasting procedures.

In 2004, the Commission set out to get the public opinion of how broadcasters are achieving their goals of broadcasting local information. The report is in, and the Commission is wanting to change things up a bit. While there are many television and radio stations out there who serve their respective communities with a high degree of local focus, many aren’t giving the public what it wants. The entire report is available for viewing, and nice reading for anyone interested in broadcast media.

The point which I found most interesting concerns radio broadcasts in respect to remote and automated broadcast. The Commission is reviewing guidelines, and is suggesting that there be a requirement for having the station staffed at all hours. While this might not give the listeners an opportunity to make a request for their favorite song–the staff requirements would not require a DJ, but just someone who is capable of interrupting broadcast and going on air–it allow/force the station to give the public important information at a moment’s notice. The concerns are published under Section E of the report, and are as follows:

E. DISASTER WARNINGS

1. Issues

81. We noted in the NOI that providing emergency information is a fundamental area in which broadcasters use their stations to serve their communities of license. The Commission’s role in ensuring that broadcasters fulfill this obligation is set forth in Section 1 of the Communications Act, which declares that the Congress created the Commission “for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications….” The Commission has adopted the Emergency Alert System (“EAS”), which “provides the President with the capability to provide immediate communications and information to the general public at the National, State and Local Area levels during periods of national emergency,” and, in addition, “may be used to provide the heads of State and local government, or their designated representatives, with a means of emergency communication with the public in their State or Local Area.” The Commission also requires TV broadcast stations that provide emergency information beyond compliance with EAS standards to make the critical details of that information accessible to people with hearing and visual disabilities.

82. Due to the critical and fundamental role of emergency communications as a component of broadcasters’ local public service obligations, the NOI sought comment on broadcaster performance in this area. The Commission called for input on whether it should require that licensees make their facilities available to local emergency managers and, if so, what the nature and scope of any such requirement would be. The Commission also sought comment on whether voluntary arrangements with local officials to provide emergency information to viewers and listeners were sufficient, or whether the Commission should impose uniform requirements and, if so, what those requirements should be. The Commission further sought comment on how digital technology could be used to enhance warnings, and to what extent broadcasters were making use of such technology.

2. Public Comments

83. The record reveals the importance that the public places on receiving timely emergency information in a time of crisis. Many commenters noted how invaluable local broadcast stations are in disseminating emergency information to the public. One described the important role local radio played in providing news updates and information on escape routes, survival tips, and recovery strategies in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Another stated that, with the help of local broadcasters, the State of Texas was able to turn a local tragedy into a triumph of technology and cooperation by creating the nation’s first Amber Alert using EAS, and that local broadcasters’ cooperation and leadership on public safety matters were much appreciated. Another commenter stated that, without local broadcasters in North Carolina, there would be no Amber Alert system. Witnesses at the Rapid City hearing discussed the arrangement there between broadcasters and the local government that provides local officials expedited access to local stations in times of emergency. The commenter noted that local broadcasters have made their studios available to emergency management for the purpose of recording public service announcements (“PSAs”), and have helped with the distribution of the PSAs to other outlets in the area.

84. Other commenters indicated that there was still some work left to do to make the broadcast of emergency information easier and more effective. One commenter stated that emergency services management relies on local media to get its information to the public, but
that local broadcast stations are getting more automated. As a result, such management has an increasingly difficult time getting emergency information to the public late at night or early in the morning because many stations are controlled from a remote location. The commenter
also lamented the fact that there is no mechanism in place for local emergency management services to be informed of call station changes, licensee changes, points of contact changes, and that emergency management officials need more interface with the media on public service
announcements. Another noted that broadcasters did a reasonable job providing information related to storm warnings and Amber Alerts, but was concerned about stations that were unattended because repeating or updating the warning from EAS at an unattended station would
depend on how the automatic alert function on the EAS decoder was set. Another commenter opposed permitting local and state emergency managers unfettered access to broadcast station facilities. Another urges the Commission to ensure that physical plant and staffing policies
allow emergency officials access to stations, yet allow broadcasters to continue the critical journalistic role that stations play, particularly in times of emergency.

85. Based on the foregoing criticisms, several commenters offered proposals for how the Commission could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the distribution of emergency information to the public through local broadcasters. These proposals included taking action on
the outstanding EAS Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and reducing the ability of broadcasters to control their programming from a remote location.

3. Issues for Commission Action

86. Emergency Alert System Rulemaking. The record in this proceeding reaffirms the importance the public places on timely and accurate emergency information on broadcast stations. We intend to take action on the pending EAS FNPRM. Specifically, as we have previously stated, we are prepared to address the issues in that proceeding within six months. Comments received in that proceeding will be considered to resolve those issues.

87. Remote Radio Station Operation. Commenters also expressed concerns regarding the prevalence of automated radio broadcast operations, which allow the operation of stations without a local presence, and the perceived negative impact that they have on licensees’ ability to serve local needs. As we previously indicated, in the Digital Audio proceeding, we are looking into whether we should require a physical presence at a broadcasting facility d
ur
ing all hours of operation. While the issue as it pertains to radio will be resolved in that proceeding, as discussed in paragraph 29 supra, we seek comment here on whether such a requirement should also be imposed on television licensees.

Personally, while I am an avid supporter of technology and automation, I believe that there is nothing compared to actually having a person in control at all times. I hope that the Commission does decide to require a station to have a person on-site at all times.

The article from Ars goes on to discuss other complaints that the broadcasting lobbyists are raising against the Commission’s proposals–perhaps the most humorous being that of a Christian station complaining that they (the station) shouldn’t be required to be advised by a general public with regard to programming, where the general public (as a whole) doesn’t share the same values.

Whether the Commission takes any action on the proposals is debatable; however, I must say that in my opinion, they have been making themselves heard and firmly putting their foot down on issues. A good example of a regulation change which raised an uproar and hasn’t been reversed was the elimination of code requirements for amateur licenses–a few ham operators have protested, but the Commission has remained firm. That reminds me… I really should see about studying up and upgrading my license…