XML 24 R13.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.5.0.2
FCC Regulatory Matters
6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Risks And Uncertainties [Abstract]  
FCC Regulatory Matters

7.  FCC Regulatory Matters

Television broadcasting is subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Communications Act”). The Communications Act prohibits the operation of television broadcasting stations except under a license issued by the FCC, and empowers the FCC, among other things, to issue, revoke, and modify broadcasting licenses, determine the location of television stations, regulate the equipment used by television stations, adopt regulations to carry out the provisions of the Communications Act and impose penalties for the violation of such regulations. The FCC’s ongoing rule making proceedings could have a significant future impact on the television industry and on the operation of the Company’s stations and the stations to which it provides services. In addition, the U.S. Congress may act to amend the Communications Act or adopt other legislation in a manner that could impact the Company’s stations, the stations to which it provides services and the television broadcast industry in general.

The FCC has adopted rules with respect to the final conversion of existing low power and television translator stations to digital operations, which must be completed within 51 months after the completion of the broadcast television incentive auction.

Media Ownership

The FCC is required to review its media ownership rules every four years and to eliminate those rules it finds no longer serve the “public interest, convenience and necessity.”

In March 2014, the FCC initiated its 2014 quadrennial review with the adoption of a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“FNPRM”). The FNPRM solicited comment on proposed changes to the media ownership rules. The FNPRM also proposed to define a category of sharing agreements designated as SSAs between television stations, and to require television stations to disclose those SSAs. Comments and reply comments on the FNPRM were filed in the third quarter of 2014.  On June 27, 2016, the Chairman of the FCC announced the circulation for full FCC vote of a decision in the 2014 quadrennial review.  That decision, if adopted, would (1) retain the existing local television ownership rule and radio/television cross-ownership rule (with minor technical modifications to address the transition to digital television broadcasting), (2) extend the current ban on common ownership of two top-four television stations in a market to network affiliation swaps, (3) retain the existing ban on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership while considering waivers and providing an exception for failed or failing entities, (4) retain the existing dual network rule and (5) define a category of sharing agreements designated as SSAs between stations and require disclosure of those SSAs (while not considering them attributable).

Concurrently with its adoption of the FNPRM, the FCC also adopted a rule making television JSAs attributable to the seller of advertising time in certain circumstances. Under this rule, where a party owns a full-power television station in a market and sells more than 15% of the weekly advertising time for another, non-owned station in the same market under a JSA, that party was deemed to have an attributable interest in the latter station for purposes of the local television ownership rule. Parties to newly attributable JSAs that did not comply with the local television ownership rule were given two years to modify or terminate their JSAs to come into compliance. However, subsequent federal legislation extended the JSA compliance deadline until September 30, 2025.

Various parties, including Nexstar (and Mission, which intervened), appealed the television JSA attribution rule to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which in November 2015 transferred the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On May 25, 2016, the Third Circuit issued a decision that vacated the JSA attribution rule and remanded it to the FCC.  The court determined that the FCC had violated the Communications Act by adopting the JSA attribution rule without determining, through the quadrennial review process, that the underlying local television ownership rule remains in the public interest.  As a result, the FCC’s 2014 JSA attribution rule is not effective at this time, but the FCC has announced its intention to reimpose the rule as part of its pending quadrennial review of its media ownership rules.  If Nexstar is required to modify or terminate its JSAs or other local service agreements, it could lose some or all of the revenues generated from those arrangements due to the reduction in audience reach to its advertisers and receipt of less revenues from them.


Spectrum

The FCC is seeking to make additional spectrum available to meet future wireless broadband needs. In February 2012, the U.S. Congress adopted legislation authorizing the FCC to conduct an incentive auction whereby television broadcasters could voluntarily relinquish their spectrum in exchange for consideration. The FCC has released various orders and public notices which set forth procedures that the FCC will follow in the incentive auction and the subsequent “repacking” of broadcast television spectrum, establish opening prices for television stations to relinquish their spectrum, and resolve various technical and other issues related to the incentive auction, the possible sharing of channels by television stations, and the repurposing of television spectrum for broadband use.  The incentive auction commenced on March 29, 2016.  Nexstar and certain of its local service agreement partners filed applications to participate in the incentive auction. The reallocation of television spectrum for wireless broadband use will require many television stations to change channel or otherwise modify their technical facilities. The reallocation of television spectrum to broadband use may be to the detriment of the Company’s investment in digital facilities, could require substantial additional investment to continue current operations, and may require viewers to invest in additional equipment or subscription services to continue receiving broadcast television signals. The Company cannot predict the results of television spectrum reallocation efforts or their impact to its business.

 

Retransmission Consent

On March 3, 2011, the FCC initiated a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to reexamine its rules (i) governing the requirements for good faith negotiations between multichannel video program distributors (“MVPDs”) and broadcasters, including implementing a prohibition on one station negotiating retransmission consent terms for another station under a local service agreement; (ii) for providing advance notice to consumers in the event of dispute; and (iii) to extend certain cable-only obligations to all MVPDs. The FCC also asked for comment on eliminating the network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity protection rules, which may permit MVPDs to import out-of-market television stations during a retransmission consent dispute.

In March 2014, the FCC adopted a rule that prohibits joint retransmission consent negotiation between television stations in the same market which are not commonly owned and which are ranked among the top four stations in the market in terms of audience share.  On December 5, 2014, federal legislation extended the joint negotiation prohibition to all non-commonly owned television stations in a market. This new rule requires Nexstar, Mission and other independent third parties with which Nexstar has local service agreements to separately negotiate retransmission consent agreements. The December 2014 legislation also directed the FCC to commence a rulemaking to “review its totality of the circumstances test for good faith [retransmission consent] negotiations.”  The FCC commenced this proceeding in September 2015 and comments and reply comments have been submitted.  In July 2016, the Chairman of the FCC publicly announced that the agency would not adopt additional rules in this proceeding.

Concurrently with its adoption of the prohibition on certain joint retransmission consent negotiations, the FCC also adopted a further notice of proposed rulemaking which seeks additional comment on the elimination or modification of the network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules. The FCC’s prohibition on certain joint retransmission consent negotiations and its possible elimination or modification of the network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity protection rules may affect the Company’s ability to sustain its current level of retransmission consent revenues or grow such revenues in the future and could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. The Company cannot predict the resolution of the FCC’s network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity proposals, or the impact of these proposals or the FCC’s prohibition on certain joint negotiations, on its business.

Further, certain online video distributors and other over-the-top video distributors (“OTTDs”) have begun streaming broadcast programming over the Internet. In June 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an OTTD’s retransmissions of broadcast television signals without the consent of the broadcast station violate copyright holders’ exclusive right to perform their works publicly as provided under the Copyright Act. In December 2014, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to interpret the term “MVPD” to encompass OTTDs that make available for purchase multiple streams of video programming distributed at a prescheduled time, and seeking comment on the effects of applying MVPD rules to such OTTDs. Comments and reply comments were filed in the first and second quarters of 2015 and the Company cannot predict the outcome of the proceeding. However, if the FCC ultimately determines that an OTTD is not an MVPD, or declines to apply certain rules governing MVPDs to OTTDs, the Company’s business and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.