The Federal Communications Commission has proposed to revise the definition of “legally qualified candidate for public office” to reflect the rise of the internet.

According to multiple sources, the FCC had been pondering whether to require broadcast stations to report network and syndicated political ad buys in their political files, something broadcasters were pushing back on, but that did not show up in the notice of proposed rulemaking released Thursday (July 15).

Acting FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel had signaled political file rule changes were coming.

The FCC, which released the NPRM on tweaks to its political rules, said it would add use of social media or the creation of a campaign website to the current list of activities that may be considered in determining if a write-in candidate has sufficiently established their candidacy.

That establishment determines whether broadcasters must provide the candidates with air time.

The commission is also proposing to adjust its rules to campaign finance reform legislation to reflect that stations, cable and satellite operators must report any purchase of ad time that “communicates a message relating to any political matter of national importance” and make clear what record on that message must be maintained in a station's political file.

“While the agency has strived to update its guidance to reflect changes in law and campaign practices, it has not undertaken a formal review to update the political programming and record-keeping rules since 1991,” the FCC said. “Given the substantial growth of political media messaging in recent years, the updates proposed in this item are intended to conform our rules with statutory amendments, reflect existing practices and guidance, and account for modern campaign practices.”

The FCC in 2019 resolved a dozen campaign ad-disclosure complaints against various broadcast stations but with only some admonishments — official reprimands — rather than fines against what the FCC said were, in some cases, willful violations of its political file disclosure rules.

The new item is said to be an effort to clean up the rules and close some loopholes after complaints that the rules were not sufficiently clear.

The FCC put out some guidance following the resolution of the disclosure complaints, but broadcasters were not pleased with the result.

The FCC has proposed revising it's equipment authorization and competitive bidding rules to better keep untrustworthy entities out of U.S. networks.

The commission voted unanimously at its June 17 public meeting to approve a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and notice of inquiry (NOI) to better protect U.S. networks from all threats.

Acting chair Jessica Rosenworcel said it was crucial to rethink the communications supply chain, including excluding suspect actors from U.S. networks by not authorizing suspect tech.

Also Read: Commissioner Carr Says FCC Continues to Approve Insecure Tech

She pointed out that while tech from Chinese telecoms Huawei and ZTE  had been excluded from networks built with government subsidies, the FCC was still approving potentially insecure tech from those companies, which could be used in networks not built with those government subsidies. The current proposal would close that loophole.

The NPRM/NOI proposes to revise the FCC's equipment authorizations to include a finding that the authorized equipment does not pose a national security risk. It also seeks input on whether and how the FCC should revoke prior authorizations by companies identified by the FCC as a potential threat to the security of U.S. communications networks. Currently those are Chinese telecoms Huawei and ZTE.

The FCC is also proposing that it change its competitive bidding rules to require bidders to certify that they are not relying for financial support on any company identified as a threat to national security. The rules would also require companies to have a U.S. agent for the FCC to deal with.

The commission is asking for input on compliance and enforcement of the revisions, and on how to leverage its equipment authorization authority to encourage cybersecure devices and better cybersecurity practices.

“[I]f you sell your equipment in the United States—the greatest free marketplace in the world—then you should also make yourself readily available to the FCC’s jurisdiction should we need to ask questions or hold you accountable for any issues stemming from that equipment," said commissioner Geoffrey Starks. "The American people welcome competition for the best goods, but also expect to be protected from harm. It is only fair. The item therefore proposes to require foreign equipment authorization applicants to have a U.S. registered agent for service of process. Beyond all the legalese, here is what the message is: If your equipment harms Americans, the FCC needs to be able to find you, and hold you accountable.  These changes will hopefully increase transparency, and prevent future bad actors from using their foreign status to avoid any FCC accountability.”

"We are launching this procedure with a simple and important goal--to protect our networks and out national security. At the same time, this is also about what I have described as our 5G values, values that Communist China clearly does not share with the U.S. and other democratic nations."

"The FCC is committed to doing everything it can to support the security of our communications networks," said Rosenworcel.

The FCC action came only days after a bipartisan bill was introduced that would prevent the use of private, as well as public, funds to purchase suspect tech for U.S. networks.

The legislators backing bills to ban all suspect tech from U.S. nets added their collective praise for the FCC vote.

“We applaud the FCC’s vote to put national security first by keeping compromised Chinese equipment out of U.S. telecommunications networks. We introduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation to make this action permanent, blocking technology manufactured by companies that pose a threat to our national security," said Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), along with Reps. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Steve Scalise (R-La.). "We thank Acting Chairwoman Rosenworcel and Commissioner Carr for their leadership on this issue and look forward to working with the Commission to protect our nation’s networks from foreign adversaries,” 

The FCC has voted unanimously to approve a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) establishing disclosure requirements for TV and radio content sponsored by foreign governments.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai circulated the item last month, it was voted earlier this month and released Monday (Oct. 26).

The rules require "a specific disclosure at the time of broadcast if a foreign governmental entity has paid a radio or television station, directly or indirectly, to air material, or if the programming was provided to the station free of charge by such an entity as an inducement to broadcast the material."

There is no minimum threshold. If one of the following five categories of content sponsors provide any remuneration--money, services or anything of value, including the programming itself if it was supplied for free.

The disclosure would be triggered by content sponsored by "1) a 'government of a foreign country' as defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA);44; 2) a 'foreign political party' as defined by FARA;45; 3) an entity or individual registered as an 'agent of a foreign principal' under FARA,46 whose 'foreign principal' has the meaning given such term in section 611(b)(1) of FARA and that is acting in its capacity as an agent of such 'foreign principal';47; 4) an entity designated as a 'foreign mission' under the Foreign Missions Act;48; or 5) any entity meeting the definition of a 'U.S.-based foreign media outlet' pursuant to section 722 of the Act that has filed a report with the Commission."

The FCC is proposing this standardized disclosure language:

“The [following/preceding] programming was paid for, or furnished, either in whole or in part, by [name of foreign governmental entity] on behalf of [name of foreign country].” 

That disclosure must be made at the time of broadcast and, for TV, must be "displayed in letters equal to or greater than four percent of the vertical picture height and be visible for not less than four seconds."

The disclosure must be made at the beginning and end of each program and at least once per hour for programming longer than 60 minutes.

The commission said those proposals for wording, time, frequency and duration are tentative and seeks comment on them. 

While the FCC already had rules requiring disclosure of sponsored content, it did not specify when and how content from foreign governments should be disclosed.

Only the Democrats released statements on the vote.

Commissioner Geoffrey Starks said he supported the item because "content created by or on behalf of foreign governments and aired on American stations has the potential to leave listeners unwittingly vulnerable to manipulation by a foreign adversary, we must close any existing loopholes by requiring full sponsorship disclosure....Notably, we take this action in the midst of known attacks on our political processes by foreign governments and their representatives. Although free speech remains a bedrock of our democracy, we as Americans have a right to know when there is a foreign voice behind speech broadcast in the United States."

"We propose to adopt specific disclosure requirements for broadcast programming that is paid for or provided by a foreign government or its representative," said FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel. "This is about basic transparency and it frankly shouldn’t have taken us so long....Right now, we are awash in reports that foreign actors are attempting to influence our political process and democratic elections in the United States. We also know that foreign entities are purchasing time on broadcast stations in markets across the country, including Russian government-sponsored programming right here our nation’s capital. But it’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 do us harm are paying to access our airwaves and influence our citizens."

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), who has pushed the FCC for such identificuations to help combat Russian election interference, was pleased with the decision, if not the timing.

“Americans have a right to know when a foreign adversary is buying up time on airwaves owned by the American people.,” she said in a statement. “I commend the FCC for finally taking this critical step to defend our democracy and protect American airwaves after a glacial pace of action. The U.S. Intelligence Community concluded in January 2017 that Russian state-sponsored media outlets RT and Sputnik meddled in our 2016 elections when they pushed anti-U.S. messaging over U.S. airwaves to undermine trust in our democracy. Eight days before a consequential election, the FCC is releasing a rule which should have been implemented by now, an action I’ve called for since May, 2017.”

FCC chairman Ajit Pai has circulated a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) establishing new disclosure requirements for TV and radio content sponsored by foreign governments.

“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," he said, urging his colleagues to vote to approve his proposal ASAP.

The rules would require "a specific disclosure at the time of broadcast if a foreign governmental entity has paid a radio or television station, directly or indirectly, to air material, or if the programming was provided to the station free of charge by such an entity as an inducement to broadcast the material."

The FCC would supply standardized disclosure language.

While the FCC already has rules requiring disclosure of sponsored content, they don't specify when and how content from foreign governments should be disclosed.

One Media, which is owned by advanced TV pioneer Sinclair, said the FCC should adopt the "modest" modifications to its plan for deployment of the ATSC 3.0 advanced broadcast transmission standard, but should also look to be a little less modest, including recognizing the value of distributed transmission to localism.

That came in comments on the FCC's recent NPRM.

One Media said that the commission should also consider 1) furthering maximization of broadcast coverage areas; 2) "[r]ecognizing the importance of this proceeding, and policies supporting the advancement of Next Gen TV services, to promoting localism and the ability of broadcasters to continue serving the public interests"; and 3) streamlining the licensing process.

Related: FCC Provides Push to Internet Broadcasting

The FCC voted unanimously in March to adopt a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment on a broadcaster proposal to allow broadcasters greater flexibility in using distributed transmission systems (DTS) to deliver new ATSC 3.0 signals.

The FCC said, and broadcasters agreed, that allowing that flexibility with the new advanced TV broadcast standard would get those signals to hard-to-reach viewers, improve indoor reception and be more efficient with the spectrum, a big priority for the FCC.

The FCC's proposal is responsive to a petition by the National Association of Broadcasters and America's Public Television Stations to change the current DTS rules, which were adopted during the last transmission sea change--to digital, to allow for single frequency networks (the DTS systems comprise "two or more transmission sites located around a station’s service area, each using the same RF channel").

The item sought comment on whether and how to allow signals to exceed a TV station's service area by more than the current de minimis (minimal) amount. The FCC also wants input on the possible impact of extending the signals on other uses, including low-power TV stations, and whether to extend the signals of current ATSC 1.0 signals as well. Broadcasters currently use translators to boost their signals at the fringes of the service area and in other areas where terrain weakens a signal, but translators usually use a different channel, while DTS use the same channel.

Computer companies, most notably Microsoft, have argued against the rule change, saying it could be "catastrophic" to its rural broadband rollout and arguing broadcasters could get what they want through existing rules. Microsoft is using the "white spaces" between TV signals to deliver it.

The FCC had signaled concerns about the DTS expansion to areas that could not be reached with a single antenna because it could undermine localism.

One Media begs to differ.

"[A]s the deployment of ATSC 3.0, and adoption of the proposed rules in the NPRM, together promote localism by allowing stations to provide better over-the-air coverage throughout the contour and the delivery of tailored local content to more viewers. Moreover, the recommended interference contour will prevent DTS stations from encroaching on the service of stations in adjacent markets."

It also said DTS will allow for "hyper" localization.

Common Cause and New America's Open Technology Institute said the FCC is shortchanging the net neutrality issue by not launching a rulemaking looking into the impact of its network neutrality deregulation on public safety, broadband deployment and low-income subsidies. 

That came in comments on a federal appeals court's remand of a portion of the FCC's 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom (RIF) Order back to the commission for a better explanation of that impact. 

The FCC had issued a public notice seeking comment on those specific issues in a public notice, but the groups said that was not sufficient, particularly given what they argue are the serious negative impacts of the RIF order on all three. 

Related: FCC Defends 'Light Touch' Net Neutrality Reg Remake

"The Court’s remand order addresses complex issues that strike at the heart of the Commission’s core Congressional mandates—universal service, broadband competition, and public safety," they said. "These critical issues demand more than a simple, four-page Public Notice. The Commission should give this remand the seriousness it deserves and issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [NPRM]." 

They said the point of the court's remand was its admonition to the FCC that it had largely ignored the impact of its decision on those things, so to "rush through" it with a public notice rather than a full review and accounting" does not inspire confidence that the Commission has learned any lessons from the remand. 

They said that NRPM process would also give public safety officials more time to weigh in given they were kind of busy at the moment with fighting a pandemic. "The record would be incomplete without their full participation."

The FCC earlier this week declined to extend the public notice comment period for a second time--initial comments were due April 20--despite requests by the cities of New York and L.A. and Santa Clara public safety officials, sometime Common Cause and OTI also cited, though the FCC was denying the request at about the same time the commenters were saying it should be granted. 

Their bottom line was the RIF order ignored critical issues and created problems for public safety and low-income Lifeline broadband subsidy recipients, they argued, symptoms or the larger problem of its reclassification of internet access from a telecom service to an information service, a course it should now correct.

The FCC voted unanimously to adopt a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on a proposal to allow broadcasters greater flexibility in using distributed transmission systems (DTS) to deliver new ATSC 3.0 signals.

The FCC said, and broadcasters agree, that allowing that flexibility with the new advanced TV broadcast standard will get those signals to hard-to-reach viewers, improve indoor reception and be more efficient with the spectrum, a big priority for the FCC.

The FCC's proposal is responsive to a petition by the National Association of Broadcasters and America's Public Television Stations to change the current DTS rules, which were adopted during the last transmission sea change--to digital, to allow for single frequency networks (the DTS systems comprise "two or more transmission sites located around a station’s service area, each using the same RF channel).

The item approved Tuesday (March 31) seeks comment on whether and how to allow signals to exceed a TV station's service area by more than the current de minimus (minimal) amount. The FCC also wants input on the possible impact of extending the signals on other uses, including low-power TV stations, and whether to extend the signals of current ATSC 1.0 signals as well. Broadcasters currently use translators to boost their signals at the fringes of the service area and in other areas where terrain weakens a signal, but translators usually use a different channel, while DTS use the same channel.

Computer companies, most notably Microsoft, have argued against the rule change, saying it could be "catastrophic" to its rural broadband rollout and arguing broadcasters could get what they want through existing rules. Microsoft is using the "white spaces" between TV signals to deliver it.

“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 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."

“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 Next Gen TV through DTS operations that better serve their viewers while preserving their commitment to localism and avoiding interference issues,” said APTS president Patrick Butler. “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."