Articles Posted in FCC Enforcement

Published on:

For those tired of having their dinner conversations interrupted by others’ cell phone calls, or watching movies in a theater by the light coming off the screens of nearby texters, technology has provided a solution. Unfortunately it is illegal.

In a recent decision, the FCC fined a company called Phonejammer.com $25,000 for marketing jamming equipment in the U.S. through its website, www.Phonejammer.com. The FCC discovered the violations when its field agents, responding to complaints from a cellphone service provider in Dallas, and a County’s Sheriff’s office in Florida, traced the interference in each case to a local business, and discovered that the proprietor had purchased and was operating a Phonejammer unit acquired through the website. Unfortunately, the FCC’s decision does not indicate the type of businesses that were using the Phonejammer, so it is not clear if they were restaurants, theaters, or just businesses tired of their employees texting their friends all day.

Under the Communications Act, it is illegal to sell jamming equipment because of the harm done, both intentionally and otherwise, to electronic communications. While putting an end to loud cell phone calls in upscale restaurants, or to students texting in class, might sound appealing to managers of such places, the interference to communications cannot easily be confined to just that location. Of course, the problems with jamming are not limited to just unintentional interference to nearby areas. There are similar issues affecting the business location seeking to jam calls. You can imagine what would happen if a patron had a heart attack on the premises and the emergency response was delayed when other patrons’ cell phone calls to 911 couldn’t get through.

Because of these concerns, the U.S. has always strictly prohibited the marketing of jamming devices, and not even police are permitted to use jammers. To appreciate the extent of the government’s concern with jamming, note that jamming equipment is not permitted even in prisons, where smuggled cellphones have caused unrelenting headaches for prison officials, with some inmates continuing to manage criminal enterprises via cell phone while still in prison.

That may be about to change, however. The Senate last year passed S.251, the Safe Prisons Communications Act of 2009, to permit targeted jamming of cell phone service within prisons. While it has not yet been approved by the House of Representatives, support for the idea has been strong. As with most well-intentioned ideas, however, the question is what unintended consequences will be involved, particularly if the jammers are not carefully monitored and regulated. For example, will a highway that passes a prison inevitably be a cellular dead zone for passing commuters, or will the technology, once permitted, be refined to largely eliminate unintended interference (if that is possible)? Again, it may be a minor annoyance to lose a call when driving by a prison, but a serious traffic accident in that area can make reliable cell phone service a life and death issue.

Published on:

Like many other FCC license holders, broadcast stations constantly navigate numerous laws and regulations while filing a multitude of reports and applications by required deadlines. Many of these are required quarterly, but some are annual, biennial, quadrennial, or octennial (once every eight years, and the only time I’ll get to use that word this year). While stations are usually very good about completing their quarterly reports, the less frequent reports require a special level of attention or they can be forgotten in the rush of business.

In the past few months, I have noticed a surge in calls from stations wanting to talk to a lawyer because they have belatedly discovered that they failed to create multiple reports over the past few years. I’ve received these types of calls regularly for more than two decades, but the accelerated pace of these calls definitely caught my attention. When a station calls the lawyer in a panic after making this discovery, the lawyer’s first job is to talk them down off the ledge. In the case of small station groups, you are often talking directly to the owner, who is rightly concerned about the direct financial impact of fines and license renewal challenges. With larger groups, it is often a GM worried about his or her future employment if the problem spins out of control. Fortunately, if addressed promptly, the damage can be greatly limited or avoided.

What is interesting, however, is that the common thread in nearly every one of these calls was the downsizing of the station employee “who did all that” before the problem commenced. While the recent “mega-recession” resulted in downsizing in nearly every industry, the precipitous drop in advertising revenues caused tremendous downsizing in the media industry. As downsizing usually requires that one person do the work formerly handled by multiple people, it is not surprising that a report that is required to be filed once a year, or only during odd-numbered years, gets lost in the mix. Of course, the loss of institutional memory is always a problem when an employee departs. However, the problem is intensified in a downsizing, where the departing employee is not too happy with the soon-to-be-former employer, and is probably not feeling very enthusiastic about training their successor.

As a result, while it is always wise to vigilantly monitor regulatory due dates and keep them on a multi-year calendar, it is equally important to ensure after a downsizing that there remains one employee who is clearly charged with ensuring that the required reports/filings are timely completed. You also need to ensure that employee has not just the responsibility of getting the job done, but the training and resources to make it happen. A top-notch conscientious employee who has no idea what an EEO Midterm Report is, and when that particular station’s report is due, is of little use.

Focusing a little bit of attention on that issue now will save you loads of distraction later when you try to undo the damage. Keep in mind that where a missed report may result in a fine, a missed license renewal application (the “once in eight years” filing for broadcasters) has caused the FCC to delete the station from its database and charge the licensee with illegal operation for the time it operated the station after its license expired. It’s best not to find that out firsthand.

Published on:

Topics include:

  • FCC Imposes a Reduced $17,500 Fine on Wyoming Commercial AM/FM Station Combo for Multiple Violations
  • Pennsylvania TV Station Fined $32,000 for Violating FCC’s Sponsorship ID Rule
  • Licensee Fined $13,000 for Antenna Structure Violations
  • FCC Fines California Noncommercial FM Station $9,000 for Failure to Properly Maintain a Public Inspection File

FCC Imposes a Reduced $17,500 Fine on Wyoming Commercial AM/FM Station Combo for Multiple Violations
The FCC has released a Forfeiture Order asserting that the licensee of a Wyoming AM/FM station combination failed to maintain an operational EAS system, failed to consistently prepare and include programs/issues lists in its public inspection file, and failed to operate a wireless radio service station from its authorized location. Specifically, the FCC’s Order cited Sections 11.35, 11.52(d), 11.61(a), 73.3526(e)(12), 1.903(a), 1.929 and 74.532(e) of the FCC’s Rules, which require broadcasters to use common EAS protocols, ensure operability of EAS equipment, conduct regular tests of a station’s EAS system to ensure such operability, prepare and include quarterly programs/issues reports in the public inspection file, and operate wireless radio service facilities as specified in their current authorizations.

Continue reading →

Published on:

March 2009

FCC Fines a Michigan Radio Station for Broadcasting a Telephone Conversation Without Prior Notice.

FCC Fines Pennsylvania Noncommercial Educational Television Station $2,500 for Airing Advertisements.

FCC Fines AM Radio Station $6,000 for Conducting a Contest Without Describing All Material Terms.

A PDF version of this entire article can be found at A FCC Enforcement Monitor.

Published on:

January 2009
In late December 2008, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) released a series of six Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture against broadcasters asserting violations of the FCC’s Equal Employment Opportunity rule (“EEO rule”). In a joint statement appended to each of the six cases, FCC Commissioners Michael J. Copps (now Acting FCC Chairman) and Jonathan S. Adelstein (the “Commissioners”) signaled their strong desire that enforcement of EEO matters be stepped up by the Commission. The Commissioners noted that “Commission enforcement of EEO rules has been inconsistent and, as one consequence, employment in broadcasting does not reflect America.” Specifically, the Commissioners noted that while 251 cases resulted in 86 forfeitures between 1994 and 1997, only 10 cases resulting in 8 forfeitures were released between 2004 and 2007.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

December 2008
Topics include:

  • FCC Fines Mississippi Radio Station $13,000 for Failure to Inform Federal Aviation Administration of Antenna Structure Lighting Malfunction and Failure to Maintain a Public Inspection File
  • Commission Fines Nevada Radio Licensee $5,600 for Failing to Enclose Tower With an Effective Locked Fence
  • FCC Fines New Mexico Radio Station $10,000 for Operating from an Unauthorized Location

Continue reading →

By
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

November 2008
Topics include:

  • FCC Upholds $9,000 Fine for Noncommercial FM Radio Station Airing Advertisements
  • FCC Fines New York AM Radio Station $12,800 for Failing to Sign Off at Sunset, Failing to Maintain Daytime Operating Power, Failing to Maintain an Operational Emergency Alert System, and Failing to Maintain a Complete Public Inspection File

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

June 2008
Topics include:

  • Texas AM Radio Station Assessed $8,800 Fine for Failure to Maintain a Main Studio and Operation Above Authorized Power Level
  • FCC Fines Arizona Radio Station $6,400 for Emergency Alert System Violation
  • FCC Proposes Fine of $10,000 to Hawaii Radio Station for Violating Radio Frequency Radiation Limits

Continue reading →

By
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

May 2008
Topics include:

  • Virginia Radio Licensee Assessed $8,000 Fine for Enforcing Format Restriction Provision in Non-Compete Agreement
  • FCC Proposes to Fine Texas TV Licensee $20,000 for Children’s Television Violations
  • FCC Fines Ohio Non-Commercial Radio Station $9,000 for Airing Prohibited Advertising
  • FCC Fines Mississippi AM Radio Station $1,500 for Operating from Unauthorized Location at Excessive Power Level

Continue reading →

By
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

April 2008
Topics include:

  • FCC Fines Florida Low Power FM Radio Licensee $24,000 for Unlicensed Operations
  • Commission Fines Florida Tower Owner $12,000 for Failing to Post Antenna Structure Registration Numbers and Paint Its Towers
  • FCC Fines California Radio Licensee for Failing to Operate an Aural Studio-Transmitter Link from the Licensed Location
  • Commission Fines Florida AM Radio Licensee $4,000 for Remaining on Air After Sunset in Violation of Its Station Authorization

Continue reading →

By
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated: