Articles Posted in FCC Enforcement

Published on:

By

Let’s state the obvious.  The FCC’s use of mandatory Federal Registration Numbers was a bad idea from the start.  It became monumentally worse today, when the FCC quietly announced that anyone whose Federal Registration Number contact information isn’t updated within 10 business days is subject to a $1,000 per day fine until it is updated, up to the current statutory maximum of $628,305.

Our story begins on December 3, 2001, when the FCC began requiring that all applications and fee payments to the FCC use a Federal Registration Number (FRN) so that it could better track payments to the FCC:

The collection of regulatory and application fees, auction payments, auction loan payments, and other monies due to the United States must be processed expeditiously and recorded properly.  We tentatively conclude that the FRN will provide us with an improved mechanism for properly recording and tracking payments made to the Commission.

The FCC explained the new requirement in an FAQ:

Why must I register with the FCC?

Effective Dec. 3, 2001, all applications and remittance must use an FRN.  Registering via the FCC Registration site is how you provide the FCC with basic information.  Each individual or organization doing business with the FCC is required to provide and maintain current official contact information.  The contact information you provide will be used to communicate important FCC-related information to you.

So FRNs got their nose under the tent as a financial tracking mechanism for those “doing business with the FCC.”  If a licensee needed to file an application or pay a fee, it needed an FRN to do so.  Where things started going off the rails was in 2009, when the FCC forgot about the “doing business” part.  In revising Form 323, the Biennial Ownership Report form for broadcasters, it announced:

The revised Form 323 requires that individuals and entities reported on the form obtain and provide an FCC Registration Number (FRN). Obtaining an FRN requires submission of a Taxpayer ID Number (a Social Security Number, or SSN, for individuals and an Employer ID Number, or EIN, for entities).

As a result, not just the licensee, but every entity in its chain of ownership up to and including the ultimate parent company, every officer and director of each one of those entities, and every 5% or greater shareholder in those entities, suddenly needed to have an FRN merely so the licensee could meet its obligation to file an Ownership Report every two years and after transactions.  To get those FRNs, these entities and individuals, many of whom had never had any contact with the FCC, needed to navigate the FCC’s clunky filing systems and provide their social security number to the FCC at a time when identity theft was skyrocketing and even the Pentagon had been hacked.

The broadcast communications bar rose as one, decrying such a terrible idea and the many complications it would cause for no apparent benefit.  I was at the seminal meeting with the FCC where we ran through the long list of problems with the concept, including that individuals with no prior contact with the FCC were going to be challenged in navigating the registration system, didn’t want to give their social security number to the FCC (or anyone for that matter, including the broadcast company’s lawyer to register on their behalf), and did not have FCC counsel since they were not the broadcast company with the filing obligation.  In addition, while a broadcast company arguably had some (but not unlimited) influence over its officers and directors to ensure they obtained an FRN, they had no such influence over the 5% or greater shareholders that also needed to be listed in the reports.

The FCC’s response in that meeting was that it can’t be that bad, since big telecom companies had already been living with such a requirement, and FRNs were necessary because the FCC needed to be able to tell whether two people with the same name were the same person.  When the communications lawyers in the room noted that the Ownership Report already required the reporting of each individual’s address, nationality, and relationship to the filer, the FCC responded that there was still the situation where two people had the same address, had the same name, and one didn’t include “Jr.” in their name.  So to solve for that extreme edge case, most every person connected to a broadcaster has had to hand over their social security number and obtain an FRN ever since.

It turned out to be an even worse idea in practice.  The filing of thousands of Ownership Reports and other documents have been delayed because of FRN problems, including hours spent begging your client to get that last director or shareholder to provide enough information to get them an FRN, or because the FRN provided isn’t being accepted by the FCC’s systems for some reason.  Trying to navigate these roadblocks, many parties end up with multiple FRNs.  The lawyer sets up an FRN for the licensee in order to make its filings.  The licensee’s accountant trying to pay its regulatory fees ends up setting up a new FRN rather than asking the lawyer for the existing FRN.  The station’s engineer sets up yet another FRN because he or she needs to make a deadline filing and is blocked because they aren’t associated with the licensee’s existing FRN in the FCC’s systems.

A party may not ever realize they have multiple FRNs until they try to make a filing or pay a fee and find that the FRN they have in hand is different than the FRN that particular FCC system is expecting to see and therefore blocks the filing.  Even worse, often the employee that set up the FRN has left the company, and no one is able to access it to make a filing or payment with the FCC.  Where a licensee becomes aware it has multiple FRNs, or a person that has left the broadcast community wants to cancel its FRN rather than update it for the rest of their life, the FCC has not provided an obvious method of cancelling it.  Even if it had, licensees would be hesitant to cancel “extra” FRNs since they can’t be sure they won’t need that FRN for whatever FCC system that FRN was previously used to access.  The problem is compounded because applicants often apply for a new FRN when they can’t get the old one to work when making a filing or payment.

Nor is there much assistance for the FCC-inexperienced.  The FCC has published over 200 Compliance Guides for Small Businesses on a variety of topics, but not one on FRNs.  Making matters worse is the complicated two-step process a party must now go through to access its FRN and update the information.  When the FRN was originally introduced, a person established a password for the FRN and could simply sign in with it to update the information.  In the FCC’s efforts to enhance security, it has established a new system in which the person must first create a personal account using their own email and set up a personal password associated with that account.  Then, their personal account must be linked to the FRN by an Administrator who can grant them different levels of permission to view, manage or administer the FRN.  As a result, a person may, despite their best efforts, be unable to access and update their own FRN, particularly where the FRN Administrator (often a communications lawyer) has retired or otherwise left the company.

So don’t get a communications lawyer started on the subject of FRNs at a cocktail party; you will never get back to the bar for a second drink.

The only saving grace was that while FRNs created added headaches, friction, and delays in interacting with the FCC, they at least weren’t the subject of many enforcement actions.  They were a procedural hurdle to everything; not a fine waiting to happen.

That changed today when the FCC quietly announced in a Robocall Mitigation Database proceeding that it had received approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to require every holder of an FRN to update its FRN information within ten business days of a change or face a $1,000 a day fine.  The underlying Order was actually adopted in the waning days of the Biden Administration, but took over a year to obtain OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  That delay is actually surprising, since the FCC in its analysis did not even mention the impact on FRN holders other than telecom “providers” involved in robocall matters, and vastly understated the burden imposed:

In [making these changes], we align section 1.8002 with section 64.6305 of the Commission’s rules, which requires providers to update submissions to the Database within 10 business days of any changes to required content.  Consistent with our view stated in the Notice that such a rule would impose no significant costs on CORES users or present any significant countervailing burdens, no commenters opposed our proposal.

Hidden in a robocall proceeding, the requirement slipped by most of the broadcast community until today’s Federal Register announcement.  Notably, the FCC’s Public Notice announcing the Order a year ago gave no hint of the impact on anyone but robocallers:

“Companies using America’s phone networks must be actively involved in protecting consumers from scammers,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. “We are tightening our rules to ensure voice service providers know their responsibilities and help stop junk robocalls….  The Report and Order increases accountability by requiring timely updates to company information, and instituting base fines of $10,000 for submitting false or inaccurate information, and $1,000 for failure to keep information current.

It makes sense that those involved in propagating robocalls need to keep their contact information up to date in case the FCC needs to reach out in a crisis, and that some robocallers might be incentivized to make themselves hard to reach, hence the need to fine those that “forget” to update their FRN information.  None of that logic applies to retired broadcast officers and directors, minority shareholders that have moved on (and those that haven’t), or board members of a nonprofit operating a noncommercial radio station who obtained an FRN before the FCC acknowledged FRNs were too burdensome for volunteers.  Once again, the FCC has incentivized both individuals and investors to stay far away from broadcasting lest they face financial penalties for inadvertence.

All because two people in the same household might have the same name.

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • Satellite Communications Company Resolves Team Telecom Agreement Violations Through $175,000 Consent Decree
  • Michigan AM Station Cited for Tower and Other Violations
  • Five LPFM Applications Dismissed for Failing to Meet Localism Requirements

$175,000 Consent Decree for Satellite Communications Company’s Team Telecom Compliance Failures

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a provider of satellite communications services to resolve an investigation into violations involving its international Section 214 and earth station authorizations.  The Consent Decree represents the first time a grantee has agreed to a financial penalty for violating a Team Telecom mitigation agreement.

Grant of the authorizations had been expressly conditioned on the company’s ongoing compliance with a Team Telecom mitigation agreement.  Team Telecom is an interagency group led by the Departments of Justice (DOJ), Homeland Security, and Defense.  It reviews foreign involvement in U.S. telecommunications transactions for national security and law enforcement concerns.  When Team Telecom identifies potential risks resulting from foreign involvement in a proposed transaction, it may recommend that the FCC not approve the transaction, or enter into a mitigation agreement with the applicant designed to ameliorate those concerns.

Where an applicant enters into a mitigation agreement, Team Telecom will typically inform the FCC that it does not object to the proposed transaction so long as the approval is conditioned upon continuing compliance with the mitigation agreement. The FCC then makes an independent decision as to whether to grant the requested authorization, but tends to defer to Team Telecom’s judgment regarding matters of foreign involvement, including as to whether the grant should be conditioned on compliance with a Team Telecom mitigation agreement.

The investigation at the core of this Consent Decree stemmed from a May 2024 referral by the DOJ, which received a notification from the company requesting approval to permit several foreign employees to have access to the company’s U.S. communications infrastructure and customer information.  The mitigation agreement required that the company submit foreign employee access requests to DOJ at least 30 days prior to permitting access.  The DOJ’s review of this request led to a finding that the company had already provided access to numerous foreign employees without first notifying the DOJ.

After the DOJ referred the alleged violation to the FCC, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau commenced an investigation which concluded that the company had failed to notify the DOJ before giving 186 foreign employees access to the company’s U.S. communications infrastructure and customer information.  The FCC concluded that the failure stemmed from the company’s inadequate screening procedures.  Although all 186 employees were later cleared by the DOJ, the requests were submitted only after the investigation commenced.

To resolve the matter, the company entered into a Consent Decree in which it admitted the facts surrounding the violations and agreed to implement new policies and procedures to prevent a recurrence.  These include designating a compliance officer, creating formal operating procedures to prevent future violations, distributing a compliance manual to relevant staff, and conducting regular employee compliance training.  The company also agreed to submit regular compliance reports to the FCC over the next three years and promptly notify the FCC of any future violations.  Finally, it agreed to make a $175,000 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury.

FCC Issues Notice of Violation to Michigan AM Station for Multiple Tower and Other Rule Violations

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to the owner of a Michigan AM radio station for multiple rule violations.  The NOV notes that agents from the FCC’s Columbia and Chicago field offices had inspected the radio station and tower sites on two separate days in February 2025 and once again in September 2025, finding multiple rule violations. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a not all that surprising development for those who monitor Chairman Carr’s pronouncements, the FCC’s Media Bureau today released a “Guidance on Political Equal Opportunities Requirement for Broadcast Television Stations” narrowing the programs found exempt from the Equal Opportunities requirement. The clear target is appearances by candidates on the TV broadcast networks’ morning and late night interview programs. Tellingly, while the Equal Opportunities requirement applies to both radio and TV stations, today’s Public Notice containing the guidance is directed only at “Broadcast Television Stations” (see the title above).

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • FCC Issues Notice to Virginia Property Owner Over Pirate Radio Activity
  • Public Media Organization Enters into $86,400 Consent Decree Over False EAS Tones
  • Media Bureau Finds Broadcaster Did Not Violate Good Faith Negotiation Rules

FCC Warns Landowner Over Unauthorized Broadcasts on Its Property

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting to a Virginia property owner in Williamsburg, VA.  The Enforcement Bureau’s Columbia Office investigated the property after receiving a complaint about unlicensed FM broadcasts on 99.5 MHz.  On two separate occasions, April 1 and July 17, 2025, agents used direction-finding equipment to confirm that the transmissions were emanating from a restaurant located on the property.

FCC records indicated that no license had been issued for a broadcast station operating on 99.5 MHz at that location.  The Enforcement Bureau also determined that the transmissions exceeded the power limits permitted for unlicensed operation under Part 15 of its Rules.

Under the Preventing Illegal Radio Abuse Through Enforcement Act (the PIRATE Act), the FCC has the authority to impose substantial fines not only on the individuals directly responsible for unauthorized broadcasting, but also on property owners who knowingly and willfully allow such activity to take place on their premises.  The Notice warned the property owner that it could face penalties of up to $2,453,218 if the FCC determined that it continued to permit unauthorized pirate radio broadcasts from its property.

The Notice directs the property owner to respond to the FCC within ten business days and provide evidence that the unlicensed pirate radio broadcasts have ceased.  The Notice also requires the property owner to identify the individual(s) responsible for the pirate operation.  Finally, the Notice informs the property owner that a failure to respond may be treated as evidence of knowledge and consent to the illegal broadcasts for purposes of initiating subsequent FCC enforcement proceedings involving “significant financial penalties” against the landowner.

Public Media Organization Resolves False EAS Tone Violations With $86,400 Consent Decree

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a public media organization to resolve an investigation into the unauthorized transmission of Emergency Alert System (EAS) tones.  According to the Consent Decree, the organization distributed a program that included actual or simulated EAS tones to its 46 owned radio stations and approximately 500 affiliated stations, triggering violations of Sections 11.31 and 11.45 of the FCC’s Rules.  The Consent Decree includes an $86,400 civil penalty and a multi-part compliance plan.

The EAS is a national public warning system designed to deliver critical emergency information to the public, including weather alerts and AMBER alerts.  To preserve the integrity of emergency alerts, EAS tones may only be aired for specific uses, such as actual emergencies, authorized tests, and qualifying public service announcements (PSAs).  Section 11.45 of the FCC’s Rules strictly prohibits airing EAS tones or simulations thereof unless they are aired in connection with one of these uses.  The concern is that misuse of EAS tones will lead to accidental system triggers or the public becoming desensitized to the alert tones in an actual emergency, both of which threaten the effectiveness of the alerting system. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • FCC Extends Consent Decree After New “Issues” Arise
  • FCC Resolves Pirate Radio Investigation With 20-Year Consent Decree
  • Spurious Emissions Lead to Notice of Violation for FM Translator Licensee

Order Extends Consent Decree Obligations Through 2029

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau recently released an Order amending a 2024 Consent Decree with a nationwide business communications company extending the company’s compliance obligations by an additional year.  Under the amended terms, the company will now be required to file compliance reports through 2029 and report any noncompliance with the FCC’s rules or the Consent Decree during the now extended term within 15 days of discovery.  The Order did not assess any new fines, but incorporated the extended reporting period and updated several provisions of the original Consent Decree.  The FCC did not elaborate on the reasons it deemed the extension necessary, stating only that it was done “to resolve issues arising after adoption and release of the Consent Decree.”

As we discussed here in April 2024, the company agreed to the original Consent Decree to resolve an FCC investigation into its unauthorized control and operation of multiple private business radio licenses.  The investigation stemmed from the company’s acquisition of entities holding FCC licenses without prior FCC approval, along with continued operations under expired or improperly transferred authorizations.  To resolve the investigation, the company agreed to pay a $100,000 civil penalty, implement a multi-year compliance plan, and submit annual compliance reports to the FCC for four years.  Due to the additional “issues,” the four-year compliance plan is now a five-year compliance plan.

The important takeaway from this proceeding is that a consent decree does not mark the end of an investigatory encounter with the FCC, but is merely a waypoint.  The penalty for a repeated offense while the consent decree is still in effect can be substantial.  In addition, most consent decrees require the alleged violator to promptly report any new violations to the FCC, greatly increasing the likelihood that new violations will come to light (and of course concealing violations that a consent decree requires be promptly reported ramps up the risk of severe FCC enforcement action considerably).  So those who sign a consent decree thinking the worst is behind them need to make a concerted effort to ensure that there are no future violations as well, particularly during the term of the consent decree.  The enforcement process does not end when the “voluntary contribution” payment is made under a consent decree.  It continues quietly, through compliance reports, follow-up reviews, and, when needed, renewed enforcement action.

Massachusetts Pirate Radio Operator Agrees to Lengthy 20-Year Consent Decree

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau has entered into a Consent Decree with an individual operating a pirate radio station in Massachusetts.  Pirate radio operations are illegal under the Communications Act of 1934 and can interfere with licensed communications, posing a danger to the public by interfering with licensed stations carrying public safety messages, including Emergency Alert System transmissions.

The Consent Decree follows the FCC’s issuance of a $40,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in April 2024 for operating an unauthorized FM broadcast station without a license.  In the NAL, the FCC found that the individual had twice violated the FCC’s Rules, on June 6 and July 11, 2023, by operating an unauthorized radio station.  Under Section 511 of the Communications Act, the FCC may impose a fine against any person “who willfully and knowingly does or causes or suffers to be done any pirate radio broadcasting.” Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue is a special edition:

FCC Enforcement Monitor—The Government Shutdown Edition
While shutdowns of the federal government have become depressingly common, the FCC has generally been less affected than most government agencies because it is not funded by taxpayer dollars but by regulatory fees paid by broadcasters and others regulated by the FCC. However, because the FCC collects those fees in arrears—at the end of the fiscal year they fund rather than the beginning—the FCC must borrow operating funds from the federal government to operate and then repay that debt when regulatory fees are collected at the end of the fiscal year. That is the reason the FCC is never able to extend its regulatory fee collection deadline beyond September 30, the last day of the federal fiscal year.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • $7,000 Consent Decree for National Cell Phone Provider Marketing Unauthorized Smartphone
  • FCC Pursues Missouri Property Owners Over Pirate Radio Broadcasts
  • New Hampshire AM Station Gets Notice of Violation for Failing to Air Station IDs

FCC Settles Investigation Into Marketing of Unauthorized Smartphone

A national wireless provider entered into a Consent Decree with the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau for marketing a smartphone in the United States prior to receiving equipment authorization for it from the Commission.  The phone was announced and marketing of it commenced on May 14, 2024.  The provider advertised and otherwise marketed the phone for over a week until it was made available for purchase on May 23, 2024.  The phone received an FCC equipment authorization on May 29, 2024.  During that two-week period, thousands of phones were sold to consumers in violation of the FCC’s equipment marketing rules.

Section 302(b) of the Communications Act and Section 2.803(b) of the FCC’s Rules prohibit marketing or importing radio frequency devices prior to receiving equipment authorization by the FCC.  “Marketing” includes selling, leasing, offering for sale or lease, advertising for sale or lease, importing, shipping, or distributing the device for sale or lease.  Sections 2.1203 and 2.1204 of the FCC’s Rules require radio frequency devices to receive equipment authorization approval prior to importation into the U.S. unless the device qualifies for an exemption and complies with the FCC’s applicable technical and administrative requirements.

In October 2024, the FCC sent a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) to the provider requesting information about the marketing of the smartphone and seeking information regarding compliance with the FCC’s import restrictions.  The provider timely responded to the LOI, explaining that it typically “relies on manufacturers to ensure that FCC equipment authorization procedures are met” and citing its contractual terms with the manufacturer regarding authorization prior to delivery.  The FCC determined, however, that those contractual references were insufficient to avoid a violation of its import rules.

To resolve the matter, the provider entered into a Consent Decree with the Enforcement Bureau under which it agreed to implement a Compliance Plan and make a $7,000 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury.  The Consent Decree requires the provider to designate a compliance officer, implement a multi-part Compliance Plan, file annual compliance reports with the Commission for the next three years, and verify that all devices have proper FCC authorization (or qualify for an exemption) prior to accepting delivery of them.

Missouri Property Owners Warned Over Illegal Radio Broadcasts

The Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting (Notice) to two property owners in Boonville, Missouri.  The Enforcement Bureau’s Columbia Office investigated the property after receiving a complaint about unlicensed operation.  The agents confirmed, using direction-finding techniques, that unauthorized transmissions were emanating from the property on two separate occasions: December 18, 2024, and August 21, 2025.

FCC records indicated that no license had been issued for a broadcast station at that location, and the Enforcement Bureau determined that exemptions for extremely low-powered devices also did not apply. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • Low Power FM Licensee Cedes De Facto Station Control Through Contract
  • Pirate Radio Station Operator Arrested During Live Broadcast
  • Northeast Property Owners Warned Over Illegal Radio Broadcasts

Short-Term License Renewal and $2,000 Consent Decree for LPFM Control Violation

The FCC’s Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with the licensee of a North Carolina low power FM (LPFM) station to resolve an investigation into whether the licensee violated Section 310(d) of the Communications Act and Section 73.865 of the FCC’s Rules.  Under those provisions, an LPFM station cannot be transferred or assigned to another party without the FCC’s prior consent.

To determine whether control of a broadcast station has transferred, the FCC considers “actual or legal control, direct or indirect control, negative or affirmative control, and de facto as well as de jure control.”  An analysis of de facto control looks at the exercise of control over a station’s programming, personnel, and finances, among other things.  Surrendering control over these matters to another person transfers de facto control of the station.

Following receipt of a complaint alleging the station’s former licensee was controlling the station pursuant to a local marketing agreement, the FCC conducted an investigation.  It concluded that the current licensee had ceded control of the station to the former licensee by entering into an agreement that gave the former licensee “sole right and privilege to determine the selection of programs” and required the station to “broadcast the provided programming, in its entirety, as delivered by [the former licensee] without any editing, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.”  Broadcast licensees are not allowed to convey such unfettered control over a station’s programming to another party. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • TV Group Owner Enters $222,500 Consent Decree Over Pornographic Broadcast Hack
  • Kentucky Radio Station License Revoked Over Unpaid Regulatory Fees
  • FCC Threatens Chinese Telecom Provider With Fines for Failure to Fully Respond to FCC Inquiries

Pornography on Background Monitor During Newscast Leads to Costly Consent Decree

A group owner of TV stations entered into a Consent Decree with the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau to resolve an investigation into the broadcast of indecent material during a 6 p.m. newscast.

Section 73.3999 of the FCC’s Rules prohibits the broadcast of obscene material at any time and prohibits the broadcast of indecent material between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., primarily to protect children from being exposed to inappropriate content.

After receiving a complaint about pornographic material appearing during a weather report in October 2021, the FCC sent a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) to the station’s licensee in November 2021.   The licensee’s parent company responded to the LOI and confirmed that the material aired for approximately 13 seconds on a monitor which was visible behind the weatherperson during the weather segment.  The broadcaster explained that the accidental airing of the material, which was aired without the station’s prior knowledge or involvement, was caused by an unauthorized third party who exploited a wireless screencasting feature of the on-set monitor to display the content.  The legacy wireless network had been installed prior to the licensee’s acquisition of the station and, as was discovered after the incident, it lacked password protection.

Upon spotting the material displayed on the monitor, the station promptly switched to a full-screen weather graphic to end the broadcast of the material, issued an on-air apology, and conducted an internal investigation which included working with local law enforcement to identify the party responsible for transmitting the material to the monitor.  The broadcaster reported that the content did not pass through the station’s normal production systems and attributed the breach to unauthorized access via the unsecured legacy wireless network.  Upon discovering that the monitor had a screencasting capability that had been exploited, the broadcaster subsequently disabled screencasting capabilities for all monitors located at its stations, deactivated the vulnerable network, and took the added step of removing all wireless components from its existing monitors and any newly acquired monitors at all of its stations.

Despite the police’s inability to determine who was responsible for exploiting the previously unknown wireless capability of the monitor, and the extraordinary steps taken by the broadcaster to prevent a recurrence not just at this station, but at all of its stations, the FCC pursued an investigation of the broadcaster.

To resolve the investigation, the broadcaster entered into a Consent Decree with the Enforcement Bureau.  Under the terms of the Consent Decree, the broadcaster agreed to make a “voluntary contribution” of $222,500 to the United States Treasury, implement a multi-year Compliance Plan (including appointing a Compliance Officer, creating a Compliance Manual, conducting employee training and establishing operating procedures to prevent such an occurrence in the future, and committing to promptly notify the FCC of any future violations of either the indecency rules or of the Consent Decree), and submit regular compliance reports to the FCC over a three-year period.

FCC Revokes Kentucky Radio Station’s License After Years of Unpaid Regulatory Fees

 The FCC revoked the license of a Kentucky AM radio station for failing to pay regulatory fees for six fiscal years, going back to 2013.

Under Section 9 of the Communications Act and Section 1.1151 of the FCC’s Rules, the Commission has the authority to assess annual fees to cover its operational costs.  Late payment of these fees incurs a 25% penalty plus interest. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • CB Radio Operator’s Transmission of Indecipherable Sound Effects Leads to $25,000 Fine
  • Low Power FM Radio Licensee Enters Consent Decree Over Airing of Commercials
  • Interfering Bluetooth Speaker Leads FCC Field Agents to Florida Spa

Unauthorized CB Radio Use Results in $25,000 Fine

An Illinois Citizens Band Radio Service (CB) operator was fined $25,000 for engaging in unauthorized operation of a CB radio and willfully or maliciously causing interference.  Operating a CB radio no longer requires an FCC license, but its operation must still comply with all FCC rules.  Among the activities that are generally prohibited are transmission of one-way verbal communications, music and sound effects, and conversations longer than five minutes.

Section 95.933 of the FCC’s Rules also prohibits CB transmissions that include advertising for political candidates or for goods or services, and also prohibits transmitting live radio or TV broadcasts.  In this case, the violator transmitted nonverbal, indecipherable sound effects for long periods of time.  The resulting Forfeiture Order noted that unauthorized CB operations disrupt proper CB uses like “travelers’ assistance, warnings of hazardous road conditions, reporting accidents, etc.”

In the Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) that preceded the Forfeiture Order, the FCC detailed the relevant facts, including complaints of transmissions of comedy routines, air raid siren sounds, and digital noises.  A visit to the area by an FCC field agent determined that unintelligible, data-like noises were coming from an antenna on the violator’s home.  The individual failed to respond to an on-scene Notice of Interference to Authorized Radio Stations left by the agent.  After subsequently receiving a Notice of Unlicensed Operation, the individual spoke with the regional office of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau and claimed that a battery-operated transmitter inside a milk crate had been placed at a corner near his house.  He failed, however, to submit any documentation corroborating the existence of such a device.  On a second visit to the area, the field agent observed a data-like transmission similar to what was observed during the initial site visit but did not observe a transmitting milk crate.

The 2023 NAL described the individual’s history of non-compliance with FCC rules dating back to 1999, including his failure to pay a previous $14,000 fine.  The individual did not respond to the NAL, so the FCC proceeded to issuing a fine.

The FCC’s base fine for each day of unauthorized operation is $10,000, and for each day of interference is $7,000.  The Enforcement Bureau determined that the violations occurred on two days and assessed a fine of $25,000, the highest total fine the Enforcement Bureau is allowed to fine a non-common carrier under its delegated authority.  The individual has 30 days to pay the $25,000 fine, which will be made slightly more difficult by the fact that the FCC limits credit card payments to the agency to $24,999.99.

Low Power FM Station Signs Consent Decree Over Underwriting Violations

A Virginia low power FM (LPFM) radio licensee entered into a Consent Decree with the FCC to resolve issues related to airing commercial advertising.  The LPFM station’s license renewal application drew a Petition to Deny and informal objection making a number of allegations, including that the station participated in a prohibited operating agreement with other parties in violation of Section 73.860(e) of the FCC’s Rules, deviated from the educational purpose stated in the station’s initial construction permit (CP) application, made false certifications in the CP application, and regularly aired commercial announcements in violation of Section 399B of the Communications Act and Sections 73.503(d) and 73.801 of the FCC’s Rules. Continue reading →