Articles Posted in Telecommunications

Published on:

By

Toll free calling began in 1967, with the introduction of the 800 toll free code. It remains a frequently used communications tool, even in the Internet age, as new toll-free applications are developed, including the capability to send text messages to certain toll-free numbers. Yesterday, the FCC released a Report and Order that made several innovative changes to the toll free number marketplace.

First, the FCC revised its rules to permit the use of auctions to assign toll free numbers. Since 1998, the FCC has used a “first-come, first-served” approach, but now asserts that the times have changed such that flexibility in the form of auctions is necessary to meet the statutory requirement that toll free numbers be allocated “on an equitable basis.”

Specifically, the FCC states that the first-come, first-served approach has “rewarded actors that have invested in systems to increase the chances that their choices of toll free numbers are received first.” It also states that assigning numbers at no cost “has allowed accumulation of numbers without ensuring those numbers are being put to their most efficient use.”

The FCC will not waste any time using its new auction authority. The 833 toll free code, which was opened in 2017, currently has 17,000 “mutually exclusive” numbers. Mutually exclusive numbers are those subject to multiple requests. The FCC has established the 833 Auction to sell the rights to these numbers.

The Report and Order also revises FCC rules to allow a secondary market for toll free numbers purchased in an auction. Currently, FCC rules prevent three types of conduct that make a secondary market infeasible: (1) “brokering,” which is the selling of a toll free number by a private entity for a fee; (2) “hoarding,” which is the “acquisition by a toll free subscriber . . . of more toll free numbers than the toll free subscriber intends to use for the provision of toll free service;” and (3) “warehousing,” where toll free numbers are reserved without having an actual toll free subscriber for whom the numbers are being reserved.

The FCC explained that a secondary market for toll free numbers assigned via auction is desirable because it “permit[s] subscribers to legally obtain numbers which they value.” It further explained that a secondary market promotes efficient operation of an auction by allowing the purchase or sale of numbers in response to the outcome of the auction, and “limits pre-auction costs associated with estimating which—and how many—numbers a bidder may win.” Also, with a nod to speculators, it explained that a secondary market “encourages value-creating entities to promote efficiency by procuring rights to numbers with an intent to sell those rights to other interested subscribers.”

The rule changes established in the Report and Order will go into effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Published on:

By

The first 911 call was made 50 years ago, long before wireless phones, texting, and Internet calling were used for everyday communications. Congress and the FCC regularly propose and adopt laws and regulations to keep pace with ever-changing technology. Those efforts continue today with the release by the FCC of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) to implement two bills recently adopted by Congress to improve 911 emergency calling.

The first, Kari’s Law, requires multi-line telephone systems (“MLTS”) in the United States to allow users to dial 911 directly, without having to dial a “9” or any other prefix to reach an outside line. The law was enacted in February in honor of a Texas woman who was fatally stabbed in a hotel room by her estranged husband in 2013. The woman’s nine-year-old daughter was in the room at the time and repeatedly tried dialing 911, but did not know that an extra “9” was needed to reach an outside line.

Though the focus here was on hotel phone services, the application to MLTS makes the impact much broader. MLTS are telephone systems used in settings such as office buildings, campuses, and hotels. Kari’s Law also requires that such systems transmit a notification to an appropriate on-site or third-party contact, such as a front desk or security office, when a 911 call is made.

Under the proposed rules, the direct dialing requirement would be mandatory for “persons engaged in the business of manufacturing, importing, selling, or leasing MLTS, as well as persons engaged in the business of installing, managing, or operating MLTS.” The notification requirement would mandate that a “person engaged in the business of installing, managing, or operating MLTS shall, in installing, managing, or operating the system, configure it to provide a notification that a 911 call has been placed by a caller on the MLTS system.” The notification would be required to include, at a minimum, the following information: (1) that the 911 call has been made; (2) a valid callback number; and (3) the caller’s location. In addition, to ensure timely notifications, the FCC proposes that notifications be transmitted at the same time as the 911 call.

The statutorily mandated compliance date of Kari’s Law is February 16, 2020, and only applies to MLTS that are “manufactured, imported, offered for first sale or lease, first sold or leased, or installed” after that date. Other MLTS are grandfathered from compliance.

The NPRM also proposes rules to implement RAY BAUM’S Act, which was enacted in March and requires that the FCC conduct a proceeding that considers adopting rules that require “dispatchable location” be transmitted to 911 call centers, regardless of the technological platform used. Dispatchable location is defined in the NPRM as “the street address of the calling party, and additional information such as room number, floor number, or similar information necessary to adequately identify the location of the calling party.” Currently, when a 911 call is made in an MLTS environment such as a large campus or hotel, the location may be included in the information sent to the 911 call center, but that location may be the site’s main entrance or an administrative office and not the precise location of the caller.

Under the proposed rules, the transmission of a dispatchable location would be required for MLTS, fixed telephone service, interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) services, and Telecommunications Relay Service. The FCC seeks comment on the technical feasibility of the requirement, a comparison of the costs and benefits, and whether the requirement should be extended to any other 911-capable services, such as outbound-only VoIP. The proposed compliance date is February 16, 2020, to coincide with the compliance date of Kari’s Law.

Comment on the FCC’s proposals will be due 45 days after the NPRM’s publication in the Federal Register, with reply comments due 30 days after that date.

Published on:

By

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published 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:

Headlines:

  • Louisiana Class A TV Station Settles Online Public File Violations for $50,000 Ahead of License Renewal
  • FCC and Michigan Teenager Enter Into Consent Decree After Misuse of Public Safety Communications System
  • Missouri Telco Agrees to $16,000 Settlement Over Unauthorized Transfers

When Violations Accumulate: Online Public File Violations Lead to $50,000 Settlement with the FCC

The FCC recently entered into a Consent Decree with a Louisiana Class A TV station licensee to resolve an investigation into the station’s failure to comply with its online Public Inspection File obligations.

Section 73.3526 of the FCC’s Rules requires licensees to timely place certain items in their online Public Inspection File relating to a station’s programming and operations.  For example, Section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) requires stations to place an issues/programs list in their Public Inspection File each quarter.  That document must list programs aired during the preceding quarter that are responsive to issues identified by the station as important to its community.  Section 73.3526(e)(11)(ii) requires broadcasters to quarterly certify their compliance with the commercial limits on children’s television programming.

Also on a quarterly basis, Section 73.3526(e)(11)(iii) requires stations to file a Children’s Television Programming Report detailing their efforts to air programming serving the educational and informational needs of children.  Section 73.2526(e)(17) similarly requires Class A TV stations to provide documentation demonstrating continued compliance with the FCC’s eligibility and service requirements for maintaining their Class A status.

When the broadcaster filed its license renewal application in February 2013, it disclosed that it had failed to comply with certain Public File requirements during its most recent license term.  Over the next year and a half, the FCC sent letters to the broadcaster requesting that it (1) upload the missing and late-filed documents and (2) provide an explanation for its failure to comply with the Rules.  The FCC did not receive a response until, in 2015, the broadcaster uploaded the required documents to its online Public File.

The broadcaster subsequently admitted that, since 2005, it had not prepared and would be unable to recreate 16 quarters worth of issues/programs lists.  The broadcaster also stated that it had failed to timely file dozens of other issues/programs lists, Class A certifications, Children’s Television Programming Reports, and children’s programming commercial limits certifications.

Under the terms of the Consent Decree, the broadcaster agreed to (1) admit its violations of the Rules; (2) pay a $50,000 civil penalty to the United States Treasury; and (3) implement and maintain a compliance plan to avoid future violations.  The compliance plan must remain in effect until the FCC finalizes its review of the broadcaster’s next license renewal application.  In return for the station’s timely payment, the FCC will end the investigation and grant the station’s pending license renewal application for a term ending in June 2021.

The next application cycle for broadcast license renewals begins in June 2019, and the FCC’s license renewal application form requires stations to certify that their Public Inspection File has been complete at all times during the license term, in compliance with Section 73.3526 (or Section 73.3527 in the case of noncommercial stations).

As the last radio stations moved their Public Files online in March of this year, missing and late-filed documents now can be easily spotted by the FCC, increasing the likelihood of penalties not just for Public File violations, but for falsely certifying Public File compliance in the license renewal application.  With that in mind, the FCC recently encouraged licensees to address Public File compliance issues as soon as possible to reduce the impact on upcoming license renewals.

Sounds Like Teen Spirit: Traffic Stop Results in Michigan Teenager’s Consent Decree for Misuse of a Public Safety Network

The Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a 19-year old amateur radio licensee who made unauthorized radio transmissions on the Michigan Public Safety Communications System (MPSCS).  The agreement concludes an investigation that began when Michigan State Police discovered a cloned radio device during a routine traffic stop.

Section 301 of the Act prohibits the transmission of radio signals without prior FCC authorization, Section 333 of the Act prohibits willful or malicious interference with licensed radio communications, and Section 90.20 of the Rules establishes the requirements to obtain authorization to use frequencies reserved for public safety uses.  In addition, Sections 90.403, 90.405, and 90.425 of the Rules set operating requirements for using these public safety frequencies. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published 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 Proposes $235,668 Fine for Filing Untruthful Information
  • Major Phone Carrier Settles Dispute With FCC Over Rural Call Completion Issues for $40 Million
  • Repeat Pirate Nets $25,000 Fine

Tower Records: FCC Proposes Large Fine for Dozens of Falsified Tower Registrations

After a bizarre string of events involving unlit towers, falsified applications, and alleged theft, the FCC proposed a penalty of $235,668 against a Wisconsin holding company for providing false and misleading information on dozens of Antenna Structure Registration (“ASR”) applications and misleading an Enforcement Bureau agent.

Section 1.17 of the FCC’s Rules requires a party that is either (A) applying for an FCC authorization; or (B) engaging in activities that require such authorizations, to be truthful and accurate in all its interactions with the FCC.  Specifically, Section 1.17(a)(2) states that no person shall “provide material factual information that is incorrect or omit material information that is necessary to prevent any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect or misleading….”

In December 2016, the Enforcement Bureau began investigating an unlit tower in Wisconsin after the Federal Aviation Authority (the “FAA”) forwarded a complaint from a pilot who had noticed the structure.  Unlit towers pose a serious danger to air navigation.  In the midst of the investigation, the tower’s ASR information was changed to show a new company had taken control of the tower.  When an FCC investigator reached out to the newly registered owner, the company’s CEO stated that his company had recently acquired the tower, knew of the lighting problem, and would make repairs as soon as the weather permitted.  In the meantime, the company also began changing the registration information for other towers, requested flight hazard review from the FAA for some of these towers, and filed an ASR application for construction of a new tower in Florida.

Several months later, the original owner of the unlit tower informed the FCC that the other company was not actually the owner and that the imposter company’s “CEO” had improperly changed the ownership information for several sites in the ASR system.  The true owner also claimed that the alleged fraudster had changed locks and stolen equipment from several of the real owner’s towers—including the new lighting equipment that the original owner bought to repair the extinguished tower lighting.

In response, the Enforcement Bureau sent a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) to the claimed CEO’s physical and email addresses seeking more information about his various applications.  To date, the Bureau has not received any response.

In a Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), the Enforcement Bureau determined that the CEO’s company became subject to Section 1.17 when it applied for the Florida tower registration, and also that the CEO was engaging in activities that require FCC authorization.  According to the NAL, the CEO apparently provided false and misleading information on 42 separate change in ownership applications and communicated false information to the investigating agent.  According to the Enforcement Bureau, the company also violated Section 403 of the Communications Act (the “Act”) by failing to respond to the LOI.

Under its statutory authority to penalize any party that “willfully or repeatedly fails to comply” with the Act or the FCC’s Rules, the FCC may issue up to a $19,639 forfeiture for each violation or each day of a continuing violation.  Accordingly, the FCC proposed a fine of $19,639 for each of the 10 apparently false applications filed in the past year, $19,639 for the company’s alleged misleading statements to the investigating agent, and an additional $19,639 for its failure to respond to the FCC’s questions, for a total of $235,688.

Missed Connections: Major Phone Carrier Agrees to Pay $40 Million After Investigation Into Rural Call Completion Issues

The FCC entered into a Consent Decree with a major phone carrier after an investigation into whether the carrier violated the Commission’s Rural Call Completion Rules.

According to the FCC, consumers in low-population areas face problems with long-distance and wireless call quality.  In an effort to address these problems, the FCC has promulgated a series of directives that prohibit certain practices it deems unreasonable and require carriers to address complaints about rural calling (“Rural Call Completion Rules”).

In 2012, the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau determined that a carrier may be liable under Section 201 of the Act for unjust or unreasonable practices if it “knows or should know that calls are not being completed to certain areas” and engages in practices (or omissions) that allow these problems to continue.  This includes (1) failure to ensure that intermediate providers (companies that connect calls from the caller’s carrier to the recipient’s carrier) are performing adequately; and (2) not taking corrective action when the carrier is aware of call completion problems. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

This past Friday, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit released its long-awaited decision in ACA International et al. v. FCC, a case involving the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) that has significant implications for any business contacting consumers by telephone or text. The decision arises out of challenges to an omnibus Declaratory Ruling and Order released by the FCC in July of 2015, which itself was responding to requests for exemption from, or clarification of, the FCC’s TCPA rules, especially the more stringent FCC rules that took effect on October 16, 2013. In the Declaratory Ruling and Order, the FCC adopted a very expansive interpretation of the TCPA, exacerbating, rather than alleviating, long-standing litigation risks that many companies face under the TCPA.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published 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 Proposes Forfeitures Against South Carolina Stations for Failure to Maintain Public Inspection File
  • Noncommercial Station and FCC Settle Dispute Over Promotional Announcements
  • Brooklyn-based Bitcoin Miner Warned Over Harmful Interference
  • FCC Issues Notice to Security Camera Manufacturer for Device ID Violations

FCC Proposes Fine Against Licensee of South Carolina Stations for Failure to Maintain Complete Public Files

In two separate Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NALs”) released on the same day, the FCC found two commonly owned radio stations apparently liable for repeated violations of its public inspection file rule.

Section 73.3526 of the FCC’s Rules requires stations to maintain a public inspection file that includes various documents and items related to the broadcaster’s operations.  For example, subsection 73.3526(e)(11) requires TV stations to place in their public inspection file Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists describing the “programs that have provided the station’s most significant treatment of community issues during the preceding three month period.”

In their respective license renewal applications, the stations disclosed that they had failed to locate numerous Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists from the 2003 to 2010 time period.  According to the licensee, the gaps in its reporting were due to several personnel changes at all levels of the stations as well as computer and software changes made over the past ten years.

Between the two NALs, the FCC found a total of 38 missing Lists (21 for one station, and 17 for the other station), which it considered a “pattern of abuse.” Pursuant to the FCC’s forfeiture policies and Section 1.80(b)(4) of its Rules, the base forfeiture for a violation of Section 73.3526 is $10,000.  The FCC can adjust the forfeiture upwards or downwards depending on the circumstances of the violation.  Here, the FCC proposed a $12,000 forfeiture in response to the station with 21 missing Lists and a $10,000 forfeiture for the station with 17 missing Lists.  Visit here to learn more about the FCC’s Quarterly Issues/Programs List requirements.  For information on maintaining a public inspection file, check out Pillsbury’s advisory on the topic.

“Ad” Nauseam: FCC Resolves Investigation Into Underwriting Rules Violation

The FCC entered into a Consent Decree with the licensee of two noncommercial educational (“NCE”) radio stations in Arizona and California after receiving complaints that the stations aired commercial advertising in violation of the Communications Act and the FCC’s Rules (together, the “Underwriting Laws”).

Section 399B of the Communications Act of 1934 prohibits noncommercial stations from making their facilities “available to any person for the broadcasting of any advertisement.” Section 73.503(d) of the FCC’s Rules prohibits an NCE station from making promotional announcements “on behalf of for profit entities” in exchange for any benefit or payment.  Such stations may, however, broadcast “underwriting announcements” that identify but do not “promote” station donors.  Such identifications may not, among other things, include product descriptions, price comparisons, or calls to action on behalf of a for-profit underwriter.  The FCC recognizes that it is “at times difficult to distinguish between language that promotes versus that which merely identifies the underwriter,” and expects licensees to exercise good faith judgment in their underwriting messages.

In response to complaints from an individual who alleged that the stations had repeatedly violated the Underwriting Laws, the FCC sent the licensee multiple letters of inquiry regarding questionable underwriting messages between August 2016 and March 2017.  According to the FCC, the licensee did not dispute many of the facts in the letters, and the parties entered into the Consent Decree shortly thereafter.  Under the Consent Decree, the licensee (1) admitted that it violated the Underwriting Laws; (2) is prohibited from airing any underwriting announcement on behalf of a for-profit entity for one year; (3) must implement a compliance plan; and (4) must pay a $115,000 civil penalty.

Brooklyn Bitcoin Mining Operation Draws FCC Ire Over Harmful Interference

The FCC issued a Notification of Harmful Interference (“Notification”) to an individual it found was operating Bitcoin mining hardware in his Brooklyn, New York home.

Section 15 of the FCC’s Rules regulates the use of unlicensed equipment that emits radio frequency energy (“RF devices”), a broad category of equipment that includes many personal electronics, Bluetooth and WiFi-enabled devices, and even most modern light fixtures.  Such devices must not interrupt or seriously degrade an authorized radio communication service.  The FCC’s rules require a device user to cease operation if notified by the FCC that the device is causing harmful interference. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published 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:

Headlines:

  • FCC Revokes Licenses After Alleged Failure to Report Felony Drug Conviction
  • Car Dealership Receives Citation for Interference-Creating Outdoor Lighting
  • License Renewal Hearing Ordered for Near-Silent Virginia Stations
  • FCC Commissioner Criticizes Local Colorado News Site Over Pirate Radio Station Article

LA Business Stripped of Licenses for Alleged Misrepresentations About Drug Conviction

In a rare Order of Revocation, the FCC revoked all of a Los Angeles communication equipment provider’s licenses after the licensee failed to respond to an inquiry into whether its manager lied about a 1992 felony drug conviction in dozens of Commission filings.

The Order rescinds the licensee’s eleven Private Land Mobile Radio (“PLMR”) and microwave station licenses and dismisses all of the licensee’s pending modification and license renewal applications.

Section 312(a) of the Communications Act authorizes the FCC to revoke a license “for false statements knowingly made … in the application” or when it finds that conditions “warrant it in refusing to grant a license[.]”  Pursuant to Section 1.17(a)(1) of the FCC’s Rules, no person may “intentionally provide material factual information that is incorrect or intentionally omit material information that is necessary to prevent any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect or misleading.”  The FCC heavily weighs any misrepresentation or lack of candor when it determines whether a party is fit to become or remain a licensee.

The FCC began looking into the licensee’s fitness in 2015, when a different Los Angeles business alleged that the licensee had knowingly lied on an at least one FCC application when it replied “No” to a question that asked whether any of the licensee’s controlling parties had ever been convicted of a felony.  As it turns out, the manager (who is also the licensee’s sole shareholder) had been convicted of possession for sale of cocaine and sentenced to serve two years in California State Prison over two decades ago.  The FCC would later learn that the licensee had misrepresented the manager’s criminal history in at least 50 separate FCC filings.

In response, the FCC sent the licensee a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) seeking information about the manager’s role with the company and any criminal history.  When the licensee did not respond to the LOI, the FCC commenced a proceeding with an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) to determine whether the licensee had engaged in misrepresentation before the Commission, whether it was qualified to remain a licensee, and what the FCC should do with the licensee’s various outstanding applications.  When the licensee failed to respond to the ALJ’s request to file a written appearance, and failed to appear for a status conference, the ALJ ordered a hearing, which the licensee also ignored.

The FCC determined that the company was unqualified to remain a Commission licensee, revoked all of its licenses, and denied with prejudice all of the licensee’s pending applications.

Light’s Out: FCC Issues Citation to Car Dealership That Fails to Address Harmful Interference

The FCC issued a citation to a North Dakota car dealership for its continued use of outdoor lighting that interferes with a wireless service provider’s nearby cell site.

Pursuant to Section 302(a) of the Communications Act, the FCC regulates all radio frequency energy-emitting devices (“RF devices”) that are capable of causing “harmful interference to radio communications.”  Section 15 of the FCC’s Rules regulates intentional and unintentional radiators of RF emissions, ranging from garage door openers to sophisticated computer components.  Section 18 regulates equipment that generates or uses RF energy for industrial, scientific, and medical (“ISM”) purposes.  If ISM equipment causes harmful interference with an authorized radio service, Section 18.111(b) of the Rules requires its operator to take “whatever steps may be necessary to eliminate the interference.”  Similarly, Section 18.115(a) requires the operator to “promptly take appropriate measures to correct the problem.” Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published 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:

Headlines:

  • FCC Fires Broadside at Pirate Stronghold: Nearly Half of November Pirate Radio Notices Go to NY/NJ/CT Area
  • Sorry About That: Wireless Broadband Manufacturer Pays $95,000 to End Investigation of Failure to Prevent Harmful Manipulation of Its Products
  • Not Too Bright: FCC Proposes $25,000 Fine for Marketing Unlabeled Fluorescent Lights

No Parlay for Pirates: FCC Turns Up the Heat on Dozens of Alleged Pirate Radio Operators

In its most recent salvo against pirate radio operators, FCC field agents issued dozens of Notices of Violation (“NOV”) or Notices of Unauthorized Operation (“NOUO”) against alleged operators of unlicensed radio stations, particularly in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.

Under Section 301 of the Communications Act, transmission of radio signals without FCC authorization is prohibited.  Unlicensed radio operators risk seizure of their equipment, heavy fines, and criminal sanctions.

On just two consecutive days in October, agents from the New York field office investigated no fewer than eight pirate radio operations in New York and New Jersey, and the past month saw half a dozen NOUOs issued for Connecticut pirate radio operations.

In a similar show of force to the south, the FCC warned a dozen Florida residents of potential violations. The FCC also handed out a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) to an alleged California pirate, proposing a $15,000 fine.

For many years, broadcasters complained bitterly about both the interference from multiplying pirate stations and the FCC’s glacial response to these illegal operations. Too often, the FCC’s response was to shrug its bureaucratic shoulders and note that it had limited resources. Broadcasters thus became even more disheartened when the FCC greatly reduced its field offices and staffing in 2016, making it harder for FCC personnel to quickly reach and investigate pirate operations, even if given authority to do so.

Fortunately, Commissioner O’Rielly took up the cause early in his tenure at the FCC, and under Chairman Pai, the FCC has made prosecution of unauthorized radio operations a priority. While broadcasters are certainly appreciative of the change, the sudden uptick in enforcement actions by a reduced number of field offices and agents has made clear that it was never a matter of resources, but of regulatory will. If you want to hunt pirates, you have to leave port.

Consent Decree Ends FCC Investigation Into Company’s Modifiable Wireless Broadband Devices

The FCC entered into a Consent Decree with a wireless device manufacturer after investigating whether the company violated various rules pertaining to the authorization and marketing of devices that emit radio frequency (“RF”) radiation.

In particular, the FCC looked into the manufacturer’s U-NII (Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure) devices. These devices are commonly used for Wi-Fi and other broadband access technology. However, U-NII devices that operate in the 5 GHz radio band risk interfering with certain weather radar systems. As a result, the FCC regulates how manufacturers make these devices available to the public. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Toll-free telephone numbers celebrated their 50th birthday this year (frankly, without much fanfare). These numbers allow callers to reach businesses without being charged for the call. When long distance calling was expensive, these numbers were enticing marketing tools used by businesses to encourage customer calls and provide a single number for nationwide customer service—for example, hotel, airline or car rental reservations.

Toll-free numbers are most valuable to businesses when they are easy to remember because they spell a word (1-877-DENTIST) or have a simple dialing pattern (1-855-222-2222). Like all telephone numbers, however, the FCC considers toll-free numbers to be a public resource, not owned by any single person, business or telephone company. Toll-free numbers are assigned on a first-come, first-served basis, primarily by telecommunications carriers known as Responsible Organizations. The FCC even has rules that prohibit hoarding (keeping more than you need) or selling toll-free numbers.

But the rules will change if the FCC adopts its recent proposal to assign toll-free numbers by auction as it prepares to open access to its new “833” toll-free numbers. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued last week proposes to auction off approximately 17,000 toll-free numbers for which there have been competing requests. The proceeds of these auctions would then be used to reduce the costs of administering toll-free numbers.

The NPRM also contemplates revising the current rules to promote the development of a secondary market for toll-free numbers. This would allow subscribers to reassign toll-free numbers to other businesses for a fee (think 1-800-STUBHUB!). The FCC suggests this would promote economic efficiencies, as the number would presumably be better utilized by a business owner willing to pay for it than by the company that merely happened to claim it first.

The proposed rules are not without controversy. Some toll-free numbers are used to promote health, safety and other public interest goals (e.g., 1-800-SUICIDE). The NPRM seeks comments on whether toll-free numbers used by governmental or certain nonprofit organizations should be exempt from the auction process. There are also questions about whether the expected demand for the 17,000 new numbers will erode if claiming a number is no longer free.

Comments in this proceeding will be due 30 days after the NPRM is published in the Federal Register, with replies due 30 days after that. If you are interested in filing comments, you can reach us at 1-888-387-5714 Call: 1-888-387-5714.  After all, it’s a toll-free call.

Published on:

By

Imagine dialing 911 and hearing an automated voice tell you that what you have dialed is not a valid number; or reaching a 911 call center only to have emergency personnel dispatched to the wrong location. In response to such problems, the FCC recently released a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) asking a broad range of questions about the capability of enterprise-based communications systems (ECS)—internal phone systems used in places like office buildings, campuses and hotels—to provide access for 911 calls.

According to the FCC, certain of these systems may not support direct 911 dialing, may not have the capability to route calls to the appropriate 911 call center, or may not provide accurate information on the caller’s location. The NOI seeks public comment on consumer expectations regarding the ability to access 911 call centers when calling from an ECS, and seeks ways, including regulation if needed, to improve the capabilities of ECS to provide direct access for 911 calls.

Continue reading →