Articles Posted in Telecommunications

Published on:

By , and

Following the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) authority to administer the Universal Service Fund (USF or Fund), a bipartisan, bicameral group of members of Congress are taking tangible steps towards potential USF reform.  In an effort to evaluate and propose potential reforms to the USF with the goal of developing a forum to guide education, awareness, and policymaking, the Congressional USF working group is currently seeking public input on how best to re-shape the Fund going forward to ensure the long-term effectiveness of each USF program.

Earlier this month, Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE) announced the launch of the USF working group’s public comment portal.  Interested parties, whether individuals or organizations, have an opportunity to provide initial responses to help guide Congress as it reviews the structure, priorities, and implementation strategy of the Fund.  The questionnaire directs respondents to share their input on specific topics concerning the effectiveness of existing programs and considerations for reform, including: Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

On Thursday, August 7, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) held its monthly Open Meeting, where it considered items spanning several industries, including broadcasting, satellite communications, and public safety, among others.  The expansive agenda reflected the Commission’s full court press on agency-wide regulatory streamlining, system modernization, and expansion of nationwide connectivity initiatives.  Below are high-level summaries of the items the Commission considered and adopted as part of the August meeting:

NEPA Review Modernization

The Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to re-examine its environmental review procedures in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as amended in 2023, and to ensure such procedures are clear, facilitate greater and faster infrastructure deployment, and accelerate the federal permitting process.  To advance these objectives, the NPRM seeks comment on whether and how to revise the FCC’s rules to align with the updated definition of a “major federal action,” update or replace the Commission’s longstanding categorical exclusions, and streamline review timelines for environmental assessments and impact statements.  The NPRM further inquires whether geographic-area licenses and other Commission actions should trigger NEPA obligations and seeks comment on  proposed changes to related rules under the National Historic Preservation Act.

  • Comments on the NPRM are due by September 18, 2025; Reply Comments are due by October 3, 2025.

Streamlining Space Bureau Reviews

The Commission adopted a Second Report and Order (Order) in its Expediting Initial Processing of Satellite and Earth Station Applications proceeding, which focuses on further expediting processing of applications and removing certain regulatory barriers to modifying systems following authorization.  The Order facilitates the expansion of ground station as a service (GSaaS) by allowing operators to apply for baseline earth station licenses without pre-identified satellite points of communication and by streamlining the process by which operators can add or remove satellite points of communication to an existing earth station authorization.  Significantly, the Order also expands the types of modifications that will not require prior FCC approval, giving more post-authorization flexibility to space and earth station operators.  The Order also eliminates the paper copy retention rule, aligns renewal timelines across earth stations, geostationary, and non-geostationary satellite applications, adds a 30-day shot clock for certain renewals, and permits market access grantees to request special temporary access.

  • Except for those rules subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Order will become effective on September 26, 2025.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

Schools, hospitals, and libraries in poor and rural areas and millions of low-income American consumers can breathe a sigh of relief: they will continue to receive uninterrupted service subsidies through the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Universal Service Fund (USF or Fund). On June 27, 2025, the US Supreme Court issued a significant decision in FCC v. Consumers’ Research affirming the constitutionality of Congress’s delegation of authority to the FCC to administer the USF, thereby upholding the funding mechanism used to deliver subsidized phone, broadband, and telecommunications service to millions of American consumers and community institutions. By a 6-3 vote, the Court reversed a ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that held both Congress’s delegation of USF authority to the FCC and the FCC’s subsequent delegation of its authority to a private administrator violated the Constitution (read our article on the Fifth Circuit’s July 2024 decision here). The decision also resolved a split in the circuit courts, as the Sixth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal had decided in favor of the FCC in similar proceedings.

At issue in the case was the application of the “nondelegation doctrine,” a principle of constitutional law that says Congress cannot delegate legislative authority to any other branch of government or to a private entity. Specifically, Consumers’ Research challenged whether the discretionary power granted to the FCC to set and collect the “Contribution Factor”—the mandatory contribution assessed against the interstate end-user revenues of each telecommunication carrier on a quarterly basis—to fund a government initiative amounts to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority (“public” delegation). Consumers’ Research also asserted that the FCC then committed a further unconstitutional delegation of authority when it conferred its congressionally delegated authority to administer the USF to a private entity, the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to permanently administer the Fund by calculating contribution rates, collecting contributions, and disbursing those contributions to subsidized projects (“private” delegation). USAC is subordinate to the FCC. 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:

  • 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 →

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:

  • Virginia Sheriff and FCC Determine Public Safety Interference Caused by Handheld Radio
  • Unauthorized Operation by Puerto Rico AM Station Leads to Notice of Violation
  • Signal Booster Operated by Luxury Apartment Building in Texas Interferes with Local Public Safety System

Virginia Investigation Results in Notice of Unlicensed Operation for Interfering with a Public Safety Communications System

Following an investigation by a Virginia sheriff’s office into interference with the county’s public safety radio communications system, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau conducted its own investigation and issued a Notice of Unlicensed Operation (NOUO) to an individual.

According to the NOUO, the sheriff’s office determined that a handheld Motorola two-way radio was transmitting signals in an attempt to self-authenticate and thereby access the county’s system.  The handheld unit used a unique identification code and had apparently been illegally programmed to operate on the county’s licensed frequencies.  The investigation led to an individual who admitted that he had programmed the radio to operate on the county’s frequencies and that he was the one operating it at the time the device attempted to self-authenticate and gain access to the county’s public safety radio system.

Under Section 301 of the Communications Act, use of radios like the one in question must generally be licensed by the FCC unless they transmit at a sufficiently low level of power to qualify under Part 15 of the FCC’s Rules for unlicensed operation.  The handheld radio in question was not certified as a Part 15 device.

In addition, any person operating a radio transmitter on frequencies exclusively licensed for public safety use needs an FCC license.  The NOUO stated that no such license had been issued to the individual.

Violators of Section 301 are subject to “substantial monetary fines, in rem arrest action against the offending radio equipment, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment.”  The individual has 10 days to respond to the FCC with a description of the steps he is taking to avoid future unlicensed operation and interference.

Puerto Rico AM Station Receives Notice of Violation for Unauthorized Operation

A Puerto Rico AM radio station recently received a Notice of Violation (NOV) from the FCC.  In the NOV, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau stated that field agents out of its Miami office observed the station operating in violation of its license.  Specifically, the agents reported that the station was operating from a single tower with a non-directional pattern, whereas the station’s license specifies a directional antenna pattern using a two-tower array.  The station had not requested and obtained Special Temporary Authority from the FCC to operate at variance from its licensed parameters.

Within 20 days of the issuance of the NOV, the licensee is required to file a response which “(i) must fully explain each violation, including all relevant surrounding facts and circumstances, (ii) must contain a statement of the specific action(s) taken to correct each violation and preclude recurrence, and (iii) must include a timeline for completion of any pending corrective action(s).”  The licensee must also include “an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, signed and dated by an authorized officer of [the licensee] with personal knowledge of the representations provided” in its response.  The FCC may then take additional enforcement action once it has the relevant facts in hand. 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:

  • Seven-Figure Fine Proposed for Robocaller Targeting FCC Staff
  • FCC’s Enforcement Bureau Issues Payola Warning to Broadcasters
  • California Noncommercial TV Station Licensee Enters $25,000 Consent Decree to Wrap Up Investigation Into Multiple Rule Violations

FCC Proposes Seven-Figure Fine for Telecom Company Accused of Allowing Bad Actors to Use Its Network to Intimidate FCC Staff

The FCC proposed a multi-million dollar fine against a voice service provider accused of failing to prevent illegal voice traffic on its network.  Some of the pre-recorded calls targeted FCC staff and their families and purported to be from the FCC’s “Fraud Prevention Team,” which does not exist.  The calls attempted to extract money from the recipients through intimidation.

Under Section 64.1200(n)(4) of the FCC’s Rules, a voice service provider must take “affirmative, effective measures to prevent new and renewing customers from using its network to originate illegal calls, including knowing its customers and exercising due diligence in ensuring that its services are not used to originate illegal traffic.”  The rule gives voice service providers discretion as to how they police their own networks as long as the measures they put in place effectively prevent the origination of illegal traffic and ensure they know their customers.  Knowing your customer involves collecting and verifying customer information, including their corporate records, government identification, and the addresses from which they will be originating their calls.  The FCC has warned providers that high-volume callers merit heightened scrutiny to ensure they will not abuse the provider’s network.

In a redacted Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), the FCC detailed the parties involved in the alleged scheme, including the voice service provider and two of its customers.  The two customers were accepted as customers on the same day, and while they provided different names and email addresses, they both had the same physical address (a Toronto hotel) and used the same domain name.  According to the NAL, on the same day they were accepted as customers and into the next day, the two entities originated automated calls that reached FCC staff and sought to connect the recipients to a live caller who, in at least one case, demanded $1,000 in gift cards to help the caller avoid jail time for “crimes against the state.”

The FCC worked with the Industry Traceback Group to determine the origin of the suspected illegal robocalls.  The Enforcement Bureau then subpoenaed call records from the voice service provider and learned that the two customers made nearly 2,000 calls over the two days that FCC staff reported receiving calls.  The FCC’s investigation revealed that the information the customers provided to the voice service provider was false and that the voice service provider did not corroborate or independently verify the customers’ information, thereby failing to apply the scrutiny necessary for the company to know its customers.  The FCC noted that the customers paid the provider in untraceable bitcoin, which helped to conceal their identities, but said it was not a factor in the FCC’s finding of apparent rule violations. 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:

  • Massachusetts Man Ordered to Cease Using Interfering Home TV Antenna
  • Unauthorized Transfers of Arkansas Radio Stations Lead to $8,000 Consent Decree
  • STIR/SHAKEN Rule Violations End With $1,000,000 Consent Decree

Interference From Home TV Antenna Moves FCC to Action

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau recently issued a Notification of Harmful Interference (Notification) directing a Massachusetts man to cease using an indoor digital TV antenna in his home.

Over a two-day period in April 2024, an agent of the FCC’s Boston field office investigated an interference complaint.  The agent determined that unauthorized radio emissions in the 813-817 MHz band were interfering with the Massachusetts State Police public safety communications system.  The agent ultimately tracked the interference to an indoor digital TV antenna located in a condominium.  His suspicions were confirmed when the interference ceased after the device was unplugged.

The Communications Act of 1934 requires devices operating on certain frequencies, including the 800 MHz band, to be licensed by the FCC.  Section 15.5(b) of the FCC’s Rules creates a limited exception to this restriction for low power devices where no harmful interference is caused.  Section 15.3(m) defines harmful interference as “[a]ny emission, radiation or induction that endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service….”

In September 2024, the Bureau sent a Notification warning to the condominium owner that the TV antenna was causing harmful interference in violation of FCC rules, and should he continue to operate it, he would be subject to severe penalties, including fines, seizure of the equipment, or even imprisonment.

The Notification directed the resident to respond to the FCC within 10 days to describe his operation of the antenna and the steps being taken to ensure no further interference is caused.  The FCC indicated it would then determine what enforcement action is warranted to ensure no future violations occur.

Unauthorized Transfers of Control of Arkansas Radio Stations Net $8,000 Consent Decree

The licensee of an AM station and three FM stations in Arkansas failed to obtain required FCC approvals before transferring the licensee’s voting stock from one trust to another, and then transferring a 50% controlling interest in the licensee from the second trust to an individual.  To resolve the investigation, the licensee entered into a Consent Decree with the FCC’s Media Bureau which required, among other things, payment of an $8,000 civil penalty. 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:

  • Failure to Pay Annual Regulatory Fees Trips Up Texas AM Radio Licensee
  • Communications Provider for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumers Resolves Investigation with Multimillion Dollar Consent Decree
  • Investigation into Unauthorized Transfer of Control of Colorado Radio Stations Leads to $3,400 Fine

License of Texas AM Station Could Be Revoked If Regulatory Fees Remain Unpaid

The licensee of a Texas AM station must either pay its overdue regulatory fees or demonstrate why the fees are inapplicable or should be waived or deferred.  According to the Federal Communications Commission’s records, the radio station currently owes unpaid regulatory fees exceeding $3,000.  The fees were originally due on September 30, 2022, and the outstanding amount continues to accrue interest and other charges until it is paid in full.

Under Section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 1.1151 of the FCC’s Rules, the FCC has the authority to assess annual fees to cover its operational costs.  These fees are typically due in late September to ensure the agency is fully funded at the start of the federal government’s fiscal year in October.  Late payment of these fees incurs a 25% penalty plus interest.  If licensees fail to pay regulatory fees and any penalties or interest, the FCC may revoke their affected licenses and other authorizations.

Prior to issuing an Order to Pay or to Show Cause, the FCC sent a demand letter to the licensee.  When payment was not received, the Commission transferred the debt to the U.S. Department of Treasury.  Subsequently, the FCC requested the return of the matter from the Treasury Department in order to pursue further collection efforts.

The Order demands that within 60 days the licensee either pay the full outstanding debt or demonstrate why the fee is inapplicable or should be waived or deferred.  The Media Bureau noted in the Order that failing to provide evidence of payment or to demonstrate why the fee isn’t applicable by the 60-day deadline could result in revocation of the station’s license. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

On July 24, 2024, an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit released a decision in Consumers’ Research et al. v. FCC holding that the Federal Communications Commission’s Universal Service Fund (“USF”) contribution mechanism violates Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution and remanded the issue to the FCC for further proceedings.  The case stems from petitioner’s constitutional challenge of the First Quarter 2022 USF contribution amount.  The court explained that (1) USF contributions are a tax; (2) Congress may have improperly delegated the legislative power to tax to the FCC without any intelligible guiding principles; (3) the FCC, in turn, may have impermissibly delegated taxing power to private entities; and (4) even absent a definitive answer on these delegation questions, the combination of Congress’s broad delegation and the FCC’s sub-delegation to private entities “certainly amounts to a constitutional violation.”  The 9-7 decision reverses a March 2023 three-judge panel decision and creates a circuit split with the DC, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits, which rejected similar arguments in July 2012, May 2023, December 2024, respectively. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Chairwoman Rosenworcel announced on July 16 that the Commission is considering adoption of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment on proposals to regulate AI-generated robocalls. The draft NPRM, released this afternoon, is the outgrowth of a November 2023 Notice of Inquiry and follows several recent FCC actions intended to mitigate the potential for bad actors to use AI technology in robocalls to mislead consumers. Over the last year, the FCC (1) has declared that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) restrictions on the use of “artificial or prerecorded voices” apply to AI-generated voices; (2) proposed a multimillion dollar fine against a person suspected of causing illegal robocalls that used a voice artificially created to sound like President Biden; and (3) sent letters to major U.S. telecommunications companies requesting information about their efforts to prevent illegal robocalls that use AI technology from reaching customers. Separately, the FCC is also considering whether to adopt disclosure requirements for political advertising that uses AI-generated content.

Continue reading →