Articles Posted in Transactions

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 $12,500 Fine for False Certification That FM Translator was Constructed as Authorized
  • Telecommunications Company Warned Over Apparent Transmission of Illegal Robocalls
  • Station Licenses in Danger Over Lack of Candor and Intentional Misrepresentation Claims Before the FCC

False Certification Brings $12,500 Proposed Fine for Louisiana FM Translator Station

The FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) to the licensee of a Louisiana FM translator for falsely certifying to construction as authorized (but without intent to deceive), failing to file a required form to obtain consent to change antennas, and for constructing and operating with an unauthorized antenna for approximately two months.  The violations alleged were raised by a third party Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) asking the FCC to reconsider the grant of a license to the new FM translator station.  The Commission found that the station apparently violated its rules and proposed a $12,500 fine.

In April 2018, the licensee applied for a permit to construct a new FM translator, proposing to use a directional antenna mounted 150 meters above ground level.  The FCC granted a construction permit in May 2018, requiring completion by May 2021.  The licensee completed construction in time and filed a license application in August 2019 certifying that the translator had been constructed as authorized.  Fifteen days after the FCC issued a public notice for the application, the license was granted in September 2019.  However, the Petition was filed in October, alleging that material in the license application was false, and that the translator had been constructed with an omnidirectional (rather than directional) antenna, and mounted at a height of 145 meters above ground level (5 meters lower than authorized).

In opposing the Petition, the licensee acknowledged it used an omnidirectional antenna for approximately two months in 2019, explaining that the authorized directional antenna had arrived damaged, and it was eager to commence operations.  The licensee explained that it operated the facilities at a much lower power level than authorized to minimize any potential for interference from using an omnidirectional antenna.  It further explained that it had no intent to deceive but did not know the significance of the antenna substitution, so it did not mention this to legal counsel who prepared the license application.  In October 2019, the translator began operating with the repaired authorized antenna, but it was mounted at 146.6 meters.  In December 2019, the Licensee filed an application for a minor modification, proposing to operate the antenna 143 meters above ground level and changing the translator’s community of license.  The Commission granted a construction permit for this modification, and an application to license the modified facilities was filed in January 2020.  The license was granted in February 2020.

Among other requirements, petitioners filing a petition for reconsideration must have either participated in the initial proceeding or show good reason why it was not possible for them to have participated earlier.  In this case, the FCC found that the Petitioner had ample time to file an informal objection during the 15-day period that the license application was on public notice before it was granted.  As such, the Commission dismissed the Petition as unacceptable under § 1.106(b) of its Rules.  Nevertheless, the FCC acknowledged the licensee’s admissions and considered on its own motion an appropriate response.

Section 74.1251(b)(2) requires FM translator licensees to request and receive permission prior to making any changes to their antenna systems.  Section 1.17(a)(1) of the FCC’s Rules prohibits individuals from intentionally providing incorrect “material factual information” or intentionally omitting “material information.”  The Commission explained that “intent to deceive” is an essential element of “misrepresentation” and “lack of candor,” and thus submitting inaccurate information due to carelessness or gross negligence is not misrepresentation or lack of candor.  However, Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules prohibits submission of incorrect information, even without deceptive intent.

The FCC found no evidence of deceptive intent and thus no misrepresentation or lack of candor.  However, the FCC determined that the licensee acted negligently when it failed to tell its legal counsel that the antenna was not constructed as authorized and when it failed to review the application thoroughly before filing.  The FCC found that the licensee apparently violated Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules because it had no reasonable basis to certify that the translator was constructed as authorized, Section 74.1251(b) by failing to file an application to alter an antenna system, and Section 74.1251(b)(2) by constructing and operating with an unauthorized antenna at an unauthorized height.

Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base fine of $3,000 for failure to file a required form and $10,000 for construction or operation without an instrument of authorization.  The guidelines do not list a base fine amount for a false certification.  Thus, the FCC considers the relevant statutory factors in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Communications Act, including “the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.”  In previous cases of false certifications by secondary stations without intent to deceive, the FCC has found a $5,000 fine appropriate.  Taking into consideration all relevant factors, especially that the translator is providing secondary service, the FCC decided to reduce the combined fine here for failing to file an application and unauthorized operation from $13,000 ($3,000 + $10,000 base fines) to $7,500.  With respect to false certification, the FCC proposed an additional fine of $5,000, consistent with the prior cases involving secondary stations.  Thus, the total proposed fine is $12,500 ($7,500 + $5,000). 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:

  • Foreign Ownership Violation by Telecommunications Provider Leads to $50,000 Penalty and Four-Year Compliance Plan
  • Arizona LPFM Station Hit with $20,000 Penalty and $41,500 Suspended Penalty for Underwriting Violations
  • Unauthorized Station Transfers Result in $8,000 Consent Decree

Telecommunications Provider to Pay $50,000 and Implement Four-Year Compliance Plan After Foreign Ownership Violations

A Guam-based telecommunications provider (Telecom Provider) settled an investigation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) into its ownership structure by entering into a consent decree that requires a $50,000 payment to the government and implementation of a 48-month compliance plan.  The Telecom Provider holds domestic and international Section 214 authorizations, 84 wireless licenses, three submarine cable licenses, and an earth station satellite license.  The FCC’s investigation concerned the Telecom Provider’s ownership, which includes two foreign corporations and a foreign government’s finance ministry.

Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), places a 25 percent limit on ownership by foreign individuals, corporations, and governments in U.S.-organized entities controlling common carrier licensees.  Under the Act, the FCC may permit higher levels of foreign ownership of an FCC licensee if it determines it is not contrary to the public interest.  Since 2013, FCC approval has also been required for any foreign individual or entity not previously approved by the FCC to acquire more than a five percent equity or voting interest in the entity.  These public interest determinations by the FCC incorporate input from a federal Executive Branch review of national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy concerns conducted by a multi-agency group known as Team Telecom.

In 2015, the FCC granted an application that allowed the Telecom Provider to have 100 percent foreign ownership consisting of a parent entity two steps up in the ownership chain (Indirect Parent Entity) (owning up to 65.15 percent of the equity and voting interests) and the finance ministry (owning up to 26.95 percent of the equity interests and 41.53 percent of the voting interests).  Five years later, the Indirect Parent Entity commenced a tender offer for outstanding shares in the parent entity directly above the telecom provider (Direct Parent Entity).  Two months later, the Indirect Parent Entity acquired the tendered shares, which increased its indirect ownership interests in the Telecom Provider to 91.46 percent.  At the end of 2020, the Indirect Parent Entity also acquired all shares of the Direct Parent Entity’s common stock held by the remaining minority shareholders, resulting in it owning 100 percent of the equity and voting interests of the Telecom Provider.  These transactions led to the finance ministry having an indirect ownership interest in the Telecom Provider (held through Indirect Parent Entity) of 33.93 percent equity and voting.  The result was higher levels of foreign ownership in the Telecom Provider than had previously been approved by the FCC.

The Telecom Provider attempted to correct the problem by filing a Petition for Declaratory Ruling seeking approval for the Indirect Parent Entity and finance ministry to exceed their previously approved foreign ownership limits.  In late 2021, the International Bureau granted the Petition, but the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau pursued the prior foreign ownership violation, resulting in a Consent Decree with the Telecom Provider.

In addition to paying a $50,000 civil penalty for exceeding the foreign ownership levels approved by the FCC, the Telecom Provider must implement a plan to ensure compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree, including developing a compliance manual, administering employee compliance training, and submitting compliance reports to the Commission for four years regarding foreign ownership compliance.  During that time, the Telecom Provider must also report instances of noncompliance with the FCC’s foreign ownership rules and the terms of the Consent Decree within 15 days of discovering them.

Violations of Noncommercial Broadcast Underwriting Laws Result in $20,000 Penalty and a $41,500 Suspended Penalty for Low Power FM Station

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with the licensee of an Arizona LPFM station to resolve an investigation into violations of the FCC’s rules regarding underwriting.  Under the Consent Decree, the licensee agreed to implement a compliance plan and pay a $20,000 civil penalty, with a suspended civil penalty of $41,500 to be levied in the event of default. 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:

  • Violations of Environmental, Historic Preservation, and Tribal Notification Rules Lead to $950,000 Penalty
  • Proposed $300 Million Fine Follows Largest-Ever FCC Robocall Investigation
  • Deceased Licensee’s Estate to Pay $7,000 Penalty for Failing to File Required Applications and Documents

Wireless Provider Pays $950,000 for Violating Environmental, Historic Preservation, and Tribal Notification Rules

A national wireless provider entered into a consent decree with the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau, agreeing to pay $950,000 for violating the FCC’s environmental and historic preservation rules, as well as rules requiring entities to coordinate with relevant state governments and tribal nations in the construction of communications sites.

To resolve the FCC’s investigation, the company admitted to prematurely constructing wireless facilities before completing the required environmental and historic preservation reviews and by constructing wireless facilities without onsite monitoring as requested by the affected tribes.  Under Section 1.1307(a)(4) of the FCC’s Rules, applicants and licensees must assess whether proposed facilities may significantly affect the environment and whether the proposed facilities may affect districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects that are listed (or eligible for listing) in the National Register of Historic Places, or may affect Native American religious sites.  Applicants must also follow other rules set out by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation or the National Historic Preservation Act Review Process, as applicable.

By early 2020, the company began deploying newer wireless technology, commonly known as small cells.  Small cell antennas are used to improve wireless service and can be mounted to streetlight poles, utility poles, or even traffic control structures.  During the summer of 2020, the company began constructing the small cell antennas that are the subject of the Consent Decree.  After the company reported concerns regarding its compliance with the environmental rules to the FCC, the Commission opened an investigation and issued a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) to the company in January 2022.  The company filed several responses to the LOI throughout 2022.  Ultimately, the Commission determined that the company began and or/completed building wireless facilities in three states prior to, or without completing, the required review process and Tribal notification process.  The FCC also concluded that the company failed to comply with Tribal notification procedures in two states.  While some of the noncompliant construction was found to have been caused by a miscommunication between the company and its third-party contractors, other violations were the result of a company employee who lacked expertise on the National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act requirements.  Before and during the FCC’s investigation, the company stated that it had begun the process of removing any wireless facilities found to have an adverse effect on historic streets. 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:

  • Broadcaster Receives $518,283 Fine for Local TV Ownership Rule Violation
  • Ohio LED Sign Manufacturer Enters $47,600 Consent Decree for Marketing Unauthorized Devices
  • FCC Reduces Fine to $3,400 for Washington LPTV Licensee’s Unauthorized Operation and Untimely License Applications

TV Broadcaster Receives Statutory Maximum Fine for Violating FCC Multiple Ownership Rule

A large multi-market television company (the “Company”) was fined $518,283 for violating the FCC’s rule prohibiting one entity from owning two top-four rated TV stations in the same Nielsen Designated Market Area (“DMA”).  This Forfeiture Order follows a July 2021 Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), which we wrote about here.

In July 2020, the Company acquired the non-license assets and network affiliation of a top-four rated station in the Anchorage, Alaska DMA and placed the network’s programming on a non-top-four rated station that was already owned by the Company.  At the time of the transaction, the Company owned one top-four station in the market and one that it claimed organically improved its ratings to join the top four and therefore was not in violation of 47 C.F.R. 73.3555, which includes the Local Television Ownership Rule (the “Rule”).  The Rule prohibits an entity from owning two full-power television stations in the same DMA if both commonly owned stations are ranked among the top-four rated stations in the market.  However, the Rule permits a top-four duopoly if one of the stations was outside the top four and organically improved its ratings to join the top four.  Note 11 (the “Note”), which was added to the Rule in 2016, bars the common ownership of two top-four stations with overlapping contours in the same DMA through the acquisition of a network affiliation and says:

An entity will not be permitted to directly or indirectly own, operate, or control two television stations in the same DMA through the execution of any agreement (or series of agreements) involving stations in the same DMA, or any individual or entity with a cognizable interest in such stations, in which a station (the “new affiliate”) acquires the network affiliation of another station (the “previous affiliate”), if the change in network affiliations would result in the licensee of the new affiliate, or any individual or entity with a cognizable interest in the new affiliate, directly or indirectly owning, operating, or controlling two of the top-four rated television stations in the DMA at the time of the agreement.

The FCC found that the transaction—acquiring the network affiliation and placing that programming on a lower-rated station—was the functional equivalent of a license transfer or assignment and effectively turned the station into a top-four station in violation of the Rule.  The Forfeiture Order noted that the Company had not sought a waiver of the Rule or contacted FCC staff about the permissibility of the transaction.

In response to the NAL, the Company argued that (1) because one of its stations had improved its ratings and already achieved top-four status prior to the transaction, the “plain language” of the Note was not implicated by the transaction; (2) the Company lacked notice that the Note prohibits purchases of network affiliations, rather than just affiliation swaps; and (3) the FCC’s interpretation of the Note constitutes impermissible regulation of the Company’s content choices for its station.  The FCC rejected these arguments.  It found that the relevant ratings showed the station as the fifth-ranked (not top four, as the Company contended) station in the market before the network’s programming caused it to enter the top four.  It also found that the Company could not rely on an exemption to the Rule that allows a network to offer an affiliation to a duopoly owner (one top-four station and one non-top-four station) if the network is unhappy with its current affiliate and the proposed affiliate has “demonstrated superior station operation.”  In this case, the Company indicated it declined an offer from the network to acquire the affiliation and instead bought the affiliation from the current affiliate.  The FCC also pointed to its Second Report and Order that provided more detail on affiliation acquisitions as notice of permissible transactions and stood by its finding that the Rule and accompanying Note 11 do not regulate a Company’s content choices, but merely market concentration.

The FCC concluded that the appropriate fine would be $8,000 for each day the violation persisted, which would result in a total fine of $1,720,000.  However, the statutory cap on fines for a single violation is $518,283.  As a result, the Commission reduced the proposed fine to that amount and indicated it did not see a justification for any further reduction when considering the nature and duration of the violation and the Company’s ability to pay.

LED Sign Manufacturer Settles Equipment Marketing Investigation for $47,600

The FCC entered into a Consent Decree with an Ohio-based sign manufacturer, resolving an investigation into whether the manufacturer unlawfully marketed light-emitting diode (“LED”) signs in the United States.  The entity manufactures, advertises, and sells fully assembled LED signs.  The investigation found, and the manufacturer admitted, that it marketed several unauthorized LED signs without the required FCC equipment authorization, labeling, and user manual disclosures and failed to retain required test records in violation of the Communications Act and the FCC’s Rules. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Broadcast stations face a September 15 deadline to ensure that all programming aired on their stations complies with the FCC’s foreign sponsorship disclosure requirements.

The Foreign Sponsorship Disclosure Rule was adopted by the FCC in April 2021, targeting airtime lease agreements between broadcasters and foreign governments or their representatives. The rule requires stations to take specific steps to ensure that the public is made aware of any programming aired that is provided, funded, or distributed by “governments of foreign countries, foreign political parties, agents of foreign principals, and United States-based foreign media outlets.”

Specifically, broadcasters are required to notify program suppliers leasing airtime or providing free programming to the station for airing that there is a disclosure requirement that applies to programming provided by foreign government entities or their agents, and to affirmatively ask whether the programmer is a foreign government entity or an agent of one, as well as whether a foreign government entity or an agent of one was involved in the preparation, funding, or distribution of the programming.

That inquiry must be documented by the broadcaster, and the broadcaster must retain that documentation for the remainder of the station’s license term, or one year, whichever is longer. If the inquiry results in a determination that the programming was in fact prepared, funded, or distributed by a foreign government entity or an agent of one, then a disclosure notice must air at the beginning and end of the program, stating: “The [following/preceding] programming was [sponsored, paid for, or furnished], either in whole or in part, by [name of foreign governmental entity] on behalf of [name of foreign country].  If the program length is five minutes or less, a single announcement can be aired either at the beginning or end of it, and if it is longer than an hour, the announcement must also air at regular intervals, airing at least once per hour.  Note that the FCC specifically excluded agreements to air short-form advertising from its definition of leasing agreements covered by the Rule.

In addition to airing the disclosure, the station must upload a copy of the disclosure, along with the name of the affected program and the dates and times it aired, to its Public Inspection File on a quarterly basis.  These materials should be uploaded to the standalone file folder titled “Foreign Government-Provided Programming Disclosures.”

The Foreign Sponsorship Disclosure Rule went into affect for new airtime leasing arrangements on March 15, 2022.  However, because the Rule applies to both newly-entered and existing airtime leasing arrangements, the FCC provided a six-month period for stations to complete the inquiry/documentation process for airtime arrangements created prior to March 15, 2022.

That grace period ends on September 15, 2022, at which point stations should have completed their inquiries for all programming arrangements (not just pre-March 15, 2022 leasing agreements), documented those inquiries, and commenced airing on-air disclosures for any content that must be identified as having foreign government-connected sponsorship. Therefore, to the extent they have not already done so, stations with existing airtime leasing agreements should reach out to the program provider to determine whether a disclosure is required.

For new airtime agreements going forward, broadcasters may want to consider making the notice and inquiry part of the leasing agreement, integrating language into the leasing agreement forms to include a discussion of the disclosure requirement and requiring the programmer to affirmatively verify whether an on-air disclosure is required. To the extent that the programmer discloses that it is a foreign government entity or agent, then the agreement should note that the station will be running the required disclosure.

That approach of course doesn’t work for agreements that were previously created (unless done as an amendment to the original contract), so stations needing to document their inquiries relating to agreements that predated March 15, 2022 will need to separately document the inquiry, and then ensure that any program content determined to require a disclosure commences airing with the disclosure no later than September 15.

As noted, the Rule applies to all agreements to lease airtime to third parties. Therefore, to the extent that they have not already done so, broadcasters should be sure to complete their inquiries, document them, and commence airing the required disclosures.  Stations should also be careful not to forget to upload those disclosures to their Public Inspection File each quarter.

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:

  • Pennsylvania AM Radio Station’s Tower Marking and Lighting Violations End With Consent Decree
  • Unauthorized Transfer of Control Costs Nevada FM Radio Licensee $8,000
  • Arizona Translator Station Violates Construction Permit Terms and Receives $15,000 Penalty

AM Station Enters Into Consent Decree to Settle Tower Marking and Lighting Case

The Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a Pennsylvania AM radio licensee and tower owner to resolve a years-long investigation into violations of the Commission’s tower lighting and marking rules.

Under Part 17 of the FCC’s Rules and in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements, tower owners must comply with various painting, lighting, and notification requirements.  These rules are critical to maintaining air traffic safety, and the FCC imposes    strict requirements regarding tower painting and lighting maintenance.  Specifically, the FCC’s rules require that tower owners: (1) clean and repaint tower structures as frequently as is necessary to maintain good visibility; (2) ensure tower structures conform to the painting and lighting requirements prescribed in their FCC registration; and (3) notify the FAA of any lighting outages.

In response to an anonymous complaint, FCC investigators made several on-site visits in late 2015 and early 2016 to inspect a broadcaster’s antenna structures located in Pennsylvania, and observed faded paint markings and lighting outages on two of the four structures.  In February 2016, the FCC issued a Notice of Violation for the station’s failure to: (1) clean and paint the antenna structures so that their colored markings were sufficiently visible;  (2) keep the structures lit in accordance with the terms of their FCC registration; and (3) timely notify the FAA of the lighting outage.

When presented with the Notice of Violation, the station responded by acknowledging that it was aware of the lighting outage issues and was taking steps to make the needed painting and lighting repairs.  It also claimed that it had tried to notify the FAA about the lighting outage only to find that the FCC investigators had already filed a notification.

Returning for a reinspection several months later, FCC investigators found that the station had still not remedied any of the violations.  As a result, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) in December 2016  proposing a $25,000 fine, and instructed the station to either pay the amount in full or submit to the Enforcement Bureau justification for a reduction or cancellation of the fine.

The station followed up with numerous filings at the FCC, including a submission to the Commission’s Office of Managing Director seeking reconsideration of the NAL, but the filings failed to properly respond to the Enforcement Bureau, as directed in the NAL.  In July 2019, the FCC issued a Forfeiture Order, noting these procedural failures and ordering payment of the full $25,000 fine.  The station submitted a petition seeking reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order in August 2019.

To finally resolve the matter, the FCC entered into a Consent Decree with the station owner under which the station will pay a reduced $1,900 penalty, certify that each of its antenna structures complies with Part 17 of the FCC’s Rules, and adopt a comprehensive compliance plan to prevent future violations.

Nevada FM Licensee Hit with $8,000 Penalty for Improper Transfer of Control

In a recently adopted Consent Decree, the Media Bureau settled an investigation into an FM radio licensee for conducting a transfer of control without prior Commission approval.

Section 310(d) of the Communications Act prohibits the transfer of control of a station license without first obtaining FCC approval.  Under Section 73.3540 of the FCC’s Rules, a licensee seeking such approval must file an application on FCC Form 315 at least 45 days before the anticipated effective date of the transfer of control. 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:

  • Time Off the Air Leads to License Termination for North Dakota Radio Station
  • FCC Enters Into Consent Decree With Tech Company Imposing $250,000 Civil Penalty for Unlawful License Transfers and Failure to Disclose a Felony
  • Virginia Radio Station Faces Proposed $7,000 Fine and Reduced License Term Over Failure to Timely File its Renewal Application

The Sound of Silence: North Dakota Radio Station Faces License Termination After Prolonged Period Off-Air

After going off the air and remaining silent due to financial concerns, an FM station’s license was revoked for failure to timely resume operations.

Section 73.1740(a)(4) of the FCC’s Rules permits a licensee to temporarily discontinue operations for up to 30 days provided that the licensee: (1) notifies the FCC by the tenth day of discontinued operations, and (2) requests authorization from the Commission to remain silent for any period beyond 30 days. However, Section 312(g) of the Communications Act of 1934 provides that a broadcast station’s license automatically expires if it does not transmit a broadcast signal for 12 consecutive months. The FCC may extend or reinstate a license terminated by virtue of this provision if doing so would “promote equity and fairness.”

On August 15, 2018, the North Dakota licensee took the station off the air due to financial concerns. After several months of radio silence, the station finally requested special temporary authority (STA) to remain silent on October 30. Despite the delay, the FCC granted the STA for a period of 180 days, cautioning that the station’s license would expire as a matter of law if operations did not resume by 12:01 a.m. on August 16, 2019, when the station would reach 12 months of silent status. The Commission also noted that the STA request had failed to meet both the 10-day notification requirement and the 30-day deadline for seeking authorization for discontinued operations. At the end of the authorized 180 days, the licensee sought an extension of the STA, which the FCC granted, again reminding the licensee of the August 16, 2019 deadline to resume operations. 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:

  • Wireless Internet Provider Hit With $25,000 Proposed Fine for Interference Caused by Network Equipment
  • Unauthorized License Transfers Lead to Consent Decree and $70,000 Civil Penalty
  • FCC Issues Notice of Violation to AM Daytimer Operating Past Sunset

Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

On April 4, 2020, the White House issued an Executive Order creating the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector (the “Committee”). The Committee, chaired by the Attorney General, includes the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense, and any other executive department head so designated by the President, is seen as an attempt to formalize the long-standing “Team Telecom” review process that began in the 1990s. The Committee’s stated goal is similar to Team Telecom’s, i.e., to assist the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) in its public interest review of national security and law enforcement concerns that may be triggered by foreign investment in the US telecommunications sector. But there may be some notable differences. 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 Settles With Golf Club Operator Over Unauthorized Transfer of 108 Private Wireless Licenses
  • FCC Warns Traffic Management Company Over Unlicensed Radio Operations
  • Months-Long Tower Lighting Outage Leads to Warning

Continue reading →