Happy 3rd anniversary, FCC Enforcement Bureau
If no one else will recognize you on your third anniversary—do it yourself. That’s the approach taken by the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau as it issued a report on what the agency described as its major accomplishments during its third fiscal year, Oct. 1, 2001 to Sept. 30, 2002.
Few land mobile radio-related actions made the list, except perhaps for some aviation obstruction marking and lighting violations related to antenna towers. Whether that’s good news for the radio communications industry depends on one’s point of view. It could mean that the FCC spends more time policing other telecommunications industry segments, ignoring problems and complaints involving two-way radio operations. Or it may mean that comparatively few step outside the regulations when it comes to land mobile radio.
Reflecting the FCC’s focus on money, though, the first thing that Bureau Chief David Solomon mentioned in a prepared statement was that the FCC “has taken over $28 million dollars in enforcement actions during this past year and we will continue to take strong actions that enhance enforcement, protect consumers, and promote public safety. Ultimately everything we do in the area of enforcement is aimed at benefiting consumers.”
Highlights of enforcement actions during the past 12 months include:
Consumer protection enforcement: The bureau acted on cases involving “branding” rules that require operator service providers to identify themselves and on cases involving prohibitions against sending unsolicited or “junk” faxes.
Competition area enforcement: The bureau issued a large forfeiture for violation of merger conditions. Another highlight was a consent decree that resolved investigations into a carrier’s submission of inaccurate information in section 271 proceedings.
Public safety enforcement: The bureau acted on violations of rules concerning:
-
enhanced 9-1-1 operation of the Emergency Alert System.
-
tower painting and lighting for aviation safety.
-
cable signal leakage on aeronautical frequencies.
-
unauthorized operations or equipment that interfere with air traffic control frequencies.
The bureau also assisted federal, state and local public safety and law enforcement entities to determine the source of signals causing interference on public safety frequencies and served as a focal point for FCC homeland security-related work.
The bureau reported that of the more than $28 million in enforcement actions in fiscal 2002, there were
-
$15 million in consumer protection enforcement actions.
-
$10 million in local competition enforcement actions.
-
$3.5 million in public safety enforcement actions.
Major enforcement actions in fiscal year 2002
Consumer enforcement actions
ASC Telecom, Inc. d/b/a Alternatel, Sept, 23, 2002: proposed $1,440,000 forfeiture for apparently violating the Communications Act and related FCC rules governing consumer disclosure requirements for operator-assisted calls made from payphones in the “fat finger dialing” context.
One Call Communications, Inc. d/b/a Opticom, Sept. 23, 2002: proposed $5,120,000 forfeiture for apparently violating the Communications Act and related FCC rules governing consumer disclosure requirements for operator-assisted calls made from payphones in the “fat finger dialing” context.
Fax.com Inc., Aug. 7, 2002: proposed $5,379,000 forfeiture for sending unsolicited advertisements, commonly known as “junk faxes,” in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and FCC rules.
Webnet Communications Inc., June 20, 2002: proposed $1,200,000 forfeiture for apparent slamming violations.
21st Century Fax(es) Ltd., a.k.a. 20th Century Fax (es), Jan.11, 2002: imposed a $1,107,500 forfeiture for faxing unsolicited advertisements to consumers in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and FCC rules.
America’s Tele-Network Corporation, Dec. 17, 2002: imposed a $1,020,000 forfeiture for slamming violations.
US Notary, Inc., Oct. 12, 2001: imposed a $90,000 forfeiture for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Commission’s implementing rules by faxing unsolicited advertisements to consumers.
Competition enforcement actions
Verizon Communications, Inc., Aug. 20, 2002: $260,000 consent decree terminating an investigation into compliance with performance reporting conditions imposed in connection with the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE.
Qwest Communications International, Inc., July 24, 2002: $96,000 consent decree terminating an investigation into possible violations of section 51.321(h) of the FCC’s rules, which requires incumbent local exchange carriers promptly to post on their Internet site notice of premises that have run out of collocation space.
SBC Communications, Inc., May 28, 2002: $3.6 million consent decree terminating two investigations into potential violations of FCC rules and orders in connection with the submission of inaccurate affidavits in section 271 proceedings.
SBC Communications, Inc., April 15, 2002: imposed a $100,000 forfeiture for violating Enforcement Bureau order requiring that response to a letter of inquiry be accompanied by a sworn statement attesting to its accuracy.
SBC Communications, Inc., Feb. 25, 2002: imposed a $84,000 forfeiture for violating section 51.321(h) of the FCC’s rules, which require incumbent local exchange carriers promptly to post on their Internet site notice of premises that have run out of collocation space.
SBC Communications, Inc., Jan. 19, 2002: proposed $6,000,000 forfeiture for apparently violating a competition-related condition, involving shared transport, contained in the FCC Order approving the 1999 merger of SBC and Ameritech Corporation.
Public safety enforcement actions
Charter Communications VI, LLC, Sept. 4, 2002: imposed a $20,000 forfeiture for violations of the cable system signal leakage rules and for failure to comply with a cease operations order.
AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., June 18, 2002: $100,000 consent decree terminating an investigation of possible violations of the E9-1-1 Phase II rules in relation to the company’s TDMA network, establishing a compliance plan with benchmarks, and providing for automatic payments of up to $1,200,000 for failing to meet benchmarks.
AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., May 20, 2002: proposed $2,200,000 forfeiture for apparently violating the E9-1-1 Phase II Rules in relation to the company’s GSM network, and for not updating an E9-1-1 waiver request to reflect changed circumstances.
Cingular Wireless LLC, May 9, 2002: $100,000 consent decree terminating an investigation of possible violations of the E9-1-1 Phase II rules, establishing a compliance plan with benchmarks, and providing for automatic payments of up to $1,200,000 for failing to meet benchmarks.
AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., April 25, 2002: proposed $153,000 forfeiture for nine apparent violations of FCC rules concerning the marking, lighting, and registration of antenna structures.
SpectraSite Communications, Inc., April 25, 2002: proposed $111,000 forfeiture for six apparent violations of FCC rules concerning the marking, lighting, and registration of antenna structures.