Multiple Tower Violations Leads to Hefty Fine
The FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability and Forfeiture proposing to fine Johnson Tower Company $234,000 for failing to install lights on two antenna structures and failure to update registration information in ASR to reflect the dismantlement of a third registered tower. All of the towers are located in Pinellas Park, Florida. The company failed to comply with numerous FCC directives regarding these facilities over a number of years, claiming that it did not have the financial resources to meet the FCC’s requirements.
Category: Enforcement CornerNo Breaks During "Transition" Period
Robert Schmidt (dba RSISP), licensee of Station WQMN655 was issued a $3,000 fine for failing to register two communications sites (Juan Diaz and Ponce, Puerto Rico) in the FCC’s Universal Licensing system, and for operating on an unlicensed basis while transitioning customers to another system. RSISP claimed it mistakenly thought the sites were registered prior to March 15, 2012 (as they had submitted amendments prior to this date) and, that they had permission to temporarily conduct operations (while unlicensed) during a transition phase. The Commission considered both violations “willful and repeated” and regarding the first charge, noted that “…a licensee cannot operate in conformity with its amendment applications based on the assumption that the applications will later be granted”.
The Commission did grant RSISP’s request to reduce the $12,000 proposed fine due to their inability to pay but noted that the” inability to pay” is only one factor in determining forfeiture calculation and cautions that it has rejected this claim in many cases.
A "Non-Certified" CB Transmitter in Alaska
CB operator Glenn S. Yamada of Kenai, Alaska was issued a reduced fine of $500 for operating a non-certified transmitter with a radio frequency (RF) linear amplifier. In responding to the original Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture for $12,500, Yamada admitted to operating the equipment for a few days in early 2012 but claimed he did not “intend” to violate the rules, and that he was unable to pay the fine. After review of financial documents provided by Yamada, the Commission reduced his fine, but maintained “no intention” was not an excuse.
800 MHz Expansion Band and Guard Band Pre-Coordination Process
In collaboration with the LMCC, the FCC’s certified frequency advisory committees are conducting a final review of a proposed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) containing frequency coordination processes designed to resolve incidences of mutually exclusive applications in the 800 MHz Expansion Band and Guard Band (EB/GB). One of the critical recommendations proposed within the MOA is an initial 30-day period of channel availability during which private carrier/SMR and private internal I/B/PS systems would each have access to half of the available channels. Ultimately, when the MOA is executed by all participating frequency advisory committees, the MOA will be submitted to the FCC for its review and endorsement.
Category: In the news4.9 GHz - Another Bite of the Apple
The FCC has requested comment on the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council’s (NPSTC) proposed national plan containing how and under what circumstances the 4.9 GHz band may be used in the future. This entire effort was the result of FCC concerns that the band, originally reallocated from the Federal Government and made available for public safety uses, was significantly underutilized. While EWA participated in one of the NPSTC fact-finding working groups originally labeled “Critical Infrastructure Use and Conditions” (indeed, a humble beginning), specific report content recommendations associated with user eligibility and frequency coordination processes drafted by EWA and API unfortunately, if they were ever seriously considered by the NPSTC leadership, found their way to NPSTC’s cutting room floor. EWA will bring its views to the attention of the FCC on November 22.
Category: EWA On Your SideWe Want Yours and Ours
EWA has for the third time (letter to the FCC) responded to the continued efforts of Weld County, Colorado, who is being egged on by APCO, to secure FCC approval to use 800 MHz Industrial/Business (I/B) channels in lieu of using available Sprint-vacated channels that are actually reserved for public safety use for the next five years. If they are successful, it would be tantamount to a relocation of I/B spectrum for public safety use in Weld County. What makes this case so critical for I/B licensees, is the fact that there is exclusive public safety spectrum available for use by the County. How and why APCO and the County can continue to claim an access right to both I/B and exclusive public safety spectrum in the same breath belies any sense of fairness. This time around, APCO again postulated that when it originally coordinated the County’s application back in December 2012, that Sprint-vacated channels were not available, and that it didn’t matter anyway as UTC concurred with the use of the I/B channels. As if it were that easy to justify taking I/B channels.
EWA advised the FCC that the County’s application has in fact, been amended on multiple occasions since December 2012 by APCO, incorporating “major” amendments, of which several of the changes meet the FCC’s definition of a “major” modification. As such, the Sprint-vacated spectrum could have been, and should have replaced the APCO coveted I/B 800 MHz channels at the time the subsequent applications were filed with the FCC.
EWA also noted that APCO is “imbuing UTC’s letter with more weight than it deserves.” The UTC letter in question consisted of a single sentence stating that UTC concurs with the County’s use of the I/B channels. UTC presumably did not engage in any meaningful analysis beyond confirming that there were no licensed or earlier-filed pending I/B applications for the same channels that would not receive the required protection from the County’s proposed sites. EWA then asked the more essential question, “Are there public safety frequencies available for the County’s use?” If the answer is yes, then concurrence from UTC or any other I/B Frequency Advisory Committee with regard to I/B channel availability is meaningless.”
Category: EWA On Your Side