FCC Dupes Another One

On July 20, 2010 the Federal Communications Commission published a consent agreement entered into with Qomo HiteVision, LLC a manufacturer/distributor of products used for presentations. Qomo  Apparently the FCC began an investigation into the radio response products of Qomo because of the absence of Part 15 labelling on the products.  Part 15 of the FCC's regulations requires that almost all intentional and non-intentional radiators meet certain requirements and have appropriate labelling with respect to potential interference by other radiators.  Qomo's products did not have the appropriate labelling. 

As a result of the investigation, the FCC and Qomo entered into an agreement.  Whether the products met other requirements of the FCC is not disclosed in the Order and Consent Decree entered into with Qomo, however, Qomo did agree to pay $12,000 to the FCC.  Even more onerous is the requirement that Qomo adopt a compliance plan, appoint a compliance officer, give employees involved in the development of products training on FCC regulations, and file reports with the FCC on a regular basis with regarding to compliance with this agreement.

As pointed out in other posts on this blog, the FCC cannot issue a fine to a non-licenses without first issuing a formal written Citation.  A search of the FCC's website shows that no formal Citation was issued.  In short, the FCC strong armed Qomo into paying a fine it did not owe, and in to adopted a compliance program that it was not required to have.  To be sure, any manufacturer should be familiar with the FCC's requirements and comply with them.  The point is, however, that the FCC should know its own rules and follow them.  It had no authority to force Qomo to agree to these terms.  In the future, I would hope Qomo would consult with an attorney to protect its rights.


 

FCC Blows it Again

Today the FCC released Notices of Apparent Liability against Wireless Extenders Inc. Wireless and against Cell-Phone Mate, Inc. Cell-Phone for marking their respective products with the wrong FCC identifiers.  In Wireless' case, it had the correct FCC identifying number but added its product model number at the end.  In Cell-Phone's case it had a typographical error in the number.  The Notices of Apparent Liability were issued after the FCC received a complaint that the numbers on the products were not in the FCC's database.  Enforcement issued Letters of Inquiry to Wireless and Cell-Phone, which then discovered the error.  Upon disclosing the error to the FCC in response to the LOI, the fines were issued for violation of labelling rules.

These Notices raise two interesting points.  First, the FCC cannot issue a Notice of Apparent Liability without first issuing a Citation because a license is not required to manufacture the equipment in question, i.e. cell phone amplifiers.  As was discussed here NAL the FCC can not issue a NAL without first issuing a Citation where the conduct engaged in requires a license or where the alleged rule violator has been issued a license by the FCC.  In this case, the NALs are not enforceable and the recipients should challenge their validity.

The second issue raised is more interesting.  There are currently pending before the FCC Petitions for Rulemaking regarding establishing regulations for the manufacturing of cell phone amplifiers.  The major phone companies, such as ATT and Verizon are opposing regulations which would enable independent companies to manufacture the amplifiers.  The phone companies want to force customers to buy phone company proprietary amplifiers.  The phone companies contend that the rules currently prohibit the manufacture or use of amplifiers that are not proprietary.  My bet is that one or more of the phone companies filed the complaints against Wireless and Cell-Phone.  The interesting point is that the FCC did not issue a Notice of Liability for selling illegal equipment.  It issued the fines for mistakes in labelling.  Is the FCC's choice of reasons for issuance of the NALs a statement that it believes the amplifiers are legal?  Only time will tell.