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.