FCC drops the ball again

On August 20, 2011, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability ("NAL") to Marshall Amplification PLC in connection with Marshall's amplifier model MG2FX.  Marshall  The MG2FX apparently is a digital musical amplifier, and therefore is subject to the provisions of Part 15 of the FCC's rules.  Part 15 deals with interference, and specifies certain requirements for products subject to Part 15 and also requires certain disclosures on the products.

Apparently, Marshall's product did meet the technical specifications in Part 15, but did not meet the disclosure requirements.  The manual did not inform buyers of the product that the amplifiers must not cause harmful interference and must accept any interference from other electronic equipment.  This apparently was inadvertent on Marshall's part since other products did have the required disclosure.

The FCC proceeded by way of a Letter of Inquiry.  The FCC does have the power to investigate suspected violations of the rules and often begins with a Letter of Inquiry.  The problem for the FCC is that there is no requirement under the rules or statutes mandating that any person or entity respond to a Letter of Inquiry.  Marshall's did respond, apparently admitting its mistake.

The FCC then issued this NAL.  As disclosed in the NAL, the typical fine for a first time failure to comply with the FCC's rules respecting Part 15 is $7,000.  Where the conduct is a failure to disclose rather than a failure to meet technical specifications, the fine is generally reduced to $4,000.  Further, if there is a showing of inability to pay, the FCC can reduce the fine further or even cancel the fine.  Here, however, the FCC turned the inability to pay exception upside down and increased the fine from the usual $4,000 to $7,200 because it decided Marshall's had the ability to pay more!!!

Luckily for Marshall, the FCC screwed up royally again.  Perhaps it is because the fine was issued by the Spectrum bureau and not the Enforcement bureau.  In any event, as we have repeatedly and exhaustively discussed in prior posts, the FCC cannot issue a NAL without first issuing a formal Citation.  A Letter of Inquiry is not a Citation and does not usually contain the statutorily mandated disclosures of a Citation.  Marshall does not have to pay the fine, in our opinion.

Isn't it ironic that the FCC fines Marshall's for not meeting the disclosure requirements of the FCC's rules, when the FCC fails to meet the disclosure requirements governing the FCC's authority?   

ReconRobotics Screwed by FCC

On July 13, 2011, the  FCC published its consent judgment entered into with ReconRobotics.  Recon The agreement provides that ReconRobotics will pay a "voluntary contribution" of $17,500 to the FCC.  Also, ReconRobotics will have to adopt a compliance plan and appoint a compliance officer whose duties will include confirming that all ReconRobotics' products meet FCC regulations.  Further, periodic reports will have to be made to the FCC detailing compliance with the regulations. 

The investigation started with a Letter of Inquiry by the FCC as to whether ReconRobotics video surveillance robotic cameras were certified as meeting FCC standards.  Apparently, the products had been offered for sale before certification.  ReconRobotics responded to the LOI apparently admitting to marketing the products before receiving certification.  We assume that the products are now certified as the FCC emphasizes in the consent decree the marketing before certification and because ReconRobotics is still advertising the products on its website.

Setting aside the issue of whether the FCC has authority to issue a LOI and require a response, the FCC had no authority to fine ReconRobotics without first issuing a formal Citation to ReconRobotics and then observing further violations of the regulations.  We repeatedly see the FCC try to extort money from people without following proper procedures.  Perhaps because ReconRobotics sells products to various governmental entities it decided not to fight the FCC but instead fold like a house of cards. 

Had Recon Robotics stood up to the FCC, it undoubtedly would not have had to pay a fine (which we note is about double the amount we normally see in this type of case).  It certainly would not have had to adopt a compliance plan or appoint a compliance officer.  The FCC has no authority to extract such a concession from anyone.  We would hope others cited by the FCC would stand up for their rights, especially since prevailing against the FCC entitles the victor to reimbursement of his attorney fees.

FCC fines CB operator

On June 7, 2011 the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability to John Hays.  Hays The fine was in the amount of $15,000 for using an external power amplifier with his CB.  Normally, a CB has very low power levels (4 watts).  Using the external amplifier, Mr. Hays was able to get about 750 watts of transmitting power out of his CB.  Apparently, this caused interference to other electronic equipment in the area.  Mr. Hays was first given a written letter warning him to stop, and later a verbal warning.  When he was discovered to be using an amplifier on a third occasion, he was given the NAL.

The FCC rules are clear that an external amplifier cannot be used to increase the power of your CB.  In fact, most amplifiers are of poor quality and often cause interference to other equipment.  That is one reason we filed a response to the FCC's request for proposals on modifying the FCC's rules regarding CB equipment. CBs are not longer as popular as they were in the 70's.  With only 4 watts of power, it is often difficult to find others to talk to without using an amplifier to increase power.  If the FCC raised the power limits of CBs, there would be little need for the use of an external amplifier and less likelihood of interference.

The NAL reports that a "letter" was sent to Mr. Hays warning him against the use of power amplifiers.  As has been repeatedly pointed out on this site, no NAL may be issued unless the FCC first issues a formal written Citation to a non-licensee who violates the rules.  No license is required to operate a CB, and Mr. Hays does not appear to have a license.  Unless the "letter" meets the formal requirements of a Citation, which is unlikely otherwise it would be posted on the FCC's website, Mr. Hays should be able to beat the NAL.  Let's hope he is smart enough to hire an attorney experienced in these matters.