Is Google violating FCC rules?

In a recent publication, it was disclosed that Google is capturing wi-fi data during its photographing properties as part of its Street View program.  Google capturing wi-fi data  Apparently it intends to use the information collected for commercial use with its geo-location service. That service allows mobile users to access maps based on the captured wi-fi data.   The information being captured is easily obtained by anyone with a computer capable of wireless internet, since you merely need to search for a wireless connection and you can get the SSID information for any wireless router within the range of your computer.

However, is Google acting in compliance with the law?   47 USC 605 provides essentially that no person without authorization of the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence or contents to any person.  The FCC has published a fact sheet on the subject,  Interception of Transmissions, which would seem to indicate that the FCC would consider Google to be violating its regulations and the statute.  Further in Cafarelli v. Yates 226 F3d 492 (6th Cir., 2000) the court held that one cab driver could sue another under section 605 for intercepting taxi cab communications and using the stolen communications to steal passengers. Is the broadcast of router information and possibly information about computers connected to that router a radio communication?  Hard to say, but the FCC's rules define a radio as anything that transmits on radio frequencies, so it appears that the router broadcast would be considered a radio broadcast under FCC rules.

Seems like Google is playing with fire.  What do you think?

Violation for Hutton's CB

On February 26, 2010 the FCC issued a Notice of Violation to Hutton's CB for using an amplifier with its CB radio.Hutton's CB  The FCC's rules limit to four watts the amount of power that a CB can transmit with.  The rules allow CBers to transmit up to about 150 miles.  The problem is that a 4 watt CB won't transmit more than about 10 miles except in extraordinary conditions.

Apparently, Hutton's decided that to get its signal out there it needed more power.  So it added an amplifier to boost the power of the CB to about 80 watts.  Problem is that using an amplifier with a CB is strictly forbidden.  There are no loopholes here folks.

Fortunately for Hutton's, the FCC screwed it up by issuing a Notice of Violation.  Perhaps the FCC does not know what its own rules provide, but a NOV cannot be issued unless someone is violating the terms of his license.  No license is required for CB.  The FCC should have issued a Citation instead of a NOV.  As we previously discussed, the FCC cannot issue a fine unless it firsts issues a formal Citation.  Hutton's catches a break here. 

FCC Bullies its way to $50,000

On February 16, 2010 the FCC published a consent agreement entered into with San Jose Navigation, Inc. where San Jose paid $50,000 to settle a fine issued to it by the FCC. San Jose Navigation 

It appears that San Jose was manufacturing and selling a GPS re-radiator.  Basically, this device can be mounted outside your vehicle and it will transmit a GPS signal to your portable unit.  If anyone has had the privilege of driving in a poor reception area, such as a big city, you will have experienced areas where the GPS loses satellite reception.  Using a re-radiator solves the problem because it is located outside the vehicle and also has a longer antenna.  No more lost satellite reception error messages.

Unfortunately, San Jose's equipement was apparently not certified as meeting FCC's standards (and apparently cannot be certified since the FCC does not approve this type of equipment for use).  Anyway, several federal agencies complained that the equipment might cause interference to normal GPS operations (which seems unlikely since the range of re-broadcast of the GPS signal is a matter of a meter or so).  As a result the FCC issued a Letter of Inquiry to San Jose.  In response, San Jose admitted selling the units, but immediately stopped on receipt of the LOI and recalled all unsold units.

The FCC was not impressed by the cessation of sale and the recall.  It issued a fine in  the amount of' $75,000 to San Jose and later settled for the $50,000.  Noteworthy, the FCC's records do not show that a formal Citation was ever issued to San Jose.  Folks, the FCC rules and the US Code are very explicit that a Citation must be issued before a NAL and fine can be issued to someone, if they do not have a license.  The typical LOI is not the equivalent of a Citation, because the rules and the statute have specific requirements that must be met by all Citations (such as affording the opportunity for a personal interview at the nearest FCC office).  I have taken the depositions of a number of FCC officials in various cases and they uniformally admit that no license is required by the FCC for the manufacture or sale of transmission equipment. 

This fine should not have been imposed in my opinion.  There was no Citation issued and one was required before issuance of the Notice of Apparent Liability.  Remember, the FCC cannot force anyone to pay the fine issued pursuant to an NAL without going to court and proving the case.  Routinely the FCC loses this type of case because of the failure to follow the proper procedures.  If you receive any contact from the FCC, contact your lawyer at once.  It is the only way to protect your rights.