Articles Posted in FCC Enforcement

Published on:

By

Earlier this month we posted our 2011 Broadcasters Calendar on CommLawCenter as well as on our Pillsbury web page. We have been annually publishing the Broadcasters Calendar, which contains much information regarding broadcast station deadlines and legal requirements, for as long as I can recall. It has always been one of our most popular publications, and I usually get calls beginning in early November asking when next year’s calendar will be available. The “easy to read” pdf version of the Calendar can be found here, and a text-searchable version is available here.

Even a brief review of the 2011 Broadcasters Calendar reminds us that 2011 will be a busy year for not just broadcasters, but for cable and satellite operators as well. October 1, 2011 is the deadline by which broadcasters qualifying for must-carry need to notify cable and satellite operators of their election between must-carry status and retransmission consent. Recent retransmission disputes once again remind us that retransmission negotiations and their associated revenue are critical to the future of broadcast television. However, the sheer volume of negotiations and carriage disputes likely to occur following the October 1 election deadline will almost certainly make this holiday season look tranquil by comparison.

Adding to the action will be continued efforts by the cable and satellite industries to draw Congress and the FCC into the fray, introducing legislative and regulatory uncertainties into an already complex negotiation process. Their chances for success will depend greatly upon how much disruption in carriage of broadcast programming occurs in 2011, and the public’s perception of who is at fault for that disruption. Regardless of the outcome of this particular Washington confrontation, look for 2011 to be the year where economics force cable and satellite providers to more tightly link the number of viewers a program service attracts with the amount they agree to pay for that service. Overpaying for niche cable networks that don’t pull in large numbers of viewers is so “last decade”.

2011 also marks the beginning of the FCC’s next eight-year license renewal cycle, with radio stations in DC, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia starting pre-filing announcements in April for their upcoming license renewal applications. The filing cycle will continue state by state until it concludes with television stations in Delaware and Pennsylvania running their last post-filing announcements on June 16, 2015.

However, many stations haven’t had their last license renewal application granted because of indecency complaints still pending against them. The FCC has pretty much ceased processing indecency complaints while it awaits guidance from the courts as to whether it can legally enforce the prohibition on broadcast indecency, and if so, how it will be allowed to do that. I have been told that there are literally hundreds of thousands of indecency complaints now pending at the FCC, so unless the courts do the FCC the favor of finding the prohibition on indecency completely unconstitutional, it will take the FCC years to sift through these complaints in an effort to apply any refined indecency standard announced by the Supreme Court.

It is therefore reasonable to predict that indecency complaints will continue to play a large role in the processing of upcoming license renewal applications. 2011 will hopefully be the year when the courts tell us exactly how large (or small) that role will be. If the prohibition on indecency survives this latest round of judicial scrutiny, broadcasters and the FCC can expect a lot of complaint investigations and litigation as both struggle with where the line on content is being drawn.

Of course there are numerous other events that will contribute to 2011 being one of the busiest years in memory for broadcasters. A rebounding economy is slowly lifting most boats in the broadcast industry, with the obvious exception being those that burned their critical assets for fuel during the lean times, and don’t have much boat left.

With a growing amount of money to fight over, the fights will begin in earnest (see “Retrans” above). Negotiations between the NAB and the recording industry over performance royalties will continue, and “performance tax” legislation will again rise in Congress with the same certainty that the slasher in a horror film returns for unending sequels.

Broadcasters and the FCC will also be implementing the latest generation of the Emergency Alert System in 2011, and the FCC will continue its efforts to repurpose broadcast spectrum for mobile broadband use, leading to new rules permitting multiple broadcasters to share a single channel, and potentially to legislation allowing participating broadcasters to share in the proceeds of broadband spectrum auctions. As with most of the items discussed above, there is both opportunity and peril for broadcasters here, and those that are inattentive risk missing the former and being battered by the latter.

Yes, 2011 will be a very busy year.

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue includes:

  • Failure to Heed Warning by FCC Field Agent Costs Broadcaster $10,000
  • FCC Fines AM Broadcaster $6,000 for Excessive Nighttime Power Levels
  • AM Broadcaster’s Limited Disclosure of Contest Rules Nets $4,000 Fine

FCC Fines Pennsylvania Broadcaster $10,000 for Repeated Failure to Employ Adequate Personnel

In keeping with lasts month’s “meaningful management and staff presence” Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”), the FCC again upwardly adjusted a fine, totaling $10,000, against a Pennsylvania broadcaster for repeated failure to maintain at least one management level and one staff level employee at the main studio during regular business hours as required by Section 73.1125 of the FCC’s Rules. At the time of the initial inspection by a local Enforcement Bureau Field Agent, the “main studio”, which was located within a church, was unattended and locked.

The FCC requires that licensees maintain a “meaningful management and staff presence” at a station’s main studio. Based on a 1991 FCC decision, the FCC defines “meaningful” as at least one management level employee and one staff level employee generally being present “during normal business hours.”

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. In fact, FCC Enforcement Monitor actually predates the creation of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau, which came into being just a few months after the first issue was published. This month’s issue includes:

  • FCC Increases Fine to $25,000 for Broadcaster’s Violations Related to Time Brokerage Agreement
  • Upward Adjustment in EAS Portion of Multiple Violation Fine Results in Total Forfeiture of $25,000
  • Noncommercial Broadcaster Fined $7000 for Late-Filed License Renewal Application


FCC Fines Florida Broadcaster $25,000 for Repeated Failure to Maintain Full-Time Personnel and Make Available a Complete Public Inspection File at Brokered Station

In September 2009, following a complaint, agents from the Enforcement Bureau’s Tampa Field Office conducted an inspection of a Florida AM station. According to the Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”) issued by the FCC, the AM broadcaster failed, for the second time within three years, to maintain the required number of full-time employees at its main studio in violation of Section 73.1125(a) of the FCC’s Rules, and to maintain a complete public inspection file, which violates Section 73.3526 of the FCC’s Rules.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In what has become one of our most popular posts at CommLawCenter, a few months ago I discussed a radio ad that contained an “attention getting” Emergency Alert System tone that was activating broadcast stations’ EAS equipment around the country. The post noted that airing the commercials violated Section 11.45 of the FCC’s Rules (“No person may transmit or cause to transmit the EAS codes or Attention Signal, or a recording or simulation thereof, in any circumstance other than in an actual National, State or Local Area emergency or authorized test of the EAS.”).

The earlier post also noted that these ads potentially violated Section 73.1217 of the FCC’s Rules, which is the FCC’s prohibition on airing broadcast hoaxes. These rules are the result of the FCC’s longstanding concern with the airing of material that could cause public panic, dating all the way back to the Orson Welles Halloween broadcast of War of the Worlds in 1938, just four years after the FCC was created by Congress.

Television stations have now joined their radio brethren in unintentionally airing Emergency Alert System tones. The Society of Broadcast Engineers disclosed yesterday that a television ad for the new movie Skyline, which hits theaters tomorrow, began airing earlier this week with an EAS tone repeated six times throughout the length of the spot. A copy of the spot can be found on the SBE website here, with the EAS tones being very audible in the background.

Stations airing such spots put themselves at risk of adverse action by the FCC, particularly for any airings that occur after the station has learned of the issue. However, stations that aired the spot before SBE’s announcement yesterday are not off the hook, as the FCC holds broadcasters liable for the content they air, and normally takes the position that stations should have checked the spots before they aired for problematic content.

While an EAS tone sounds like digital hash to the human ear, it contains a lot of information that is used to trigger the EAS receivers of stations in a “daisy chain” fashion to quickly spread emergency information. In that regard, each signal is like human DNA, containing information that allows you to determine its origin. In this case, the EAS signal being used is a recording of a Pennsylvania statewide monthly test that fails to include the normal “End of Message” tone. As a result, stations whose EAS equipment is activated by another station airing the false tone could suddenly find themselves retransmitting the content of the other station for a couple of minutes after the tone airs.

Unfortunately, because it is generally the broadcast station and not the creator of the ad that will be held liable, advertisers are not always adequately incentivized to make sure their ads comply with FCC regulations. That means it is up to broadcasters to check each and every ad they run for violations of the law, including violations of the FCC’s sponsorship identification rule, the FCC’s rules involving ads in children’s programming, and ads with questionable content, whether it be indecency, defamation, false product claims, or, in this case, false EAS alerts.

Published on:

By

One of the great things about being a communications lawyer is the wide array of issues you deal with over the course of a day. Contract lawyers negotiate contracts, and litigators litigate, but communications lawyers negotiate contracts, litigate, argue government policy, and generally are thrown into the breach whenever a problem emerges affecting their clients. As a very senior communications practitioner said when I was a young lawyer, “if you want to be a communications lawyer, you better be very good at your trade or have a damn good smile!”
Because of the diversity of communications issues out there, you never know when you answer the phone what the issue will be. One question I have received on multiple occasions over the years is whether it’s true that radio stations are prohibited from airing the sound of a police siren. I have had broadcasters swear there is a flat prohibition on this and that they were taught about it early in their career. While there is no outright prohibition, this “old broadcaster’s tale” stems from a 1970 FCC proceeding where several complainants sought such a ban. The FCC declined to prohibit these sound effects, but basically told broadcasters to use common sense when airing them. Not coincidentally, 1970 was the year that R. Dean Taylor’s song Indiana Wants Me made it to Number 5 on the Billboard charts, complete with siren. A siren-free version of the song was also produced to appease nervous radio stations (take a listen to the “with sirens version“; go ahead, I’ll wait till you get back).

I was reminded of all this today when I received a client call asking about a radio ad from the oil company ARCO that includes the Emergency Alert System tone at the beginning of the spot. The Society of Broadcast Engineers has posted an MP3 of the ad here.

The EAS tone differs from police sirens in two important ways. First, the airing of the EAS tone or a simulation of the tone where no emergency or authorized EAS test exists is flatly prohibited by Section §11.45 of the FCC’s Rules (“No person may transmit or cause to transmit the EAS codes or Attention Signal, or a recording or simulation thereof, in any circumstance other than in an actual National, State or Local Area emergency or authorized test of the EAS.”). It could also potentially violate Section 73.1217, the FCC’s prohibition on broadcast hoaxes.

Second, unlike members of the public who usually can discern from context whether a siren or other emergency sound is a cause for concern (does Indiana really want them?), the electronics that monitor radio signals do not have this capability. As a result, the airing of the commercial has accidentally activated EAS receivers around the country, which hear the alert tone and activate the local emergency alert system as though an actual emergency is occurring. It appears the tone in the spot was tweaked to speed it up a bit, but apparently not enough to avoid fooling at least some EAS receivers.

Stations airing the spot, particularly where EAS activations have occurred, should get in touch with their communications counsel immediately. The FCC’s words from 1970 are still relevant here: “The selection and presentation of advertising and other promotional material are, of course, the responsibility of licensees. However, in this selection process, licensees should take into account, under the public interest standard, possible hazards to the public. Accordingly, in making decisions as to acceptability of commercial and other announcements, licensees should be aware of possible adverse consequences of the use of sirens and other alarming sound effects.” It may take 40 years, but what goes around, comes around.

Published on:

By

In light of today’s decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit invalidating the FCC’s indecency policy, it would be hard to justify writing about anything else. From my first days as a young lawyer screening programs before they were aired (I still remember assessing the legalities of airing a live satellite feed of “Carnaval” from Rio) to defending stations accused of airing indecent programming in FCC enforcement actions, the FCC’s indecency policy has been an ever-present, ever-broadening part of the practice. While the definition of indecency has remained largely constant (“language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities”), its interpretation has always been a moving target.

When the Supreme Court originally found that requiring indecent content to be channeled into late-night hours was constitutional, it did so based upon a narrow view of what qualified as indecent content (basically George Carlin’s “Seven Dirty Words” routine) and the assurance of the FCC that restrained enforcement would protect First Amendment concerns. Over the next twenty years or so, broadcasters programmed accordingly, and with a few exceptions, broadcasters and the FCC learned to coexist on the issue of indecency.

However, the rise of cable television placed immense pressure on both television and radio broadcasters to more precisely map the boundary between “decent” and “indecent” content. While most broadcasters remained determined to stay on the “decent” side of that line, they could no longer afford to remain at such a safe distance from that line as to be deemed “fogey programming” by a generation of consumers that did not distinguish between broadcast programming and cable programming. To these viewers, all channels are equal, and whether programming arrives by cable, satellite, or antenna is beside the point. To reach this audience, many programmers struggled mightily to make their programming more edgy and relevant to young adults. This programming stayed clear of Carlin’s seven dirty words, and focused more on situation and entendre to engage its audience.

In response, the FCC stepped onto a slippery slope, seeking to broaden its interpretation of indecency by expanding its view of what constitutes “patently offensive” material. The FCC was not prepared for the mission it undertook. What at first appeared to be a slippery slope of line drawing quickly became a well-greased plunge into the abyss of eternal peril. Those filing complaints at the FCC often urged the agency, as a practical matter, to forget that indecency must be patently offensive and instead sought action against content that was merely offensive to the complainant. The result has been a gut-wrenching high speed slalom down the slippery slope, resulting in the FCC’s headfirst encounter today with the large oak doors of the Second Circuit’s courtroom.

Although the court based today’s ruling on a finding that the FCC’s interpretation of indecency is impermissibly vague, and therefore chilling of protected speech, the problem actually goes far deeper than that. Some of the greatest damage to free speech has resulted from complaints where just about everyone, including the FCC, would agree that indecency is not present. While baseless complaints were once met with a prompt and pleasant FCC letter notifying the complainant that the subject of their complaint was categorically not indecent, the FCC in later years treated every complaint even mentioning the word “indecency” as a reason to put a hold on that station’s license renewal or sale application for literally years until the FCC could investigate the complaint. In the meantime, these stations struggled, as a delayed license renewal made obtaining financing difficult, and a delayed sale often meant that the contract to sell the station expired before the FCC could resolve the indecency complaint and approve the sale. Under these circumstances, it is pretty easy to see how a station would be hesitant to say anything offensive to anyone, even without the potential for a $325,000 indecency fine.

Among the “indecency” complaints I have encountered that were holding up a station’s applications at the FCC was a complaint from a politician who didn’t like what a station said about him (apparently using the word “indecent” in his complaint got it put into the indecency pile), and a complaint that a Spanish word yelled at soccer matches when a goal is scored sounds too much like a bad word in English. When such complaints are allowed to languish or become the basis of a pointless inquiry, they interfere with the operations of a station, serve to chill future speech, and create a “bunker mentality” among broadcasters that anything they say will be held against them.

So where does this leave us? Well, as a pragmatic matter, the court’s ruling will not become effective until it issues its mandate, and the FCC may ask that the court delay taking that action while the FCC seeks a rehearing en banc or review by the Supreme Court. If the court’s ruling does become effective, it will apply only within the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit (which includes Connecticut, New York and Vermont). Both legally and politically, the FCC will feel compelled to pursue an appeal, and the result of that effort will determine the future of its indecency enforcement efforts across the US.

That places the FCC in a very high stakes game of poker. Does it place an ever larger bet on trying to defend its existing policy? If it does, it runs the risk that the Supreme Court will rule that the very notion of indecency enforcement is unconstitutional in light of a changing media landscape and the FCC’s seeming inability to apply a narrow and restrained enforcement policy. Or, does it fold this hand and return to the table later with a “back to basics” indecency policy similar to what was once found constitutional by the Supreme Court? One thing’s for certain–for the first time in a long time, broadcasters are holding all the right cards in this game.

Published on:

By

Not only broadcast stations, but churches, schools, concert venues, live theater, film productions, business presenters, sporting events, and motivational speakers will have to change the way they operate, starting this weekend. As we wrote in a Client Advisory back in January, the FCC set June 12th, 2010–the anniversary of the DTV transition–as the date by which wireless microphones and other devices must cease using the spectrum that was formerly TV channels 52-59. While popularly referred to as the “700 MHz Band”, the spectrum being cleared actually runs from 698 MHz to 806 MHz.

Although the elimination of wireless microphones from this band has drawn the most attention, many other devices commonly use this spectrum and must also cease operating in this band on June 12th, 2010. These include wireless intercoms, wireless in-ear monitors, wireless audio instrument links, and wireless cuing equipment. The impact is not limited to audio devices, as even devices that synchronize TV camera signals using the 700 MHz Band must vacate the band starting this weekend.

The reason for the FCC’s band-clearing effort is to make it available (and interference free) for public safety operations, as well as for providers of wireless service that have acquired the right to use portions of the band. Those failing to cease operating their 700 MHz devices are subject to fines ($10,000 is the FCC’s base fine for illegal operation), arrest, and criminal sanctions, including imprisonment, as the FCC notes that “interference from wireless microphones can affect the ability of public safety groups to receive information over the air and respond to emergencies,” putting “public safety personnel in grave danger.” While it may be tempting to continue using 700 MHz equipment in hopes that you won’t get caught, your community theater production does not want the liability of causing interference to a rescue operation by public safety personnel.

To avoid this result, users of affected 700 MHz equipment must either modify their equipment to operate in other permitted portions of the spectrum, or cease using the equipment entirely if it cannot be modified to operate in other bands. To assist users in determining whether they have a 700 MHz microphone, the FCC has created a webpage listing many makes and models of wireless microphones, as well as the frequencies on which they operate. The site also includes contact information for many of the manufacturers of wireless microphones to obtain further information about particular microphones.

So inspect your equipment and do the research necessary to determine whether it operates in the 700 MHz Band. If so, see if it can be modified to prevent operation in that band. If not, then it looks like this weekend would be an excellent time to go shopping for that new microphone you’ve always wanted.

Published on:

By

If you are a Fox affiliate, your fax machine (if you still have one) probably has a message on it from the FCC waiting for you, courtesy of the latest struggle between Fox and the FCC over indecency enforcement. In a Notice of Apparent Liability released today, the FCC states it received over 100,000 complaints about a January 3, 2010 episode of American Dad aired on the Fox Television Network. Although the NAL doesn’t discuss the allegedly indecent content, it appears all of the complaints relate to a single segment of the episode which brings to mind that old college query, “if Jack helped you off the horse…” (if you missed that part of college, don’t worry, you didn’t miss much).

While the FCC’s enthusiasm for enforcing its indecency restrictions has waxed and waned over the years, what has usually been constant is the relatively slow path from complaint, to investigation, to resolution. It has not been uncommon for years to pass between these steps, which makes the sequence of events leading up to this NAL all the more interesting. In this case, the FCC sent a letter of inquiry to Fox just 18 days after the episode aired. The letter attached a single redacted complaint that the FCC indicates was “representative of the complaints received by the Commission,” and asked Fox, among other things, whether the description in the complaint of the allegedly indecent content was accurate, which Fox-owned stations aired it, and which Fox Television Network affiliates had the contractual right to air it.

According to the NAL, when the response to the letter arrived at the FCC, it was not from Fox, but from the single Fox affiliate named in the “representative” complaint. As a result, the response didn’t address a number of the FCC’s questions, including the request for a list of Fox affiliates that likely aired the program. To no one’s surprise, the FCC was not pleased. The NAL indicates that the FCC followed up with another letter on March 19, 2010 (note once again the lightning pace, with the FCC’s follow-up letter going out just 18 days after the affiliate’s response was filed). The FCC summarizes that letter as “describing [Fox’s] failure to respond to the LOI and requiring a full and complete response to all the Bureau’s inquiries no later than March 23, 2010,” just four days after the FCC letter was issued.

The NAL indicates that Fox didn’t respond to that letter, which also obviously did not please the FCC. In response, the FCC issued the NAL, which proposes a $25,000 fine against Fox for failure to respond to an FCC inquiry. The NAL notes that the base fine for such an infraction is $4,000, but that a “significant increase” in the fine is appropriate because “misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the Commission’s authority and threatens to compromise the Commission’s ability to adequately investigate violations of its rules.”

Suspecting, perhaps, that a $25,000 fine would not overly concern an operation the size of Fox, the FCC proceeded to the nuclear option: “Given the continued absence of a response from Fox and the incomplete response received from [the affiliate], contemporaneously with the release of this NAL, the Bureau is sending letters of inquiry to all licensees that air Fox Television Network programming.” The NAL later notes that letters of inquiry are being sent to 235 Fox owned or affiliated stations. The FCC is obviously counting on Fox receiving a firestorm of protests from its affiliates, who now have 30 days to respond to the individual letters of inquiry, which include a request for copies of any complaints about the episode received by the stations themselves. The letters of inquiry are going out today by certified mail, but it appears that the FCC has already faxed the letters to many Fox-affiliated stations.

Both the speed and severity of the FCC’s response indicate a desire to send a very clear message to licensees that there is a new sheriff in town, and not a very patient one at that. This NAL adds an exclamation point to my missive last week about the FCC stepping up its enforcement sanctions to ensure that licensees don’t view them merely as a cost of doing business. Fox affiliates are about to be caught in the crossfire of the next skirmish in the indecency battle between the FCC and Fox, and they are doubtless not too pleased about it.

Published on:

By

I wrote a while back about the Downside of Downsizing, in which I noted an increasing number of calls from broadcasters who had trimmed their staffs to the bare minimum, only to belatedly discover that the remaining employees lacked either the experience or the time to ensure the station’s compliance with FCC and other regulations. This afternoon, the FCC released seven Notices of Apparent Liability announcing the financial damage that taking your eye off the regulatory ball can have.

The seven NALs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) all involved Children’s Television violations, with the proposed fines ranging from $25,000 to $70,000. The FCC’s grand total for the afternoon was $270,000 in proposed Children’s Television fines. While the simultaneous release of the forfeiture orders may be meant to send a message about the seriousness with which the FCC views violations of the Children’s Television rules, the FCC has been working hard on Chairman Genachowski’s watch to clear out backlogs of enforcement proceedings of all types, and it may be that these particular cases are merely the latest result of that effort.

What is certainly not a coincidence, however, is the hefty size of these fines. These NALs appear to confirm a recent FCC trend of imposing heavier fines for a variety of regulatory offenses. While cynics might argue that the government just needs the money at the moment, there does seem to be a concerted effort at the FCC to “update” its fine amounts to make violations sufficiently painful that licensees will not view them as merely a cost of doing business. It is also worth noting that while the seven NALs involve a variety of kidvid violations (exceeding commercial limits, program length commercials, failure to notify program guide publishers of the targeted age range of educational programs, failure to place the appropriate commercial certifications in the public inspection file, failure to publicize the existence and location of the station’s Children’s Television reports), they all have one other feature in common: each of the stations confessed its transgressions in its license renewal application.

In addition to giving no quarter for the licensees having confessed their own sins, the NALs are quite stern in assessing the severity of the violations. Noting that human error, inadvertence, and subsequent efforts to prevent the recurrence of such violations are not grounds for reducing the punishment imposed, the NALs apply a strict liability standard, cutting stations no slack even where the violation was based upon a misapplication of the rule (e.g., assessing compliance with children’s commercial time limits based upon a programming hour (4:30-5:30pm) rather than a clock hour (5:00-6:00pm)), where a program-length commercial was caused by a fleeting and tiny/partial glimpse of a program character during a commercial, or where the program-length commercial was caused by network content.

To be clear, the FCC staked out no new legal ground in these decisions, which for the most part apply existing precedent, and the NALs do indicate that some of the stations involved had over 100 kidvid violations. What catches the eye, however, is not just the size of the fines, but the terse manner in which the violations are listed, the defenses rejected, and the fine imposed, with each NAL noting that the base fine for a kidvid offense is $8,000, but that an upward adjustment is merited in this particular case, with the ultimate amount often appearing to have been plucked out of the air. The impression licensees are left with is that the FCC has lost patience in plowing through the backlog of enforcement cases, and there will be little or no room for error in FCC compliance going forward.

It’s good that the broadcast advertising market has begun to resuscitate, as now would be a good time to rehire those FCC compliance personnel, particularly the ones that prescreen children’s television content.

Published on:

By

For those tired of having their dinner conversations interrupted by others’ cell phone calls, or watching movies in a theater by the light coming off the screens of nearby texters, technology has provided a solution. Unfortunately it is illegal.

In a recent decision, the FCC fined a company called Phonejammer.com $25,000 for marketing jamming equipment in the U.S. through its website, www.Phonejammer.com. The FCC discovered the violations when its field agents, responding to complaints from a cellphone service provider in Dallas, and a County’s Sheriff’s office in Florida, traced the interference in each case to a local business, and discovered that the proprietor had purchased and was operating a Phonejammer unit acquired through the website. Unfortunately, the FCC’s decision does not indicate the type of businesses that were using the Phonejammer, so it is not clear if they were restaurants, theaters, or just businesses tired of their employees texting their friends all day.

Under the Communications Act, it is illegal to sell jamming equipment because of the harm done, both intentionally and otherwise, to electronic communications. While putting an end to loud cell phone calls in upscale restaurants, or to students texting in class, might sound appealing to managers of such places, the interference to communications cannot easily be confined to just that location. Of course, the problems with jamming are not limited to just unintentional interference to nearby areas. There are similar issues affecting the business location seeking to jam calls. You can imagine what would happen if a patron had a heart attack on the premises and the emergency response was delayed when other patrons’ cell phone calls to 911 couldn’t get through.

Because of these concerns, the U.S. has always strictly prohibited the marketing of jamming devices, and not even police are permitted to use jammers. To appreciate the extent of the government’s concern with jamming, note that jamming equipment is not permitted even in prisons, where smuggled cellphones have caused unrelenting headaches for prison officials, with some inmates continuing to manage criminal enterprises via cell phone while still in prison.

That may be about to change, however. The Senate last year passed S.251, the Safe Prisons Communications Act of 2009, to permit targeted jamming of cell phone service within prisons. While it has not yet been approved by the House of Representatives, support for the idea has been strong. As with most well-intentioned ideas, however, the question is what unintended consequences will be involved, particularly if the jammers are not carefully monitored and regulated. For example, will a highway that passes a prison inevitably be a cellular dead zone for passing commuters, or will the technology, once permitted, be refined to largely eliminate unintended interference (if that is possible)? Again, it may be a minor annoyance to lose a call when driving by a prison, but a serious traffic accident in that area can make reliable cell phone service a life and death issue.