Articles Posted in Telecommunications

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:

FCC Proposes $25,000 Fine Against Individual for Operating a Pirate Radio Station
FCC Admonishes Wireless Carrier for Data Breach
Telecommunications Relay Service Providers Agree to $9.1 Million Settlement

Pirate Radio Operator Faces $25,000 Proposed Fine After Flaunting Multiple FCC Warnings

After issuing multiple warnings, the FCC proposed a $25,000 fine against a New Jersey man for operating an unlicensed radio station. Section 301 of the Communications Act prohibits any person from operating any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio within the United States without FCC authorization.

In October 2015, the licensee of an FM translator station in Jersey City complained to the FCC that an unauthorized station was causing co-channel interference. FCC agents verified the complaint and issued a Notice of Unlicensed Operation (“NOUO”) to the owner of the apartment building where the unlicensed station was operating. The unauthorized broadcast subsequently stopped. However, in May 2016, the FCC received another complaint and found that the unlicensed station was operating again. FCC agents issued a second NOUO, this time to both the individual operating the pirate station and the building owner. The individual contacted the FCC in June 2016, at which time he was warned he could face additional enforcement action if unlicensed operations continued.

Despite that admonition, FCC agents found the individual again engaged in unlicensed operation in August 2016, this time at a different site. The FCC issued another NOUO, but later that month found the individual operating without a license again, this time at yet another site.

FCC guidelines set a base fine for unauthorized operation of $10,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation. The FCC may adjust the fine upward or downward after taking into account the particular facts of each case. Here, the FCC found that a “significant upward adjustment was warranted” due to the individual’s disregard of multiple warnings. As a result, the FCC proposed a $20,000 base fine—$10,000 for the May 2016 operations and another $10,000 for the August 2016 operations—and applied a $5,000 upward adjustment, for a total proposed fine of $25,000.

Hack of Wireless Carrier Leads to Admonishment by FCC

The FCC admonished a national wireless phone carrier for a 2015 data breach in which a third party gained unauthorized access to personal information collected by the carrier to run credit checks on customers.

Section 222(a) of the Communications Act requires telecommunications carriers to “protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to . . . customers.” It also requires carriers to “take every reasonable precaution” to protect personal customer information. Section 201(b) of the Act requires practices related to interstate or foreign telecommunications to be “just and reasonable.” Continue reading →

Published on: February 6, 2017

Pai FCC Moves Quickly to Rescind Wheeler FCC Actions

After the election, it was clear that we would be seeing a much different FCC in 2017. Such transitions typically take time, as a president’s nomination of new candidates to fill the Chairman’s or commissioners’ seats, along with the delay typically associated with obtaining Senate confirmation, means that a new fully-staffed FCC won’t typically be ready for action until May or June following the January change in administrations. By that time, the actions of the prior FCC have often become final and unappealable, or at least the regulated industries have already begun to adapt their operations to comply with those rules, making subsequent changes more complicated.

Published on: January 31, 2017

FCC Enforcement Monitor ~ January 2017

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:

FCC Proposes $10,000 Fine to FM Licensee for Public Inspection File Violations
Spoofed Calls Lead to $25,000 Fine
Wireless Licensee Agrees to Pay $28,800 Settlement for Operating on Unauthorized Frequencies

FM Licensee Hit with $10,000 Proposed Fine for “Extensive” Public Inspection File Violations

The FCC proposed a $10,000 fine against a South Carolina FM licensee for “willfully and repeatedly” failing to retain all required public inspection file documents.

Published on: December 30, 2016

FCC Enforcement Monitor ~ December 2016

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:

Headlines:

Broadcaster Loses Appeal of $20,000 FCC Fine
FCC Issues Citation for Violations of Radio Frequency Equipment Authorization and Labeling Rules
FCC Proposes $392,930 Fine to Telecom Provider for Excessive USF Fees, Unauthorized Transfers, and Delinquent Regulatory Fees

Ninth Circuit Upholds $20,000 Fine Against FM Broadcaster for Unauthorized Operation

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a $20,000 FCC fine against a New Mexico FM broadcaster for operating outside the parameters of the broadcaster’s construction permit.

Section 301 of the Communications Act bans the unlicensed transmission of “energy or communications or signals by radio.” Section 503 of the Act authorizes monetary fines where the FCC finds “willful[] or repeated[]” failure to comply “with the terms and conditions of any license, permit, certificate, or other instrument or authorization” issued by the FCC.

In November 2009, the FCC issued a $20,000 fine to the broadcaster for operating at variance from the broadcaster’s construction permit. Specifically, the FCC found that the station was broadcasting without authorization, and was being operated at a facility 34 miles from its authorized location.

When the broadcaster failed to pay the $20,000 fine, the FCC referred the matter for collections to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), which, in turn, sued the broadcaster in Nevada District Court to recover the $20,000. The District Court granted the DOJ’s motion for summary judgment, and in doing so upheld the fine against the broadcaster. The broadcaster, representing himself in court, subsequently appealed the District Court’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling, stating that the DOJ provided “substantial” evidence that, for more than a year, the broadcaster “willfully and repeatedly” transmitted radio signals from a different location and at different technical parameters than those specified in the broadcaster’s construction permit. In contrast, the court explained, “taking his submissions in the most generous light, [the broadcaster has] not shown a genuine issue of material fact for trial.” The broadcaster failed to contradict any of the facts underlying the alleged unauthorized operation: (1) because his construction permit required FCC approval before commencing program testing—which the FCC never granted—the transmissions were not valid under the FCC’s Rules; and (2) because the broadcaster transmitted at variance from the terms of the permit, he was not conducting valid equipment tests, which only allow transmission to assure compliance with the permit’s terms. In reviewing the amount of the fine, the Ninth Circuit found the FCC’s decision to impose the full $10,000 base fine for each of the two instances of unauthorized operation “reasonable and not an abuse of discretion.”

Going, Going, but Not Gone: FCC’s Parting Gift to Company Winding Down Business Is Citation for Equipment Authorization and Labeling Violations

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a citation to a company for marketing radio frequency (“RF”) transmitters that were not properly certified or labeled.

Section 302 of the Communications Act prohibits the manufacture, import, sale, or shipment of home electronic equipment and devices that fail to comply with the FCC’s regulations. Section 2.803 of the FCC’s Rules provides that a device subject to FCC certification must be properly authorized, identified, and labeled in accordance with Section 2.925 of the Rules before it can be marketed to consumers. Continue reading →

Published on: November 30, 2016

FCC Enforcement Monitor ~ November 2016

By Pillsbury's Comm Law Center Team

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:

Headlines:

Broadcaster Agrees to Pay $100,000 Fine for Filing Applications Under False Names
FCC Proposes $13,000 Fine for Late License Renewal Application and Unauthorized Operation
Failure to Register with the FCC Results in $100,000 Fine for Telecom Provider

Catch Me If You Can: Broadcaster Settles Long-Running Investigation into the Use of Pseudonyms in FCC Applications

The FCC entered into a Consent Decree with a radio broadcaster to resolve an investigation into whether the broadcaster filed numerous applications using fake names and refused to cooperate with FCC investigations.

Section 1.17 of the FCC’s Rules requires that written and oral statements to the FCC be truthful and accurate. Section 1.65 of the Rules requires applicants to amend applications as needed for continuing accuracy and completeness. In addition, Section 73.1015 requires applicants to respond to FCC inquiries regarding broadcast applications.

The Consent Decree explains that, since 1982, there has been a “cloud of unanswered questions” about whether applications filed by the broadcaster were accurate. In 1993, the FCC sent the broadcaster a letter inquiring into: (1) his role in certain entities; (2) apparent misrepresentations he made to the FCC; (3) his prior failure to respond to certain site availability allegations; and (4) the operation of several FM translators. The broadcaster never responded to the letter, and since that time, the broadcaster’s real name has not appeared in any FCC application as a principal of any applicant. Instead, the broadcaster used pseudonyms, as well as the names of his wife, mother, and grandmother.

In addition, the Consent Decree states that a 1997 complaint filed by another broadcaster was never answered or disclosed by the broadcaster. The complaint alleged that the broadcaster was the real party in interest behind a certain licensee, and that the broadcaster had violated several other FCC Rules.

Under the terms of the Consent Decree, the broadcaster admitted to being the real party in interest on numerous applications for which he had used pseudonyms, and admitted to several other violations of FCC Rules. The broadcaster agreed to (1) pay a $100,000 fine; (2) the cancellation of licenses for an AM station and two low power FM stations; and (3) the dismissal of petitions for reconsideration involving two dismissed FM applications. In return, the FCC agreed to grant the license renewal applications for another AM station and seven FM translator stations, each with a shortened license term of one year so that the FCC can closely monitor the licensee’s operation of the stations in the future.

FCC Proposes $13,000 Fine for Unauthorized Operation Caused by Late License Renewal Application

The FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) against an Ohio FM licensee for failing to timely file its license renewal application and for continuing to operate the station after its license had expired. The FCC proposed a fine for the violations and simultaneously issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding the licensee’s license renewal application.

Section 301 of the Communications Act provides that “[n]o person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio . . . except under and in accordance with this [Act] and with a license in that behalf granted under the provisions of [the Act].” Section 73.3539(a) of the FCC’s Rules requires that broadcast licensees file applications to renew their licenses “not later than the first day of the fourth full calendar month prior to the expiration date of the license sought to be renewed.”

In this case, the station’s license expired on October 1, 2004, rendering the license renewal application due by June 1, 2004. The licensee, however, did not file the renewal application until July 30, 2004. The FCC dismissed the application due to the licensee’s “red light” status for owing a debt to the FCC. Red light status prevents the FCC from providing any government benefit to a licensee, including license renewal. The licensee did not seek reconsideration of the dismissal and, as a result, the station’s license expired on October 1, 2004.

In January 2011, the FCC staff was told that the station was off the air. On January 12, 2011, the FCC wrote a letter to the former licensee inquiring into the operating status of the station, and requested a response within 30 days. The station did not respond until March 25, 2011, and stated that it was on-air as of the date of the FCC letter. However, the station explained that it had in fact suspended operations on February 23, 2011, after its transmitter was damaged during the theft of its copper feed lines.

In May 2011, the licensee filed a request for Special Temporary Authority (“STA”) to resume operations, stating that its transmitter repair was almost complete. The licensee also noted that it was unaware its 2004 license renewal application had been dismissed, and that it would file another license renewal application “once it [could].” The licensee submitted a license renewal application in July 2011, and the FCC subsequently granted the station’s STA request through March 2012.

In February 2012, the licensee filed another STA request to operate with reduced facilities, stating that the damage to the transmitter was far worse than previously thought, and would cost more than the value of the station to repair. The licensee also stated that the landlord of its transmitter site had declined to renew the station’s lease, but it had found an alternative, temporary location from which it could operate the station. The FCC granted the STA, and set an expiration date of August 2012. The licensee continued to operate under the STA facilities even after the August 2012 expiration date. The licensee did not file a request to extend the STA until February 2013. That request was granted as a new STA in March 2013, and the licensee has operated under a series of extensions to that STA ever since.

Based on the facts of this case, the FCC proposed the full base fine amount of $3,000 for failure to file a required form, and the full base fine amount of $10,000 for unauthorized operations. The FCC explained that while it typically assesses fines of $7,000 for unauthorized operations, the length of the first unauthorized period in this case—over six years—followed by a second unauthorized period, warranted a $10,000 fine.

The FCC stated that it would grant the station’s license renewal application upon the conclusion of the forfeiture proceeding “if there are no issues other than the apparent violation that would preclude grant of the applications.”

FCC Fines Prepaid Calling Card Company $100,000 for Failing to Register as Service Provider

The FCC fined a New Jersey provider of international prepaid calling card services $100,000 for failing to register as a telecommunications service provider and adhere to all registration requirements.

Section 64.1195(a) of the FCC’s Rules requires that companies providing interstate telecommunications services file an FCC Form 499-A, also known as the Annual Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, with the Universal Service Administrative Company prior to providing service. The Form 499-A instructions state that “[w]ith very limited exceptions, all intrastate, interstate, and international providers of telecommunications in the United States must file this Worksheet.”

According to the FCC, compliance with the registration requirement is critical to determining a provider’s payment obligations to the Universal Service Fund, Telecommunications Relay Service Fund, and numbering support mechanisms. The FCC further stated that registration is a way to recover costs, and is a central repository for important details about providers.

Calling it a “dereliction of its responsibilities,” the FCC determined that the provider willfully operated for years without filing a Form 499-A, giving the provider an unfair economic advantage over its competitors. The FCC stated that the misconduct started when the provider began providing service in 1997 and continues until the provider files its initial Form 499-A. The FCC proposed a $100,000 fine for the provider’s transgressions.

In addition to the fine, the FCC instructed the provider to immediately register as a telecommunications provider, and to come into full compliance with all of its federal regulatory obligations. The FCC also warned that the fine was “a very limited action that does not reflect the full extent of [the service provider’s] potential forfeiture liability and that does not in any way preclude the Commission from imposing additional forfeitures … in the future.”

A PDF version of this article can be found at FCC Enforcement Monitor November 2016.

Published on: November 10, 2016

FCC Imposes Privacy Restrictions on Broadband Providers … for Now

Pillsbury's Comm Law Center Team

As he rushes to accomplish his list of objectives before the change in administrations, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler was able to cross one off that list last week. For the first time, the FCC imposed privacy requirements on providers of broadband internet access services (BIAS). The much-anticipated Order requires BIAS providers to notify customers about the types of information the BIAS providers collect about their customers; how and for what purposes the BIAS provider uses and shares this information; and in some circumstances requires customer consent for the use and sharing of this information. This order was an outgrowth of the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order, which reclassified BIAS as a telecommunications service and wrested privacy jurisdiction from the Federal Trade Commission.

Published on: October 31, 2016

FCC Enforcement Monitor ~ October 2016

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:

Headlines:

FCC Revokes Company’s Authorizations for Failure to Pay Regulatory Fees
Failure to Disclose Felonies in License Applications Yields $175,000 Fine
Cable Operator Settles Investigation into Unlawful Billing for $2.3 Million

Pay Up or Shut Down: Failure to Pay Regulatory Fees Leads to License Revocation

In a rare move, the FCC revoked the domestic and international 214 authorizations of a Florida telecommunications company to provide facilities-based and international telecommunications services.

Section 9 of the Communications Act directs the FCC “to assess and collect regulatory fees” to recover costs of certain FCC regulatory activities. When a required payment is not made or is late, the FCC will assess a monetary penalty. Further, Section 9(c)(3) of the Act and Section 1.1164(f) of the FCC’s Rules permits the FCC to revoke authorizations for failure to make timely regulatory fee payments. Under Section 1.1917 of the Rules, a non-tax debt owed to the FCC that is 120 days delinquent is transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury for collection.

In December 2008, the company was authorized to provide facilities-based and resold international telecommunications services. In October 2014, the FCC sent the company a Demand Letter notifying the company of delinquent regulatory fees for fiscal year 2014 and demanding payment. The company failed to respond to the Letter and, as required by Section 1.1917 of the Rules, the FCC transferred the FY 2014 debt to the Secretary of the Treasury. As of July 1, 2016, the company had unpaid regulatory fees of $711.40 for FY 2014, and $3,025.34 for FY 2012. According to the FCC, the company does not appear to have any current customers.

In July 2016, the FCC issued an Order to Pay or Show Cause, instructing the company to demonstrate within 60 days that it paid the regulatory fees and penalties in full, or show why the payment was inapplicable or should be waived or deferred. The Order also explained that failure to comply could result in revocation of the company’s international and domestic authorizations. The company neither responded to the Order nor made any payments.

Citing the company’s failure to either pay its regulatory fees or show cause to remove, waive, or defer the fees, the FCC revoked the company’s international and domestic authorizations. The Revocation Order explicitly stated that such revocation did not relieve the company of its obligation to pay the delinquent fees or “any other financial obligation that has or may become due resulting from the authorizations held until revocation.”

Companies Settle Investigation Into Subsidiaries’ Failure to Disclose Felony Convictions in Wireless Applications With $175,000 Fine

Two engineering corporations, on behalf of themselves and their subsidiaries, entered into a Consent Decree with the FCC to end an investigation into the subsidiaries’ failure to disclose two corporate felony convictions in several wireless license applications. Continue reading →

Published on: August 23, 2016

FCC Enforcement Monitor ~ August 2016

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:

Headlines:

Spoofed Calls Lead to Multiple $25,000 Fines and Ongoing Criminal Case
Amateur Radio Licensee Fined $25,000 for Intentional Interference
Failure to Timely Request STA Results in $5,000 Fine and Shortened License Term

Spoofing’s No Joke: Two Men Face $25,000 Fine Each for Harassing Phone Call Scheme

The FCC proposed to fine two New York men for apparently using false caller ID numbers – a practice commonly known as “spoofing” – to place harassing phone calls to the ex-wife of one of the men.

The Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, as codified in Section 227(e) of the Communications Act and Section 64.1604 of the FCC’s Rules, prohibits any person, in connection with any telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service, to knowingly cause, directly or indirectly, any caller ID service to transmit or display misleading or inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.

In September 2015, the National Network to End Domestic Violence contacted the FCC on behalf of one of their clients and explained that someone was using spoofing services to stalk and harass her. The FCC subsequently opened an investigation into the matter.

Using information and call logs provided by the woman, the investigation found that between May 2015 and September 2015, 31 harassing phone calls were made. It found that the callers used a spoofing service provider to make the woman believe she was answering calls from sources such as local jails and prisons, the school district where her child attends school, and her parents’ home. In addition, it found that the callers used a voice modulation feature of the spoofing service to disguise their voices, and conveyed threatening and bizarre messages. For example, calls that spoofed the caller ID information of Sing Sing correctional facility threatened “we are waiting for you.” Other calls referenced personal information specific to the woman and her minor child.

FCC staff subpoenaed call records for the cell phone of a friend of the woman’s ex-husband after the woman told staff that she believed her ex-husband – against whom she had a restraining order during the time period in question – and his close friend were behind the calls. The woman explained to FCC staff that for some of the calls she had used a third-party “unmasking” service to reveal that the true caller ID was that of her ex-husband’s friend, with whom she had no independent relationship. The call records showed that each time the friend called the spoofing service, the woman received a spoofed call. The parent company of the spoofing service confirmed that the friend used its service to make spoofed calls to the woman.

The FCC also found that the ex-husband was directly involved in at least some of the calls. For example, the FCC found that the friend made a spoofed call moments after he was called by the ex-husband, and while he was still on the phone with the ex-husband. The FCC explained that the fact that the ex-husband “did not dial the spoofed calls himself does not absolve him of liability for the harassment and stalking of his ex-wife.”

The Communications Act and the FCC’s Rules authorize a fine of up to $10,000 for each spoofing violation, or three times that amount for each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,025,000. The FCC may adjust a fine upward or downward depending on the circumstances of the violation. Citing the “egregious” nature of the violation, the FCC proposed to fine the ex-husband and the friend $25,000 each. The friend was also arrested and charged with stalking and aggravated harassment after the woman filed a complaint with local police.

Haters Gonna Hate: Amateur Radio Licensee Fined $25,000 for Racial Slur-Filled Interference

A California amateur radio licensee received a $25,000 fine from the FCC for intentionally interfering with the transmissions of other amateurs radio operators and transmitting prohibited communications, including music.

Section 333 of the Communications Act states that “[n]o person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any stations licensed or authorized by or under the Act or operated by the United States Government.” Similarly, Section 97.101(d) of the FCC’s Rules states that “[n]o amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal.” In addition, Section 97.113(a)(4) of the Rules states that “[n]o amateur station shall transmit . . . [m]usic using a phone emission except as specifically provided elsewhere in this section.”

After receiving multiple complaints of interference, primarily from the Western Amateur Radio Friendship Association (“WARFA”), FCC field agents, with assistance from the FCC’s High Frequency Direction Finding (“HFDF”) Center, conducted investigations to find the source of the interference. On August 25 and 27, 2015, between 7:45 p.m. and 9:45 p.m., the agents observed at least 12 instances of the licensee intentionally transmitting on top of, and interrupting, WARFA amateurs. The interruptions lasted from 30 seconds to at least 4 minutes, and included noises, recordings, music, and talking over WARFA users. The transmissions included racial, ethnic, and sexual slurs. The licensee ended his transmissions each night when WARFA members ended their transmissions.

Published on: May 31, 2016

FCC Enforcement Monitor ~ May 2016

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:

Headlines:

FCC Enforcement Bureau and Long-Distance Provider Agree to $100,000 Settlement for Violations of FCC’s Rural Call Completion Rules
FCC Cancels $3,000 Fine Against TV Licensee for Untimely Kidvid Filings, Upholds $10,000 Fine for Missing Issues/Programs Lists
FM Construction Permit Auction Winner Fined $3,000 For Late Application

Dropped Call of the Wild: Investigation of Rural Call Problems Ends With $100,000 Consent Decree

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with a Utah-based long distance carrier to resolve an investigation into whether the carrier failed to sufficiently respond to a rural customer’s complaints of poor call quality and failed to cooperate with the FCC’s resulting investigation.

The FCC has adopted several “Rural Call Completion Rules” in recent years to address poor call quality and call completion problems in rural and other high-cost areas. The Commission clarified in a 2012 declaratory ruling that a carrier violates Section 201 of the Communications Act of 1934 when it knows or should know that calls are not being completed to certain areas and fails to correct the problem or fails to ensure that its intermediate providers correct the problem.

The FCC has also determined that practices that allow lower quality service to rural or traditionally high-cost areas to persist constitute unjust or unreasonable discrimination (based on locality) in violation of Section 202 of the Communications Act. Further, the FCC has interpreted Section 208 of the Act and Section 1.717 of the Commission’s Rules to require that a carrier satisfy (or adequately explain why it cannot satisfy) any informal rural call completion complaints.

In December 2014, a consumer filed an informal complaint with the FCC detailing ongoing problems with receiving work calls. The calls were sent over the carrier’s long distance network to the consumer’s home office, which is served by an intermediate rural local exchange carrier. The carrier investigated the matter and explained in its response to the informal complaint that (1) the consumer had not responded to a follow-up email about the complaint, and (2) the consumer was not its customer.

The carrier took action in March 2015—after the FCC reminded the carrier of its obligations to address rural call quality problems—but the problem recurred. The consumer subsequently filed additional complaints alleging continued call problems in May and June of 2015. Finding that the carrier failed to sufficiently address and resolve the call quality problems with its intermediate provider until late July 2015, the FCC issued a Letter of Inquiry to the carrier and opened an investigation.

To settle the matter, the carrier entered into a Consent Decree with the FCC, wherein the carrier: (1) admitted that it failed to ensure call quality from its intermediate providers and that it did not cooperate with the FCC’s investigation; (2) agreed to pay a $100,000 civil penalty; and (3) agreed to implement a compliance plan going forward. As part of the plan, the carrier must establish operating procedures and training on the Rural Call Completion Rules, and file regular compliance reports with the FCC during the three-year compliance period.

Island Jam: Guam TV Station Successfully Appeals Proposed Fine for Late Kidvid Reports, But Remains on the Hook for Issues/Programs List Violations

The FCC’s Media Bureau cancelled a proposed $3,000 fine against a Guam TV licensee for failing to timely file five Children’s Television Programming Reports, but upheld a $10,000 fine against the licensee for failing to place fifteen Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists in the station’s public inspection file. The FCC also admonished the licensee for its failure to upload copies of its Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists that were in the station’s local file prior to August 2, 2012.