FCC hammers cell phone jammers

[The Bruce]

FCC issues largest fine in history to company selling signal jammers | The Verge

How does the FCC plan to collect the fine? My guess is that it has to do with what my late father used to say: "wish in one hand, and [excrement] in the other, and see which one fills up first."

 

[AudioShockwav]

The judge agreed that the FCC was wrong. But I guess they don't care what a judge says.

Another example of a government agency that feels that they are above the "law" .

73
Jeff

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

The statute that authorizes a fine for violation of the rules has 2 sections. One is those who engage in activity requiring a license or who have a license. The other is for those who don't have a license. In the former situation, the FCC can immediately fine someone for a rules violation. I guess the presumption is that if you have a license you should know the rules and you don't need a warning. In the other situation, the FCC must issue a formal citation before issuing a fine. The citation is supposed to explain the rules and why you violated them. It is also supposed to give you the right to a conference with an FCC agent to explain your situation. If you get a citation and then violate the rules a second time, the FCC is authorized to fine you.

In this case there was no citation. The FCC is taking the position that the equipment certification process is licensing and therefore they don't have to give a citation first. However, the fine is for selling the equipment and there is no FCC requirement that anyone have a license to sell equipment. This was the same argument the FCC tried to make against a dealer I represented who had a flier for an amp in his shop. The judge agreed that the FCC was wrong. But I guess they don't care what a judge says.

OK Thanks. That makes sense now that we know the reasoning behind the statement.

 

[Shockwave]

The statute that authorizes a fine for violation of the rules has 2 sections. One is those who engage in activity requiring a license or who have a license. The other is for those who don't have a license. In the former situation, the FCC can immediately fine someone for a rules violation. I guess the presumption is that if you have a license you should know the rules and you don't need a warning. In the other situation, the FCC must issue a formal citation before issuing a fine. The citation is supposed to explain the rules and why you violated them. It is also supposed to give you the right to a conference with an FCC agent to explain your situation. If you get a citation and then violate the rules a second time, the FCC is authorized to fine you.

In this case there was no citation. The FCC is taking the position that the equipment certification process is licensing and therefore they don't have to give a citation first. However, the fine is for selling the equipment and there is no FCC requirement that anyone have a license to sell equipment. This was the same argument the FCC tried to make against a dealer I represented who had a flier for an amp in his shop. The judge agreed that the FCC was wrong. But I guess they don't care what a judge says.

I'm still trying to figure out how the FCC could even begin to have jurisdiction over a Chinese company? In my mind this is well outside of a license issue or having to give a warning first. Those seem like technical details that would only apply to companies or citizens within the USA. I'm no expert on matters like this but I know China pays no attention at all to our laws and it seems ridiculous to expect them to pay Charlie 35 million when all they have to do is say no. Does anyone here think the Chinese government is going to tell their company "You better pay Charlie"? The only chance I see is telling them to just take it off the 800 billion trillion we are already in debt to them. That 35 million should cover about 35 seconds of interest on our (governments) debt.

 

[Shioda]

The way it works is this. If the FCC issues a fine to someone, it is unenforceable by itself. The FCC has to file a lawsuit in federal court against the fined party. In that lawsuit, they have to prove everything all over again including violation of the regulations, that they followed proper procedures and that the fine is reasonable. If they prove everything required under the law, they get a civil judgment. They can't collect unless they find assets to execute on. In the case of a Chinese company, they also have to follow the Hague convention to get a valid judgment. The Hague convention is an agreement between most countries on what procedures must be followed before the judgment will be recognized internationally. If the FCC followed the requirements of the convention, and then won the case in Federal court, they could take the judgment to China and try to collect it. I doubt it ever happens. The fine is just a scare tactic. In this case, if they try to file a lawsuit to collect the fine, I bet they not only lose but they might also have to pay attorney fees to the Chinese company.

I'm still trying to figure out how the FCC could even begin to have jurisdiction over a Chinese company? In my mind this is well outside of a license issue or having to give a warning first. Those seem like technical details that would only apply to companies or citizens within the USA. I'm no expert on matters like this but I know China pays no attention at all to our laws and it seems ridiculous to expect them to pay Charlie 35 million when all they have to do is say no. Does anyone here think the Chinese government is going to tell their company "You better pay Charlie"? The only chance I see is telling them to just take it off the 800 billion trillion we are already in debt to them. That 35 million should cover about 35 seconds of interest on our (governments) debt.

 

[Shockwave]

Thanks for explaining how the case could be fought internationally. That's the problem I was having in my mind.

 

[Mudfoot]

I imagine the government can make future business difficult for this company.

 

[Shioda]

They could, but usually the FCC isn't that coordinated. I have seen a couple instances where the FCC was approving the renewal of someone's license while another employee was trying to institute proceedings to revoke his license. Different departments in the same agency.

I imagine the government can make future business difficult for this company.

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

They could, but usually the FCC isn't that coordinated. I have seen a couple instances where the FCC was approving the renewal of someone's license while another employee was trying to institute proceedings to revoke his license. Different departments in the same agency.

Sounds like the K1MAN fiasco.

 

[C2]

And a chinese company will just change their name and continue business anyway. Seems to be working for GM, but without the pesky name change...