Category Archives: FCC

FCC proposes $5.3 million fine on Tele Circuit Network Corporation

Posted on by

WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission today proposed a $5,323,322 fine against Tele Circuit Network Corporation. The Duluth, Georgia-based phone company apparently switched consumers from their preferred carrier to Tele Circuit without their permission, misled consumers into believing that telemarketing calls were from the consumer’s current carrier, provided fabricated verification recordings of consumer consent to the FCC, added unauthorized charges to bills, and failed to fully respond to a Commission inquiry.

The FCC’s investigation into Tele Circuit was prompted by consumer complaints to the Commission, state regulators, and the Better Business Bureau. A large percentage of the complaints came from low-income Americans and senior citizens or people filing complaints on behalf of their elderly or infirm relatives. Many Americans, especially senior citizens, low-income consumers, and citizens in rural areas, rely on local and long-distance calling services from landline phones to provide a critical link to safety services and their communities.

The FCC alleges that Tele Circuit’s telemarketers misrepresented their identities by stating that they were calling on behalf of the consumer’s current service provider. The telemarketers also apparently discussed a fictitious government program for low-income individuals and senior citizens as a way to solicit consumer consent.

Following such calls, the company switched consumers’ local and long-distance service providers—often called slamming—and, in some cases, added unauthorized charges to the consumer’s bill—often called cramming. Tele Circuit apparently disconnected local and long-distance service in some cases after not receiving payment for the unauthorized charges—with Tele Circuit allegedly refusing to reinstate service until the crammed charges were paid in full. This dangerous practice left vulnerable consumers without telephone service for extended periods of time.

In response to FCC requests, the company provided the agency with recordings that purported to verify consumer consent. The Commission followed up with the consumers supposedly on these recordings and was told that the recordings were fake or that the consumers did not have any such communications with Tele Circuit or its third-party verifier. Many of the third-party verification recordings provided to the Commission also failed to adequately confirm that the consumer wanted to change carriers and understood what was being asked. The company also apparently failed to fully respond to formal inquiries from the Commission as required.

Expo Showcases Solutions to Stop Illegal Robocalls

Posted on by

By Patrick Webre | Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau

One thing we hear regularly at the FCC is, “What can be done about robocalls?” And each day, we discuss ways that we can help reduce this scourge. One of these ways is the work we do with the Federal Trade Commission, the FTC.

In March we teamed up with the FTC for a Joint Policy Forum on robocalls, which included expert panels addressing challenges facing consumers, industry and regulators, along with solutions and tools for consumers (see video). The technology solutions included those still in development, along with many call-blocking resources that are available to consumers today.

Some of these tools and solutions will be on display at our next event for consumers: the FCC-FTC Stop Illegal Robocalls Expo. Exhibitors will include major telecom service providers as well as app developers and other innovators focused on blocking illegal robocalls, texts, and caller ID spoofing. The event is open to the public and is set for 10 a.m. to noon EDT on April 23, in the Pepco Edison Place Gallery at 702 8th St NW, Washington, D.C.

The Expo is designed to raise consumer awareness of call-blocking technologies and to provide a venue for technologists and service providers to showcase solutions for filtering unwanted calls, which not only annoy, but oftentimes seek to defraud, consumers.

Meanwhile, the FCC continues to develop new policy solutions, creating effective new rules and working with service providers to help them stem the tide of illegal robocalls and texts. We are also taking strong enforcement actions against illegal robocallers. We partner in these efforts with the FTC, sharing information to go after bad actors.

In addition, we are engaged with consumers directly, and we encourage consumers to file complaints with us about illegal robocalls they receive. When you file a complaint with the FCC, you may be alerting us to new scams that are just surfacing. Your complaint may also help us track the bad actors who use phone networks and technology to spoof numbers and commit fraud and identity theft.

For more information on tools and resources for consumers to block robocalls, as well as tips for how to deal with spoofed caller ID calls, visit fcc.gov/robocalls.

FCC proposes $82-Million finde for spoofed robocalls

Posted on by

WASHINGTON – The Federal Communications Commission on August 3 proposed an $82,106,000 fine against an individual and his companies which apparently made more than 21 million illegally spoofed robocalls in violation of the Truth in Caller ID Act. The law prohibits callers from deliberately falsifying caller ID information—a practice called “spoofing”—to disguise their identity with the intent to harm, defraud consumers, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.

The FCC found that Best Insurance Contracts and its owner/operator, Mr. Philip Roesel (doing business as Wilmington Insurance Quotes) apparently made millions of illegally spoofed
robocalls consumers around the country. Mr. Roesel of Wilmington, North Carolina displayed inaccurate caller ID information when making robocalls in an effort to sell health insurance, which especially targeted vulnerable consumers, including the elderly, the infirm, and low-income families.

In December 2016, a medical paging provider called Spok complained to Commission staff that robocalling campaigns were disrupting its network. Using information provided by Spok to
connect these calls to Mr. Roesel, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau subpoenaed Mr. Roesel’s call records from October 2016 through January 2017. Based on these records, FCC investigators verified 82,106 health insurance telemarketing calls made during that time used falsified caller ID information. These calls are the basis for today’s proposed fine.

The Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 and the Commission’s rules prohibit spoofing with the intent to cause harm, defraud, or wrongfully obtain anything of value. Consumers rely on caller ID information to make decisions about what calls to accept, ignore, or block. Accurate caller ID information is a vital tool that consumers use to protect their privacy, avoid fraud, and ensure peace of mind.

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau also issued a citation to Best Insurance Contracts and Mr. Roesel, doing business as Wilmington Insurance Quotes, for apparent violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act’s robocall limits. Under the Act, the Commission must first provide a warning––in the form of a citation––to TCPA violators if the person or entity in question does not possess a license or authorization issued by the FCC. If those violations continue, they may be subject to additional fines.

The FCC has focused on malicious caller ID spoofing recently. Changes in technology have made it easier and cheaper for scammers to make robocalls and to manipulate caller ID
information. To address this consumer problem, the FCC has focused both on enforcement actions like today’s and on pursuing policies to help consumers and their service providers block
malicious robocalls.

In recent months, the Commission has taken a number of significant enforcement actions related to spoofing and robocalling. It proposed a $120 million fine against an individual who apparently used “neighbor spoofing” while making nearly 100 million robocalls to sell timeshares. It also fined a New Mexico company $2.8 million for providing a robocalling platform which also allowed easy caller ID manipulation.
Continue reading →

FCC Requesting Public Comments on amateur vanity call signs

Posted on by

ARLB039 Rule Making Petition to FCC Calls for Vanity Call Sign Rule Changes

The FCC is inviting comments on a Petition for Rule Making (RM-11775) from a Nevada radio amateur that seeks changes to the rules governing the Amateur Radio Vanity Call Sign Program. Christopher LaRue, W4ADL, of North Las Vegas, is proposing that any licensee obtaining a vanity call sign be required to keep it for the full license term. LaRue contends in his petition that excessive and frequent vanity call sign filings are hampering the ability of other qualified licensees to obtain vanity call signs in one of the more desirable 1 x 2 or 2 x 1 formats. LaRue said that since the FCC dropped the fee to file for a vanity call sign, some applicants are taking advantage by regularly obtaining new call signs, thereby keeping them out of circulation.

The petition can be found on the web in PDF format at, https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1004220986407/Petition%20.pdf.

“Some are changing call signs almost monthly, just to keep the newer code-free Extra class operators from obtaining a shorter call sign,” he said in his petition. “I even saw an older operator that said he does it all the time and has not even owned a radio in over 6 years. When I looked him up, he has had 16 different [call signs] in 18 months.”

LaRue said his proposed minor rule change would require any licensee applying for and obtaining an Amateur Radio vanity call sign “be required to keep it for the duration of the license, which is currently 10 years.”

He said this would “alleviate a lot of the stress on the ULS system and manpower requirements” at the FCC. “It will also keep inactive amateurs from changing call signs regularly, thereby tying up call signs for 2 years after dismissal of said call.”

Interested parties may comment using the FCC Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) at, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Comments are due within 30 days of the October 26 posting date.

Consumer Labels for Broadband Services

Posted on by

FixedLabelG2_0

Comparing prices, performance and network practices of broadband service providers can be challenging, even for savvy consumers. With this in mind, the FCC created Open Internet transparency rules requiring providers to convey sufficient information for consumers to make informed choices about available broadband services. Based on recommendations from its Consumer Advisory Committee, the FCC provides templates for broadband labels – one for landline and one for mobile – that service providers may use to supply consumers with information about their services.

If a provider uses a broadband label template, here’s the type of information you can expect to see:

  • Pricing details, including all of the various charges that seem mysterious to consumers – overage fees, equipment fees, early termination fees, other monthly fees beyond service fees such as insurance, administrative fees, or regulatory recovery fees.
  • Monthly data allowance – namely, the carrier-defined plan limit after which consumers will incur additional charges.
  • Broadband speed and other performance metrics.
  • Network management practices – namely, precautions providers may take to manage heavy traffic on their networks.

Service providers who use the labels will satisfy the FCC’s requirement to make transparency disclosures in the proper format, or a format that meets the needs of consumers. However, providers may still be in violation of FCC rules if the content of their labels is misleading or inaccurate or if they make misleading or inaccurate statements to customers in ads or elsewhere. In such cases, consumers can file complaints with the FCC at https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov.

The new rules will go into effect later this year, but service providers may begin using the broadband label templates anytime. The labels can serve as a helpful comparison shopping tool for consumers. Look for and consider them when you shop for service.

More information

General Mobile Radio Service license DOES cost

Posted on by

Radio-15-08-31-07(9/1/15) You might remember the citizens band (CB) radio craze of the seventies. The craze was driven by movies such as Smokey and the Bandit. There were CB clubs and conventions throughout the country much like the amateur radio class. At the time, both required a license to operate.

Amateur radio still requires a license but the requirement to get one is much different. Depending on which class you go for limits you to operating on certain frequencies. Operating on the CB frequencies no longer requires a license, but you can still get in trouble for operating illegally, which we will discuss later.

Today the Family Radio Service (FRS) band has become popular. You can purchase a pair of FRS radios and chargers from $20 on up depending on what you want. I have collected several of these radios which people seem to be dumping onto thrift stores. They are of different brands, but because they operate on the same frequencies you can communicate between them.

One specification you might notice on the package is the promise of ranges from 21-miles to 35-miles, or so. What they do not explain is that those particular models are also equipped with General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) channels. Those operate at a higher power and that is why they print those ranges. The problem is that you will not get those promised ranges even operating on the GMRS channels without absolutely perfect conditions. Any obstruction or change in atmospheric condition will severely limit the range you will actually get.

Another thing that they do not tell you is that you are required to obtain a license from the Federal Communication Commission (FCC or Uncle Charley if you want to make them angry). There is some licensing requirement confusion on the Internet. Articles such as this one claim that the FCC has eliminated the license fee for GMRS. As with much that is on the Internet, I found this to be false at considerable cost to my wallet. My license actually cost me $90. The license, however, is good for five-years so long as I do not violate the laws governing this class of radio.

This may cause many to get into trouble by operating on these frequencies. It is equally hampered by the fact that I cannot find one single, simple list of licensing fees or requirements on the FCC web site. Human nature, being what it is, people will generally flock toward what they want (being no license) and run with it. A good rule of thumb is if you operate at an output power from about 4-watts on up, you probably need a license. And a check book.

Their article references an FCC proposal to eliminate the license requirement bound up in the legal mumbo-jumbo of this PDF. The problem is that proposal has not been approved. The article suggests people go to the FCC web site and flood it with comments to eliminate the license requirement. The problem with that is the licensing fees, in this case anyway, are not set by the FCC, but the Congress.

I am not one known to support or defend ANY government bureaucracy whether of national, State or county government origin. The ORIGINAL purpose of the FCC, however, might be considered Constitutionally based. Except that they do not have the right to suppress the Internet. While you may have the right to operate on a channel, you do not have the right to tie it up all day. You do not have the right to overstep my transmission. You MUST clear the channel for ANY emergency traffic. And your HAM radio cannot interpreter with my satellite television (which I do not have. This is just an example). Enforcement of the rules to prevent radio interference was the original purpose of the FCC. Like most bureaucracies, the FCC has gone way beyond its constitutional purpose.

For those who do not know, those channels that you dial into your GMRS/FRS or CB radio correspond to certain established frequencies. Like when you dial in your favorite FM (frequency modulation) station 92.9 in Flagstaff, you are tuning into a certain frequency. In this case 92.9 megahertz. If you program your radio so that it goes to 92.9 MHz when you press the “1” button, you are setting up a channel similar to the way GMRS/FRS and CB radios work. It should be noted that channel 1 on a CB and channel 1 on a GMRS/FRS radio are not the same frequency, so you cannot communicate between them.

As for the law, Title 47 of the United States Code parts 0-199 concern the operation of the FCC. The parts important to this article is Title 47 Subchapter D Part 95 for General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) and Family Radio Service (FRS) and Title 47 Subchapter D Part 96 for Citizen Band, or CB radio. Part 97 concerns Amateur or HAM radio.

While the CB license requirement has been eliminated—and the GMRS requirement may be—there are still stipulations. The main one is that you may not alter the radio to put out more power or add devices that will increase your output. This is the same for GMRS or FRS. I read one article that blasted the FCC for fining a man for operating a CB without a license even though a license has not been required for some thirty years. It turns out that is not what they fined the man for. What they fined him for is that he was broadcasting with a power amplifying device, called a linear amplifier, attached to the radio. That has always been illegal.

You also cannot modify the channels of either radio so that they broadcast at a different frequency. Some older CB radios had three channels and you could change the crystals (things that determined the frequency) to any CB frequencies; but ONLY those frequencies allotted for CB.

The FCC does allow you to use a pseudonym or “handle,” like Bandit or Snowman (although snowman may have an entirely different meaning today). You must, however, use a self-assigned call sign. Your call sign would begin with a “K,” followed by your initials and then your zip code. You are supposed to begin your transmission with that code and rebroadcast it every fifteen minutes. The same reason that television stations “Pause for station identification” every half-hour.

I went into a lot of detail on the various radio services that are open to the public in one way or another. The bottom line is to broadcast on CB or FRS does not require a license. Yet there are still things that you should be aware of. Some of the instructions you receive when you buy the radio gives you some of the specifics, but you should consult the FCC web site or the laws for more in depth information. If you purchased your radios at a swap meet or thrift store, it is very important that you are aware of the laws as you may not get the instruction booklet with it. Operating instructions are generally available online in PDF format. The operating instructions will tell you which channels on your radio are FRS and which are GMRS. If you do not have a license, you are limited to operating on channels 8 to 14 on your dual-purpose radio.

The one feature that you should look for on any of these radios is the weather frequencies. In a weather emergency the NOAA may still be broadcasting in your area.