Making good on the Chairman’s promise, the FCC is looking for input into Unlicensed LTE and LAA. As we recently reported, when the Commission created the new Citizens Broadband Radio Service which will use the 3.5 GHz band, Chairman Wheeler promi...
Shared use of 3.5 GHz band promises greater efficiency, but much work still needs to be done before operations can begin. In a move described by the Commissioners as a “significant step forward” (Chairman Wheeler), history-making (Commissio...
FCC Chairman on offensive for proposed Field Office closures – but will "tiger teams" really do the trick?
Word on the street (first reported last month by our friends at Radio World, as far as we can tell) is that the FCC’s Field Offices are on the budgetary chopping block: according to a memo reportedly circulating within the Commission (and co-authored by the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau and the Managing Director), the number of Field Offices would be sliced by two-thirds (from 24 to 8), and staffing would be cut almost in half (from 63 to 33). Field Offices in major cities – think Seattle, Denver, Boston, Philadelphia, Houston – would all be gone.
Ding Dong, the (Enforcement) Witch is Dead! Good news, right?
Not really.
Sure, visions of surprise inspections and write-ups for hypertechnical violations may plague the fevered imaginations of some, but the fact is that Field Offices are, and have long been, the friend of the licensed, street-legal operator. As a practical matter, voluntary inspection programs have largely removed the threat of drive-by, “gotcha” inspections. And while we may all chafe a bit at the occasional citation for a broken tower fence lock or unmown grass at the transmitter, such things tend to be rare, at least for licensees who are reasonably attentive to regulatory compliance.
More common are the situations when a licensed station encounters interference from some other source, often one it can’t identify on its own. Maybe it’s somebody suffering inadvertent frequency drift; maybe it’s intentional, malicious interference; maybe it’s a pirate; maybe it’s an unlicensed transmitting device working where or how it shouldn’t be. Whatever the case, your friendly local FCC official has just the right combination of technical expertise and regulatory muscle to resolve the problem.
Recently, a client called about a problem with what the FCC field agents term a “malicious interferer”, one of those regrettably troubled individuals who choose to use transmitters (legally obtained or otherwise) to spew obnoxious content on licensed radio frequencies. In this instance, the interferer was broadcasting racial slurs and obscenities on frequencies used by universities and others, forcing them to cease (at least temporarily) using the equipment they were lawfully licensed to use. We reached out to the nearby FCC Field Office, which began an investigation that brought an agent to the location several times. Working with local law enforcement, the Field Office succeeded in scaring off the interferer. We suspect that this happens a lot more often than gets reported.
In a recent post on the FCC’s blog, Commissioner O’Rielly acknowledged the continuing problem of radio piracy in no uncertain terms. (Sample quote: “If broadcasting were a garden, pirate radio would be poisonous crabgrass.”) And who does a legitimate broadcaster call to spray regulatory Roundup on that crabgrass? The local Field Office, of course. Which is one very good reason why slashing the availability of conveniently located field operatives is NOT a reason for celebration. (Unfortunately, while bemoaning the insidiousness of radio piracy, O’Rielly declined to take a position on the possible closure of Field Offices.)
The persistent pirate plague is not the only concern. As the Commission encourages spectrum sharing, particularly where mobile, unlicensed transmitters are involved, the potential for unintended, unexpected interference will soar. What’s worse, the folks likely to be operating the interfering devices will probably not be communications professionals savvy in the art of spectrum use. Rather, increasingly they will be folks taking advantage, innocently or otherwise, of the vast array of equipment available on the legitimate open market or from less legitimate sources – think jammers, boosters and the like. These are not people likely to respond favorably when your chief engineer calls over to ask for some friendly cooperation in identifying and correcting incoming interference. Is this really the time to shrink the available governmental enforcement capability?
Testifying on Capitol Hill, Chairman Wheeler (who thinks RIF-ing field offices is a good idea) described how effective enforcement could be accomplished with just a small handful of field offices. According to Wheeler, the Commission is contemplating use of a “tiger team” approach. Field agents assigned to the eight surviving field offices would be on call, ready to hop a plane at the drop of a hat and swoop in to respond to interference SOS calls. How would they schlep their gear? Why, “prepositioned equipment” would be cached at various sites around the country, based (apparently) on “population/spectrum use density”. On their way to a distress call, the tiger teams would apparently make a pit stop at the closest “prepositioned equipment” depot to pick up what they might need. Radio World reports that those sites would include Kansas City, Denver, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Seattle, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Anchorage, Alaska, Honolulu and Billings, Montana.
Now bear in mind that the eight remaining field offices would (again according Radio World) be in NYC, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, Dallas and Columbia, Maryland. Wheeler apparently believes that field agents can be expected to arrive on-site responding to calls for assistance anywhere in the country within 24 hours. It appears, though, that they would have to get there by flying commercial – no FCC-dedicated Globemaster (like S.H.I.E.L.D.’s “Bus”) or Invisible Jet (like Wonder Woman’s) is in the budget. Whether or not 24 hours is a reasonable expectation remains to be seen. But if a tiger team has to fly, commercial, to an equipment depot site and then somehow get to the place where the interference is occurring, 24 hours seems a bit optimistic.
Both Chairman Wheeler and Enforcement Bureau Chief Travis LeBlanc delivered sales pitches for the anticipated down-sizing at the recent NAB Convention. They noted that: it has been some 20 years since a management evaluation has been made of FCC Field Offices; most of the employees at those offices are eligible for retirement, not all the employees are busy all the time; and FCC inspectors are operating with outdated equipment that the FCC plans to replace with funds saved from closing offices. They argued that deploying up-to-date equipment will more than offset the reduction in Field Office locations and personnel.
One broadcaster in the audience at the NAB told LeBlanc that most stations around the country see local Field Office inspectors, not Washington headquarters, as the presence and personality of the FCC in their lives. When field inspectors visit, station staffs jump to attention, and the staffs know that they need to be able to demonstrate compliance with the agency’s requirements. A “tiger team” dispatched from afar just won’t have the same impact.
Some are speculating that this proposal isn’t motivated solely by concern for efficiency and modernization. Rather, the suggestion goes, it’s designed to enable the Chairman to add more FTEs (that’s government-speak for budgeted positions) to the FCC headquarters staff to work on net neutrality complaints while avoiding a budget fight with a Republican Congress that is loath to support the net neutrality efforts. That seems an odd trade-off for an agency whose raison d’être since its inception has been the preservation of order and the prevention of chaos in spectrum use.
The plan to down-size the Field Office operation has not formally surfaced. To the extent that reports about it have emerged, they have been met with considerable skepticism. As an example, Bob Weller of the NAB posted a strong piece (“Defanging a Paper Tiger”) on the NAB’s blog. It’s possible that such opposition may give Chairman Wheeler and Bureau Chief LeBlanc some pause … or not, as they seemed to stand their ground at the NAB convention. Check back here for updates.
New option allows filing of petitions for rulemaking through ECFS. If you’re planning on filing a petition for rulemaking with the FCC but you’re out of paper, or maybe your printer is low on toner and the local Kinko’s is...
Another federal agency is now considering regulation of drones - but it's NOT the FCC. We have previously reported on the FAA’s regulation – or non-regulation, or proposed regulation – of drones (official bureaucratic name: unmanned a...
Some familiar faces take an alternative approach to trying to get the FCC to open up spectrum for wireless broadband. Recently, we reported on bills introduced – actually, re-introduced, since proposals with the same language had died during the ...
New bills would force the FCC to examine, on an expedited basis, possible Wi-Fi and other unlicensed use of 5.9 GHz band. As a general rule, the FCC is in the driver’s seat when it comes to spectrum management in the U.S. But that doesn’t m...
TCBs will be taking care of business as OET exits equipment certification role and FCC modernizes equipment authorization processes. The FCC lab is finally getting out of the equipment certification business. After nearly two years of deliberation, the...
Thanks to Congress, electronic labeling may be an option for more FCC-authorized RF devices
Most radiofrequency (RF) equipment certified by the FCC is required to carry a physical label listing the FCC ID and making various other FCC-mandated disclosures. Observant users of electronic products will recognize those labels as the ones with a (usually) long ID number, sometimes an FCC logo, and verbiage like: “This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the condition that the devices does not cause harmful interference.”
But, thanks to Congress and President Obama, those physical labels may increasingly be a thing of the past – at least for pieces of gear that include screens. The recently enacted E-LABEL Act (that’s short for “Enhance Labeling, Accessing, and Branding of Electronic Licenses Act of 2014”) directs the FCC to provide (through rules or otherwise) that manufacturers of RF devices with electronic displays (i.e., screens) have the option of using electronic labeling, instead of physical labeling, for their equipment.
As those immersed in the FCC’s equipment authorization procedures know, the FCC’s rules already allow for electronic display on software-defined radio products and modular transmitters with user display screens. The rules also already provide for alternative labeling procedures when permanently affixing a label is not “desirable” or “feasible”, like if the item is too small or when etching the notice on the item would damage it. In fact, just last summer the Commission provided guidance for electronic labeling, at least for devices which (a) are subject to certification or Declaration of Conformity requirements and (b) have non-removable display screens. (For those really curious, the FCC’s Knowledge Database – known to the in-crowd as “KDB” – advises that electronic labels must be accessible to users without special codes, lengthy steps, or use of accessories, and that the information included in the label cannot be modified.) The KDB guidance did not, however, extend to equipment subject to “verification”, a third type of FCC equipment authorization requiring that equipment be "uniquely identified".
The E-LABEL Act’s stated purpose is to “provide for the non-exclusive use” of electronic labeling on RF devices. Its reach is not limited to devices subject to certification or Declaration of Conformity, so gear subject to verification should now have the electronic labeling option as well. Ditto for devices with non-removable display screens: the E-LABEL Act provides for electronic labeling of any FCC-authorized RF device with the capacity to digitally display the required information.
Since the FCC already allowed electronic labeling for a wide number of devices, it’s not clear why Congress – which in recent years has shown no significant ability to take much action at all – chose to act here. But it did so, passing the act remarkably quickly with strong bipartisan support. One possible reason: the forthcoming explosion of the Internet of Things may be one of the few areas about which consensus on the Hill can be achieved.
Whatever may be the case, the ball is now in the FCC’s court, and it’s got to act fast. The E-LABEL Act requires that the Commission adopt rules “or take other appropriate action” to provide for electronic labeling by late August, 2015. In view of Congress’s choice of words, it’s at least possible that the FCC will be able to comply simply by publishing further guidance through the KDB. Check back here for updates on that front.