It is important to review the documents available on the FCC website before concluding that case discussed signals a new policy by the FCC or a that it is a major departure from past practices.
What happened was that a large two-way dealer installed a radio system -- involving multiple transmitters -- at a very large chain store location. Neither that store location was licensed to use the frequency in question nor was the chain licensed to use that frequency at any of its other locations in the city. If you do a FCC search for the frequency, 151.955, and the city, Las Vegas, you will see that there are a number of licensed users of that frequency in the city, including at least one major casino. Given this, it is a safe bet that one or more of the licensed users complained of interference and that this prompted the FCC to investigate. Thus, this is not a situation where a small two-way dealer got into trouble for programming an unauthorized frequency into a single hand-held at a customer's request. Here, both the customer and the two-way dealer were large commercial operations with the sophistication and resources to conclude that a license was required, to determine whether one existed, and to obtain one if there was no license. The legality (and wisdom) of programming an unauthorized frequency into a radio for use in an extreme emergency where no other means of communication exists was not at issue in this case. Instead, this was a commercial operation apparently regularly using an unlicensed radio system on a frequency which required a license. There are valid public policy reasons to hold both the two-way dealer liable for installing the system and the chain store liable for using it. Therefore, the FCC enforcement action against both appears to be completely appropriate.
