I think this clause of the Communications Act might be used for unlicensed
spectrum violations.

"If the violator is neither a broadcast station licensee or permittee, cable
television operator, or applicant for any broadcast or cable television
operator license, permit, certificate or other instrument of authorization
issued by the FCC, or a common carrier, the amount of the forfeiture penalty
can not exceed $10,000.00 for each violation or for each day of any
continuing violation, except that the amount assessed for any continuing
violation can not exceed a total of $75,000.00 for any single act or failure
to act constituting a violation."

Or is it?

"Certain sections of Part 1 of Title II contain specific penal provisions
for violations. For example, Section 219 of the Act requires annual reports
from communications carriers and their parent corporations, if any to file
annual reports with the FCC. The failure of a carrier to file an annual
report is subject to a fine of $1,200.00 for each and every day the carrier
fails to file the report. The $1,200.00 fine under Section 219 is separate
and distinct and not in addition to those prescribed under Sections 501 and
502 of the Act. Similarly, Sections 214, 220 and 223 have separate and
distinct forfeiture provisions, which are not cumulative to the forfeiture
provisions under Sections 501, 502 and 503 of the Act."

Either way, not to many WISPs could afford these penalties not to mention
attorneys fees, time and travel.

Rick Harnish
OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc.
260-827-2482 Office
260-307-4000 Cell
260-918-4340 VoIP

-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Bob Moldashel
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:28 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Form 477 Due March 1st

Hey Scott,

By no means am I attempting to dig this up again but there are 2 trains 
of thought that have been brought out on this list. One is to file and 
let the Commission know they exist and the other is to fly under the 
radar.  Some say letting the FCC  (and others) know they exist could 
bring positive or negative results. Flying under the radar (providing 
there are no penaltys) and not reporting is another option.

Giving up spectrum is not something that happens much anymore without an 
auction. Wisp numbers are not the only thing that will drive new 
unlicensed spectrum releases. Manufacturers lobbying, municipal systems, 
colleges and universities needs, scientific and research spectrum 
requirements for data.  These are all things that will drive unlicensed 
spectrum releases IMHO if and when they happen.

Now....back to my question.  What happens to the provider that doesn't 
file???? Anyone care to suggest/project/assume/state what the official 
punishment is?  I know what it is for the "others"  (LEC's , CLEC's, 
Cable Operators) but what about the unlicensed operator? 

And what about the local university that provides "broadband" for the 
student for free or at a reduced rate??  Do they need to file??



Scott Reed wrote:

> One penalty for not filing impacts all of us, filers or not, less 
> attention on our needs from the FCC.  Why would the commissioners 
> agree to give us much needed spectrum, rules we can live with, new 
> options in radio/antenna combinations, etc., when there are so few 
> willing to stand up and be counted.
> Please, file honestly.  I need your "vote" for the above things.
> Scott Reed
> Owner
> NewWays
> Wireless Networking
> Network Design, Installation and Administration
> www.nwwnet.net <http://www.nwwnet.net/>

Bob Moldashel
Lakeland Communications, Inc.
Broadband Deployment Group
1350 Lincoln Avenue
Holbrook, New York 11741 USA
800-479-9195 Toll Free US & Canada
631-585-5558 Fax
516-551-1131 Cell

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to