Homeowner fined over unlicensed FM station

Turning to enforcement issues, we have a rhetorical question. What would the FCC do if it discovered an automated or remote controlled unlicensed radio station, where the broadcaster cannot be found, and the homeowner
where the transmitter is located refuses to cooperate?

In the case of a San Diego, California, operation on 106.9 MHz, the regulatory agency has tentatively fined the homeowner $10,000. This case is probably precedent setting and is hot off the press. Amateur Radio Newsline's Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF, has the details:

In a Notice of Apparent liability to Monetary Forfeiture dated December 19, 2005, the FCC charges that Joni K. Craig, apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Communications Act. This, by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter on 106.9 MHz in San Diego, California, even though Craig says that she was merely renting her garage
to the people who own the gear.

It all started back on July 26, 2004. That's when agents from the Commission's San Diego Office used mobile direction finding to locate broadcast transmissions on 106.9 MHz emanating from a converted garage behind Craig's home. The agents made several additional trips out to the residence as they heard the signal on the air. During one such trip on
October 4, 2004, the agents attempted to inspect the radio station in the garage. Craig refused to allow the inspection and claimed to have no knowledge of a radio station. She said that other people were working on a project in her garage.

On November 10, 2004, San Diego agents again monitored the station on 106.9 MHz and requested an inspection. This time Craig agreed and gave the agents access to the garage ands its contents. Agents found a radio transmitter, a computer and an Internet modem, all in operation. The
agents requested that Craig shut down the unlicensed radio station, but she refused She said that she could shut down the station but would not because it belonged to someone else. She told the agents that she would have the people who owned the equipment shut down the transmitter instead. When she was asked who the owner of the radio equipment was, she refused to answer.

After finding that the station was still active on July 26, 2005, San Diego agents, on August 2, 2005, hand-delivered another Notice of Unlicensed Operation to Craig, which again gave Craig an opportunity to reply. No reply from Craig was ever received.

In its decision to fine Craig the FCC says that she provided services and facilities incidental to the transmission of communications by radio. This, by making available the garage and real property on which the operation took place, and providing the electric current used to power the radio station.

So in the FCC's eyes she apparently participated in the operation of the unlicensed station and was aware that the station was operating on her property, evidently, with her permission. Also that Craig admitted that she could turn the station off, evidencing her control over the station, she refused to do so.

The bottom line, Craig's willingness to provide space for what the FCC sees as a pirate broadcast radio station is going to cost her $10,000. She was given the usual time to pay or file an appeal.

Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF
Amateur Radio Newsline

The full text of this action is on-line at
www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-262941A1.html
(CGC, FCC)

Latest news stories..

• Get our news headlines for your website • Submit your news story