Bulb Behind Bars? FCC Cites a Lighting Fixture for Radio Interference

Office illumination caused radio noise on a commercial wireless frequency.

First the U.S. Department of Agriculture ordered a children’s magician to set up a disaster plan for his rabbit. Then the FCC asserted jurisdiction over a lighting fixture. It must be something in the water here in Washington.

The offending fixture, which illuminates an office building in San Jan, Puerto Rico, apparently put out a stray signal at 712.5 MHz. That frequency is part of an auctioned band used for commercial wireless communications. The FCC does not say, but we think it likely that the wireless provider tracked down and fingered the office building, much as other wireless providers have complained about other sources of interference.

And, yes, the FCC has jurisdiction over all sources of radio interference, including lighting fixtures. It issued an official warning, called a citation, to the building’s occupant, alerting it to possible monetary forfeitures up into six figures if the interference continues.

For the last few months, a new phrase has been turning up in FCC citations relating to radio interference (and one on automatic dialing). Previously, a citation recipient who commits the same offense a second time has been subject only to penalties for the new offense. The new language makes the re-offender also subject to additional penalties for the original offense that triggered the citation. It’s as if the police stop you for speeding on Monday and give you a warning, stop you again on Tuesday, and thereby make you retroactively liable for Monday’s fine as well as Tuesday’s. Whether or not the imposition of additional penalties based on alleged misconduct that hasn’t been fully adjudicated is really consistent with the Communications Act (and simple fairness) isn’t entirely clear – but so far, the issue has not yet made it to the courts.

Our friend Gary Cavell suggests the office building switch to candles and kerosene lamps – except that might violate environmental laws and create a fire hazard, so their only legally safe choice may be to sit in the dark.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.commlawblog.com/admin/trackback/303045
Comments (3) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Harvey Liszt - July 18, 2013 7:43 AM

Hey, this is an example of how things are supposed to work, not some aberrant example, a la "FCC gone wild."

regards from Santiago

Rich Noble - July 19, 2013 5:53 AM

Perhaps we should require NAC codes for certain types of lights? :)

Not an easy answer for this one.

Mark A Holman - July 26, 2013 5:48 PM

As a Ham Radio Operator, this area of technology is new in one way, and interference is about 100 years old, designing a low power lights should be filtered, however the manufacture costs of producing is another thing, you can cause interference with a old spark gap transmitter and cause a lot of interference.

even your gas saving car can radiate interference. you cannot escape the issue, the engineers are attempting to improve technlogies.

Mark A Holman Ham Radio operator
AAS Information Technology Mgt.
FCC RP (formally 3rd Class Radio-telephone License P3-18-86210 )

Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.