Peter Tannenwald

Peter Tannenwald has no picture

Mr. Tannenwald has worked with virtually every communications industry for over forty years, including commercial and public broadcasters, common carrier, wireless, and satellite telecommunications providers; governmental and educational institutions; and developers of new technologies.

Articles By This Author

FCC Reminder (Redux): Cell Phone Jammers Are STILL Illegal

Wi-Fi jammers, too!

Having recently spanked Marriott for $600K for interrupting private Wi-Fi use at one of its hotel properties – concern about which presumably prompted Marriott to seek formal guidance about just how far they can go in managing Wi-Fi use at their venues – the Commission has issued another of its ever-popular “Enforcement Advisories” warning against the use of jammers to interfere with cellphone, Wi-Fi or GPS devices. (Similar advisories were issued in 1999, 2005, 2011 and 2012, along with Spanish and Mandarin versions of the 2012 notice.)

The use of jammers is, of course, a very tempting way to control disruptive uses of wireless devices. Prison officials have long wanted to use jammers in prisons, where illegal cellphones are in widespread use by (among others) cell-bound prisoners managing illegal enterprises on the outside. And we have previously reported about one enterprising commuter in Philadelphia who used a pocket-sized jamming device when fellow bus passengers disturbed his ride by talking on their phones too loudly.

There are many other venues where a jammer would come in handy for the average Joe: theaters and concert halls, for instance, where standard pleas at the beginning of a performance to turn cellphones off are often ignored, leading to an annoying cellphone jingle in the middle of a performance. And how about restaurants, which are noisy enough without the person at the next table yapping away on the phone?  

But guess what?

Continue Reading...

The IP Transition: FCC Asks Practical Questions About Copper Retirement

NPRM seeks to address effects of discontinuance of copper-based services on consumers, competition.

As many readers doubtless know (and as we have previously reported), the IP transition is underway: telecom carriers are shifting away from time division multiplex (TDM) technology using traditional copper wires; instead, they are embracing Internet protocol (IP) technology using optical fiber and coaxial cable facilities. This shift will implicate a wide range of regulatory considerations which the FCC is already looking into. It will also affect consumers and competitive telecommunications providers who are used to the TDM/copper wire way of life.

In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Order (NPRM/DO), the Commission has requested comments on three particular ways in which the transition will affect consumers and competitive providers.

Back-up Power. The legacy copper network is powered from the telephone company central office, where back-up generators are usually available when commercial power fails. Because consumers don’t need to provide their own electricity to power their landline phones, the phones usually work during a power outage as long as the phone wires on the street haven’t been knocked down. But when phone service is Internet-based and provided by cable or fiber, power does not come from the central office – meaning that, if a household relying on IP/non-copper telephone service loses power, its phones go dead unless some back-up power system is in place in the consumer’s home or office.

Continue Reading...

Comment Sought on Possible Expansion of Hearing Aid Compatibility Requirements

Out for comment: Shift to function-based, rather than technology-based, regulatory approach, and mandatory 100% HAC compliance

The Wireless Telecommunications and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureaus are looking to refresh the record in a couple of old, but ongoing, rulemaking dockets dealing with hearing aid compatibility (HAC) regulations. In particular, the Bureaus have asked for input on two questions: (1) should HAC rules apply to devices based on how those devices are used – for voice calling – rather than on the type of technology they use; and (2) should the rules require HAC compliance by 100% of covered handsets instead of just a percentage?

HAC regulations require telephone handsets – both wireline and wireless – to be usable by persons who wear hearing aids. Wireless handsets must not interfere with the operation of hearing aids (such as by causing a “buzz” in the ear of the wearer); and the earpieces of both wired and wireless handsets are required to generate a magnetic field that links to the “telecoil” feature of hearing aids, allowing the sound to be reproduced directly by the hearing aid. Wireless handsets are labeled with “M” (for “microphone”) and “T” (for “telecoil”) ratings, reflecting how well they perform with hearing aids. All wireless handset manufacturers and wireless service providers must offer a certain minimum number of HAC models, and the FCC has imposed very large forfeitures for non-compliance.

Continue Reading...

Marriott Wants FCC Guidance on How Far Venues Can Go to Control Their Wi-Fi Networks

Petition for rulemaking follows $600,000 consent decree. Hotels, convention centers, universities, hospitals among those potentially affected.

Last month we reported that the FCC had whacked Marriott Corporation for a cool $600,000 for messing with guests’ Wi-Fi hotspots. (The hotelier had prevented guests at its Opryland resort from using their own hotspots by transmitting disabling signals to private hotspots, forcing them to pay what the FCC felt were exorbitant rates for the resort’s own Wi-Fi service.) The FCC’s theory was that Marriott was violating Section 333 of the Communications Act, which bars interference with lawful communications.

While Marriott appeared to have accepted its come-uppance willingly (by signing onto a Consent Decree), it turns out there was more to the story. While the consent decree was being negotiated, Marriott mustered some reinforcements and took the offensive. Last August, joined by the American Hospitality and Lodging Association and Ryman Hospital Properties, Marriott filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling or, in the Alternative, for Rulemaking asking the FCC to clarify exactly what operators of large venues may do to protect the security and quality of their own Wi-Fi networks. The petition was filed on August 25, 2014, but it took the FCC nearly three months to invite preliminary comments on it. If you’ve got something to say about this, you’ve got until December 19, 2014 to do so.

The petition raises all kinds of alarms about what will happen if the FCC decides that unlimited operation of private Wi-Fi hotspots must be permitted, even on private property. For example, Bad Guys could set up a private hotspot with the same SSID (network name) used by a hotel network. With that, they could grab traffic from hotel guests and exhibitors who think, wrongly, that they’re attaching to the hotel’s network. From there, it’s a snap for the Bad Guys to snag commercial information, including credit card numbers.

Continue Reading...

Rural Call Completion Update: FCC Grants One, Tosses Four Petitions for Reconsideration

As we reported just about a year ago, the FCC adopted a number of rules to address the problem of rural call completion or, more accurately, rural call non-completion. Many calls placed to numbers served by small rural telephone companies don’t seem to make it to their destination. And that seems to happen especially when the calls are routed through “least cost” intermediate service providers who don’t take kindly to the high per-minute termination access charges imposed by many small telcos. In keeping with its priority goal of universal connectivity, the FCC adopted rules mandating that calls not be blocked, that carriers file quarterly reports on call completion success rates, and that a ring tone not be delivered to the calling party until the call has actually been connected to its destination.

Five petitions for reconsideration were filed and the Commission has now denied all but one of them.

In response to the one successful petition, filed by USTelecom and ITTA, the FCC has decided to exempt from call quality reporting requirements intraLATA toll calls that are: (a) carried entirely over the covered provider’s network or (b) handed off by a covered provider directly to a the terminating carrier or a terminating tandem switch. Some carriers don’t keep detailed records of such calls now, so the cost of reporting on such calls would likely impose significant new cost burdens. Since the benefit of reports on such calls would be limited, the scale balanced in favor of an exemption. The exemption does not apply to interLATA toll calls, even if they are directly handed off to the terminating carrier or tandem; the FCC said that the majority of on-net traffic is interLATA and will still be covered.

Continue Reading...

The Future of LPTV/TV Translator Service Taking Shape?

FCC finally begins to address what post-repack life might look like for LPTVs and TV translators – but it presents more questions than answers.

Of all television operators, LPTV and TV translator licensees have faced the greatest uncertainties as the anticipated repacking of the TV band has begun to loom. That’s because the FCC’s repacking plans thus far have disregarded LPTVs and translators. As a result, LPTV/translator licensees don’t whether their stations will continue to exist post-repack: the repacking process will squeeze full-power and Class A stations into considerably less spectrum than they currently occupy, leaving precious little extra space for LPTVs/translators (except possibly in areas populated more by prairie dogs than by people). And anyone holding a construction permit to convert an existing analog LPTV/translator station to digital or to build a whole new station has been left to wonder whether, if they proceed with construction, they will be able to use those re-built facilities after the repack has been completed.

Now, at long last, the FCC has begun to turn its attention to these concerns.

Continue Reading...

Medical Body Area Networks Expand to Untether More Patients

FCC tweaks two-year-old MBAN rules.

Two years ago the Commission authorized Medical Body Area Network (MBAN) devices to operate in the 2360-2400 MHz region, immediately below the heavily-used unlicensed band that houses Bluetooth, and most Wi-Fi, along with many other applications. (We reported on that here, if you want to refresh your recollection.) MBANs relay information about a medical patient’s condition to data-gathering terminals, allowing patients to get up and move about without dragging wires behind or pushing carts full of equipment in front of them.

In August the FCC acted on petitions for reconsideration of its MBAN rules, making a few tweaks which mostly relaxed restrictions on MBAN use. The Commission also adopted procedures for frequency coordination and selection of an MBAN coordinator. That Second Report and Order has now been published in the Federal Register, so now we know that the tweaks will take effect as of November 5, 2014 except for Section 95.1225(c) (which requires the MBAN frequency coordinator to operate as a nonprofit entity and to provide information on a nondiscriminatory basis and to pass its database along to any eventual successor coordinator). That rule, which was added on reconsideration, must first be run past the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Continue Reading...

FCC Spanks T-Mobile for $819,000

Hearing aid compatibility shortfall draws big fine.

More than two years ago we reported that the FCC had proposed to fine T-Mobile a whopping $819,000 for violations of hearing aid compatibility (HAC) requirements. (Under those requirements both manufacturers and mobile carriers must offer a broad range of handsets that (a) don’t cause interference to hearing aids and (b) do work with the telecoil add-ons that many hearing aid wearers use.) As is customary, T-Mobile was given a chance to respond to the proposed fine, which it did (in May, 2012), arguing not that it hadn’t violated the rules, but rather that the fine was “unduly punitive” and should be sliced in half.

The FCC was not convinced. We know this because the Commission has now finalized the fine, leaving it at $819,000 – no reduction for effort, good behavior, or anything else.

This case is unusual for a couple of reasons.

Continue Reading...

Regulatory Weed-Whacking: The FCC Cleans Up its Antenna Structure Regulations

Nearly a decade in the making, FCC tower rules brought into the 21st Century

If you’ve got one or more tower structures, you may be in luck. The FCC has at long last taken a weed-whacker to Part 17 of its rules, a long-overgrown regulatory briar patch governing the construction, painting and lighting of antenna structures. While the substantive requirements remain largely intact, a number of procedural changes should make life at least a little easier for tower owners as well as the Commission’s Staff. At a minimum, the changes should make the rules easier for real people to grasp.

The only real question here: What took so long?

Tower Inspections. The current rules require that tower lights be monitored at least once every 24 hours, either by observation of the tower itself or through an alarm system that takes care of the process automatically. In addition, any automatic or mechanical control devices, indicators, and alarm systems associated with a tower-lighting system must be inspected quarterly to confirm that the gear is working properly. Some major tower owners have set up Network Operations Centers (NOCs) which are staffed at all times, have highly sophisticated equipment that sounds an alarm at any tower lighting malfunction, and stores records of all alerts. An alert is sent not only if the lights fail at a tower but also if the monitoring system fails. Historically, the FCC has granted several waivers of the quarterly inspection requirement to companies that have demonstrated that their NOCs are adequately staffed and equipped.

Continue Reading...

Looking for a Way Around a Statute of Limitations?

Video Division forfeiture order shows flexibility, but not necessarily in a good way

One thing you can say about the FCC: If they think they’ve caught a licensee in a violation, they can be persistent in their efforts to impose penalties for that violation. Whether those efforts are entirely consistent with the law is another question entirely.

With respect to any fine it issues, the Commission must consider the relevant statute of limitations. FCC forfeitures are subject to two separate such statutes. First, under Section 503 of the Communications Act, it can levy forfeitures for actions going back to the beginning of the current license term or one year, whichever is earlier. 

Once the Commission has issued its formal “forfeiture order”, a licensee can simply ignore that order. If the Commission wants to collect the fine in the face of such licensee inaction, it must convince the Department of Justice to sue the target licensee in federal district court. But a second, separate, statute (28 U.S.C. § 2462) says that law suits to enforce penalties must be started within five years of “the date the claim first accrued”.  

A recent forfeiture order reflects the Video Division’s awareness of that latter limit and at least one way the Division has devised to try to sidestep it.

Continue Reading...

Older Entries

July 21, 2014 — Fifth Circuit: False Claims for USF Funds Are Not Subject to False Claims Act Suits

July 20, 2014 — Media Bureau Invites Comments on Blanket Extension for New Unbuilt Digital LPTV/TV Translator CP's

March 20, 2014 — FCC Looks to Help the Lost Get Found

March 6, 2014 — Update: Appeal Clock Starts for Class A and LPTV Digital Construction Deadlines

December 1, 2013 — More 411 on 844: New Toll Free Numbers Up For Grabs as of 12/7/13

November 17, 2013 — Foreign Control of Broadcast Licensees: The Regulatory Door Is Gradually Opening

September 30, 2013 — FCC Stays the Course on Digital Transition for LPTV/Class A Stations

August 20, 2013 — FCC Simplifies Protection Process for AM Signals

August 5, 2013 — The 411 on 844: A New Toll-Free Area Code Coming Soon

July 7, 2013 — FCC Blesses SoftBank/Sprint Union

June 25, 2013 — Harmonic Convergence? FM Interference to 700 MHz LTE Service

May 13, 2013 — Enforcement Relief for "Student-run" NCE Stations

December 10, 2012 — FCC Bars Non-Emergency Robocalls to PSAP Numbers

December 6, 2012 — FCC Looks to Bring More Emergency Information to the Visually Impaired

October 31, 2012 — For "Reasonable Access" Purposes, Predicted NLSC Determines a TV Station's Service Area

October 5, 2012 — No-Pix Six Nixed

August 14, 2012 — Qwest Quest for Forbearance Quashed

July 27, 2012 — Student-Run College Radio: A Species Endangered by FCC Fines?

July 17, 2012 — Update: Online TV Public File System Unveiled!

June 25, 2012 — FCC Eyes Easier NCE Fundraising for Third Parties

June 20, 2012 — From the FCC Police Blotter: No Blood from the Stone? Demand More Blood!

June 19, 2012 — From the FCC Police Blotter: Misrep Lite - When Thinking You're Being Honest Just Isn't Enough

May 29, 2012 — Multiline Telephone Systems and 911 Caller Location - Room for Improvement?

April 24, 2012 — FM Boosters: The Next Source of Originated Programming?

March 30, 2012 — Copyright Office: We Have a List . . .

March 12, 2012 — More Steps Toward TV Band Clearing

March 7, 2012 — Missing KidVid Reports Lead to $13K Fines for Class A Stations

February 28, 2012 — First Steps Toward TV Band Clearing Start

January 23, 2012 — Time for a Change in the FCC's Contest Rule?

January 15, 2012 — Commission Dismisses TV Channel-Sharing Proposal

December 31, 2011 — EEO: Web-only, Word-of-Mouth-only Recruitment NOT Enough

December 30, 2011 — FCC Proposes to Reform Video Relay Service

December 28, 2011 — AT&T Gets More Spectrum with Buy from Qualcomm

November 12, 2011 — Copyright Office: Making a List, Checking It Twice

November 2, 2011 — HD Radio: Yet Another Tweak Proposed

September 18, 2011 — Auditory Assistance Devices - Crossing the Language Barrier?

August 26, 2011 — FCC Seeks Status Reports from Hurricane-Affected Communications Providers

August 23, 2011 — Wireless vs. Broadcast: Chalk One Up for Wireless

August 8, 2011 — Reins Tightened on iTRS Providers

July 25, 2011 — 700 MHz Public Safety Service: Being a Governmental Entity Is Just Not Enough

July 17, 2011 — Analog LPTV: The End is . . . September 1, 2015

July 15, 2011 — Reminder: Narrowband Transition Deadline Approaching

July 12, 2011 — LPFM v. FM Translator: The FCC Moves to End the Stalemate

June 29, 2011 — IXC v. CLEC: Tariff Tossed Due To "End User" Definition

June 8, 2011 — Rural Interconnection Direction Correction

June 1, 2011 — Broader Broadband For 4G Networks?

January 3, 2011 — Media Bureau Cracks The EEO Whip

January 3, 2011 — Update: Commission Sets Hooks Into USF Windfall

November 22, 2010 — Point-Counterpoint: Peter Tannenwald Responds To The Chairman

November 3, 2010 — Coming Soon To A Screen Near You: "Energy Guide" Labels

October 28, 2010 — The Big Chill: LPTV Plunged Into Deep Freeze

October 27, 2010 — BAS Application Coordination Clarification

September 27, 2010 — A Closer Look At Some White Spaces Fine Print

September 23, 2010 — FCC Okays White Space Devices

September 22, 2010 — Commission Cracking Down On Toll-Free Numbers For iTRS Use

September 21, 2010 — Analog LPTV: The End Is Near . . . Maybe Really Near

September 7, 2010 — USF Bonanza Broadband-Bound?

July 15, 2010 — TV On The Move Means Less to Watch

July 1, 2010 — Narrowband Transition Deadlines Adjusted

June 28, 2010 — Nationwide LPTV/TV Translator Filing Opportunity Postponed, Again

June 8, 2010 — Personal Radio Made Simple?

May 24, 2010 — FCC Puts New Time Limits On "Porting" Phone Numbers

April 4, 2010 — Evolve Or Die: Turn-of-the-Century LPTV/TV Translators Applications Must Go Digital

March 27, 2010 — NBP And Energy: There's A Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow

February 22, 2010 — FCC Opens E-Rate Facilities To The Public At Large

January 25, 2010 — FCC Tells Sky-High And Down-To-Earth 7/10/13 GHz Users How To Co-exist

January 18, 2010 — FCC Attaches Strings To Wireless Mics

January 14, 2010 — Annual National EAS Test Proposed

December 4, 2009 — Verizon Early Termination Fees In The FCC's Crosshairs

June 12, 2009 — Next On Our Agenda . . .

May 29, 2009 — Reminder Time!!!

May 18, 2009 — "Come and Get It" Update

May 14, 2009 — "Come And Get It!"

May 5, 2009 — Time For A New Spin On "Pay For Play"

April 16, 2009 — The $175,000 Question: When Is A Computer Circuit Card Not A Computer Circuit Card?

February 16, 2009 — The Commission Hunkers Down For D(TV)-Day

February 13, 2009 — Valentine's Eve DTV Massacre??

February 13, 2009 — FCC Applies Over-the-Air Contest Rules to On-Line Contest

January 16, 2009 — FCC Leaves The Light On

December 24, 2008 — In the DTV Christmas Stocking: Replacement Translators!!

November 4, 2008 — Welcome to the White Spaces - No License? No Problem!

October 21, 2008 — FCC Eases Rules for Smaller C-band/Ku-band Stations

October 13, 2008 — Commission Inquisition To Focus On Cable Carriage Discrimination Claims

October 2, 2008 — PSIP-itation

September 9, 2008 — FCC Grants Wirelines Forbearance From ARMIS Reports

August 14, 2008 — "WARN" Act Rules Released

July 25, 2008 — 8th Circuit Upholds Gross Receipts Taxes for Cell Phones

July 24, 2008 — FCC Rejects Request for Dirt on AT&T Contracts

July 14, 2008 — Class A Displacement/Expansion Freeze Lifted

May 12, 2008 — NCE-FM Fined $9K for Families and Ice Cream

February 5, 2008 — Leased Access Becomes More Accessible