https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/fcc-enforcement-monitor-june-2025.html
Spa’s Bluetooth Speaker Interferes with Public Safety Network
A West Palm Beach spa must permanently discontinue its use of a Bluetooth speaker that interfered with FirstNet, a cellular network developed for emergency responders. The FirstNet network operates in a spectrum band spanning 788-798 MHz.
Following a complaint, FCC field agents visited the spa and determined that the interference to FirstNet was a signal centered on 795 MHz, which they found was transmitting from a Bluetooth speaker in the spa. Turning off the speaker resolved the interference.
Transmitters must be licensed by the FCC unless an exception applies. Certain transmitters may operate on an unlicensed basis if they comply with Part 15 of the FCC’s Rules, which governs the use of low power transmitters. To qualify for use under Part 15, a device that uses a transmitter to wirelessly relay a signal must be authorized for use as a Part 15 device. The field investigation determined that the speaker in use did not appear to have an FCC equipment authorization and the spa (unsurprisingly) did not have a license to operate in the 788-798 MHz band.
As a result, the FCC issued to the spa a “Notice of Unlicensed Operation and Notification of Harmful Interference.” Pursuant to the Notice, the spa must immediately stop operating the Bluetooth speaker and respond to the FCC within 10 days with a description of “the steps you are taking to avoid operating on unauthorized frequencies and preventing future interference.” The FCC will then decide whether further enforcement action is needed to ensure future compliance.
I dont know why I didn't mention it but the other enforcement issue at tha link are interesting too.. Also reported is a LPFM in trouble for running commercials and this rather curious NAL for a CB transmitter:
Unauthorized CB Radio Use Results in $25,000 Fine
"....In this case, the violator transmitted nonverbal, indecipherable sound effects for long periods of time. ...the individual spoke with the regional office of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau and claimed that a battery-operated transmitter inside a milk crate had been placed at a corner near his house. .... On a second visit to the area, the field agent observed a data-like transmission similar to what was observed during the initial site visit but did not observe a transmitting milk crate..."
Also more enforcement news from Radio World:
Bronx Apartment Owner Receives Pirate Letter The mixed-use property is being investigated by the FCC for unlicensed 89.3 FM broadcasts
I don't agree with landlords being targeted by the FCC unless they are directly involved with a pirate operation. Because a tenant does something the property owner has nothing to do with or may know nothing about why are they being targeted as accomplices, forcing a landlord to become law enforcement. And do landlords even know what part 15 is and what is legal and what is not? I don't think so.
@mark Yeah I don't agree with it either, I'm not even sure how it all happened - it just doesn't sound legal that they can drag a landlord into somehow being responsible for the activities of their tenants.
Besides the NOUO for the exceeding part 15 with the bluetooth speaker, here's a NOUO concerning a Motorola walkie talkie..
Virginia Investigation Results in Notice of Unlicensed Operation for Interfering with a Public Safety Communications System
Following an investigation by a Virginia sheriff’s office into interference with the county’s public safety radio communications system, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau conducted its own investigation and issued a Notice of Unlicensed Operation (NOUO) to an individual.
According to the NOUO, the sheriff’s office determined that a handheld Motorola two-way radio was transmitting signals in an attempt to self-authenticate and thereby access the county’s system. The handheld unit used a unique identification code and had apparently been illegally programmed to operate on the county’s licensed frequencies. The investigation led to an individual who admitted that he had programmed the radio to operate on the county’s frequencies and that he was the one operating it at the time the device attempted to self-authenticate and gain access to the county’s public safety radio system.
Under Section 301 of the Communications Act, use of radios like the one in question must generally be licensed by the FCC unless they transmit at a sufficiently low level of power to qualify under Part 15 of the FCC’s Rules for unlicensed operation. The handheld radio in question was not certified as a Part 15 device.
...... The individual has 10 days to respond to the FCC with a description of the steps he is taking to avoid future unlicensed operation and interference...
■■
also interesting:
Signal Booster Interference Leads FCC Agent to Texas Apartment Building
Following a complaint of interference with a city’s public safety communications system in Texas, an FCC field agent determined that a signal booster operating in the 858-859 MHz band at a luxury apartment building was the cause of the interference.
Specifically, the field investigation found that the device was a signal repeater designed to assist public safety officials inside buildings where signals may have difficulty penetrating walls and structures. Such devices require experienced installers and coordination with local public safety officials to ensure they function properly and do not cause interference to the public safety frequencies on which they retransmit public safety signals. In this case, the agent reported that the interference stopped when a representative of the apartment building disconnected power to the device.
Under Part 90 of the FCC’s Rules, such signal boosters must either be licensed or operated with the consent of the public safety licensee whose frequencies are being retransmitted. In this case, the device was not licensed and the user had not been given permission to retransmit on the city’s public safety frequencies. As a result, the FCC issued a Notice of Harmful Interference to the building owner.
The Notice of Harmful Interference stated that signal boosters must always operate on a non-interference basis and that certain signal boosters, as indicated on or next to the product’s label, must be registered with the FCC before operation.
While the FCC noted that such signal boosters are often required by local codes to ensure emergency responders’ radio equipment will function properly indoors, operation on public safety frequencies requires great care and planning. ..
■■
Puerto Rico AM Station Receives Notice of Violation for Unauthorized Operation
A Puerto Rico AM radio station recently received a Notice of Violation (NOV) from the FCC. In the NOV, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau stated that field agents out of its Miami office observed the station operating in violation of its license. Specifically, the agents reported that the station was operating from a single tower with a non-directional pattern, whereas the station’s license specifies a directional antenna pattern using a two-tower array. The station had not requested and obtained Special Temporary Authority from the FCC to operate at variance from its licensed parameters....
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/fcc-enforcement-monitor-april-2025-3782528/