• On CBS MoneyWatch: 12 Tough Questions to Ask Your Parents
March 13, 2008 1:34 PM PDT

FCC rapped over handling of citizen complaints

by Anne Broache
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 4 comments

When consumers have gripes about unwanted telemarketing calls, cell phone billing rates, junk faxes, or indecent mouthing-off on broadcast television, the Federal Communications Commission is supposed to look into their complaints and respond accordingly.

But are federal regulators carrying out that duty as they should? It depends, of course, on who's doing the analysis.

A new report (PDF) released Thursday by the Government Accountability Office presents a mostly negative view, charging that the agency's processes for monitoring complaints and punishing violators is flawed.

At the request of Rep. Edward Markey, the Democratic chairman of a House of Representatives telecommunications panel, the GAO set to work analyzing multiple FCC databases of some 454,000 complaints received between 2003 and 2006. It reported finding that the FCC opened investigations on 46,000 of those complaints and concluded 83 percent of those inquiries without taking any enforcement actions, such as issuing fines--and without clear explanations as to why.

But the FCC says that key parts of the GAO's findings--including the numbers of investigations and complaints it reports--are simply incorrect.

If the GAO had bothered to comb through the FCC's paper files and "scroll through" all relevant database information, it would have discovered that the FCC actually closed only 3 percent of its investigations without enforcement actions, FCC Enforcement Bureau chief Kris Anne Monteith said in her response letter (PDF).

The GAO auditors, anticipating the FCC's disagreement, stood by their report's findings. They acknowledged that they did not sift through tens of thousands of paper case files because that wasn't its goal: They wanted to focus on how its database systems interact with its enforcement activities.

Based on that analysis, the GAO also determined that the FCC only "rarely" relied on more serious penalties and only "sometimes" assessed a fine. All told, it levied $73 million in fines and payments through negotiated consent decrees with alleged violators, but the dollar amount declined between 2003 and 2006, the GAO said.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin suggested the report gives his agency short shrift.

"Since I became chairman, the Enforcement Bureau is responding to 100 percent of consumer complaints," he said in a statement after the report's release. "Additionally, under my chairmanship, the Commission has collected a record amount of fines, forfeitures and consent decree payments."

There were, however, some areas of agreement. The GAO recommended that the FCC take certain steps to address those concerns about its setup for keeping its enforcement activities organized--that is, five separate databases and tens of thousands of paper files. The FCC said it welcomed those recommendations and had already begun making improvements.

Both Markey and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees the FCC, said the report demonstrates that enforcement at the FCC isn't enough, and state-level activity is also necessary. Markey has sponsored a bill in this session that would impose new obligations on wireless carriers and would give both the FCC and state officials the power to enforce complaints about violations.

advertisement
Click here!
Recent posts from News Blog
Nvidia puts NForce chipset development on hold
Opera 10 browser is here
Neil Young Archives Blu-ray: Rip off?
Acronis revises survey results about backup habits
Acronis miscalculates data on users' bad backup habits
Flickr co-founder presses beta button
Comcast, Sony open retail store
Cox to try coaxing the Internet into submission
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (4 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
RARELY!!!
by Travis Ernst March 13, 2008 2:23 PM PDT
They must be dumb and deaf. I have TWO 90 Minute tapes from
last year of telemarketing calls, most auto dial. Repeat calls
when they refused to take me off, refusal to identify who the
company was.

I think the kicker was this year, now that the calls have died
down, I get a call to "verify" I am the person on the cable
account in another city, different name, DIFFERENT AREA CODE.
How in tarnation did that cable provider allow it to be set up in
the first place! When they asked for a Jane Doe in City 2, was
like, Um, thats a different area code guys... You better do your
homework before setting up these accounts.

Thankfully I can record my phone in this state. It's a life saver
in proving what was said.
Reply to this comment
FCC is useless
by bishop1641 March 13, 2008 2:27 PM PDT
I lived in an apartment complex for 5 months in Miami. The apartment complex had some sort of deal with the a small cable company. I was unable to get DirecTV, or comcast. The cable company that had the deal with the apartment complex was ripping the tenants off with incredibly high bills. No recourse, no other competition to go to. For my internet I had to go with DSL from the telephone company as that same cable company in the building had a miserable offering. Thankfully I decided to move.

I sent multiple complaints to the FCC. No response at all. Unless your complaining about obscenities on TV you probably get no response. So much for serving the interest of the public.
Reply to this comment
PLEASE don't force the FCC to respond to the PTC
by M C March 13, 2008 2:30 PM PDT
It's been noted in the past that the vast majority of the FTC's "indecency" complaints are form letters from a few people.

They MUST be able to weight those complaints accordingly, and any congressman who says otherwise shouldn't be a congressman much longer.
Reply to this comment
Can't believe what's been overlooked in these articles
by B-Logical March 14, 2008 2:03 AM PDT
I?ve been working in the US Customs Brokerage community for about 7 years now and the only other government agency that even comes close to being as superficial as the FCC as far as regulating goods coming in to the US is the Fish and Wildlife agency.
Although the brokerage I work for now is almost annoyingly compliant about these types of issues, I?ve worked for others in the past that will just disclaim any FCC Flags that come up for certain products (say, computer monitors from China, etc?).
When I first started in this business I found it amazing how little anyone (US Customs) cared about compliant goods and the FCC forms that go along with them. Forms stating, who that manufacturer is and what its product identifier is and such.
I remember when I first started in this industry, and trying to be compliant by the way, I had a shipment of wireless routers from Germany coming into the country from a particular client. They had no FCC paperwork to go along with these items so I went down to Customs and asked them how I should handle it. Should I put these in bond to a bonded warehouse until we get the proper paperwork? Should I do an I.E. (Immediate Export) bond to send them back to Canada until we get the proper paperwork? Etc?
The response I got, and the same one you?ll get today 99/100 times is, ?don?t worry about it, that doesn?t even show up on my screen anyway?.
That truly boggles my mind. This was only months after 9/11, and to see that even the most fundamental things, let alone the most obvious, are still today so severely overlooked is just sad.
Basically, what this means is you can sit there in front of your CRT monitor, or your wireless router, wireless keyboard and mouse and think ?oh, I know that the Rads (yeah, they still use Rads as the ?reporting quantity?) of radiation are under the recommended levels because my government is on the lookout for these devices. But, you?re severely mistaken.
I?m typing this right now sitting in front of my 21? LCD monitor (in the US) that has no FCC labeling or Country of Origin markings on it, because it was given to me by a Canadian company as a ?gift? and made it through the border with no problems, obviously.
I don?t know about you, but that scares me a little more than ?I?m paying too much for my cell phone? or ?they said a bad word on TV!? I?m a little more concerned with the health factors involved with using some of these foreign devices and that no one is really properly determining if these devices are actually safe to use.
Reply to this comment
(4 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

A CNET Conversation with Eric Schmidt

CNET's Tom Krazit and Molly Wood sit down with Google CEO Eric Schmidt to discuss the future of Android, the Chrome OS, the problem of real-time search indexing, and more.

Verizon tests sending RIAA copyright notices

The No. 2 phone company, known for its reluctance to intervene in antipiracy cases, strikes an agreement to forward copyright notices on behalf of the music industry.

About News Blog

Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right