Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version


This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.


                         Before the
              Federal Communications Commission
                   Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                  )
                                 )   File No. EB-03-DV-020
Echonet Corporation               )
                                 )   NAL/Acct. No. 200332800011
Television Translator             )
Station K49AY                     )   FRN 0008379216
Cheyenne, Wyoming                 )

                      FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted:             December            17,            2004                                                                       
Released:  December 21, 2004

By the Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau:


     1.   In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a 
monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars 
($4,000) to Echonet Corporation for repeated violation of 
Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(``Act'').1  The noted violation involves Echonet's repeated 
operation of a television broadcast translator station 
without Commission authorization.


     2.   On October 22, 2002, an agent from the FCC's 
Denver Office received information that a television 
translator was operating on channel 49 in Cheyenne, Wyoming, 
without a valid FCC station license.  The agent monitored 
transmissions on channel 49 in Cheyenne from October 22 
through October 24, 2002, and observed retransmitted 
broadcast television programming on the aural carrier 
frequency of 685.7545 MHz.  On October 24, 2002, using 
direction finding techniques, the agent located the 
station's transmitter on the top floor of the Community 
First National Bank at 1800 Carey Avenue in Cheyenne, 
Wyoming.  Evidence discovered during the inspection revealed 
Echonet as the station operator.  Review of the FCC's 
databases revealed that Echonet held a license for K49AY, 
Facility ID 18475, granted on July 10, 1986, for a 
television translator at coordinates 41 08' 04" north 
latitude and 104 49' 02" west longitude.  The license for 
K49AY expired on October 1, 1998.  Further review on March 
26, 2003, of the FCC's databases revealed no current license 
issued for a television translator station to operate on 
channel 49 in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and no pending application 
or renewal application for channel 49 in Cheyenne, Wyoming.   

     3.   On April 3, 2003, the Denver Office issued a 
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to 
Echonet in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for 
the apparent repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act.2  
In its response, Echonet does not argue that it held a valid 
license at the time the NAL was issued.  Instead, it argues 
that the failure to file a renewal application for the 
translator was inadvertent and the result of a mistake by 
individuals, other than Echonet, involved in a transaction 
concerning other assets and stations.3  Echonet states that 
its act of operating the translator was not a willful or 
knowing violation of the Commission's Rules, that it has 
never been subject to a forfeiture action before, that it 
has no other assets other than the license and the equipment 
related to the license, and that for the last ten years the 
translator has been used to broadcast public interest 
programming in Spanish and other programming not available 
by broadcast in the community.  For these reasons, Echonet 
requests that the forfeiture be retracted.     


     4.   The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was 
assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,4 
Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),5 and The 
Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of 
Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture 
Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC 
Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'').  In 
examining Echonet's response, Section 503(b) of the Act 
requires that the Commission take into account the nature, 
circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with 
respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any 
history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such 
matters as justice may require.6

     5.   Section 301 of the Act states that no person shall 
use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy 
or communications or signals by radio within the United 
States except under and in accordance with the Act and with 
a license.  Echonet does not assert that it had a valid 
license during the more than four year period noted in the 
NAL, it only argues that its failure to renew the license 
was inadvertent and was not a willful or knowing violation 
of the Commission's Rules.  We note that the Denver Office 
did not find any apparent willful violation by Echonet.  
Rather, it found that Echonet repeatedly violated Section 
301. Because we find the violation to be repeated, we need 
not address Echonet's argument that the violation was not 

     6.   Echonet also asks that we reconsider the 
forfeiture pursuant to Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act in 
the light most favorable to Echonet.8  Taking these 
statutory factors into account, we note that Echonet had 
previously been licensed to operate translator K49AY, so 
this violation is not comparable to ``pirate'' wireless 
operations, which typically have been subject to forfeitures 
of approximately $10,000.9  In similar circumstances, where 
a licensee failed to file a timely renewal application and 
was apparently operating without authorization, the 
Commission reduced a proposed forfeiture for unauthorized 
operation to $5,000.10  Consequently, we reduce Echonet's 
forfeiture amount to $5,000. 

     7.   Echonet also states that it has no assets other 
than the license and equipment of the station, however, it 
provides no additional information or documentation 
supporting this statement.  Absent submission of supporting 
financial documentation, we cannot assess a violator's 
inability to pay and we will not reduce or cancel a 
forfeiture on these grounds.11  Finally, in support of its 
request for reduction, Echonet states that it has never been 
subject to a forfeiture action.  We have reviewed our 
records and we find no instances of Echonet's having 
received a forfeiture or violation notice.  Consequently, we 
reduce Echonet's forfeiture amount by an additional $1,000.

     8.   We have examined Echonet's response to the NAL 
pursuant to the statutory factors above, and in conjunction 
with the Forfeiture Policy Statement.  As a result of our 
review, we conclude that Echonet repeatedly violated Section 
301 of the Act.  Considering the entire record and the 
factors listed above, we find that reduction of the proposed 
forfeiture is warranted, given the circumstances surrounding 
Echonet's unauthorized operation and its compliance record 
with the Commission's Rules.  Accordingly, the forfeiture 
amount is reduced from ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to 
four thousand dollars ($4,000).


     9.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to 
Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the 
Commission's Rules,12 Echonet Corporation IS LIABLE FOR A 
MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars 
($4,000) for repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Act. 

     10.  Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the 
manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 
days of the release of this Order.  If the forfeiture is not 
paid within the period specified, the case may be referred 
to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to 
Section 504(a) of the Act.13  Payment by check or money 
order may be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, 
Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 
73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.  Payment by overnight 
mail may be sent to Bank One/LB 73482, 525 West Monroe, 8th 
Floor Mailroom, Chicago, IL 60661.  Payment by wire transfer 
may be made to ABA Number 071000013, receiving bank Bank 
One, and account number 1165259.  The payment should note 
NAL/Acct. No. 200332700027, and FRN 0009232976.  Requests 
for full payment under an installment plan should be sent 
to: Chief, Revenue and Receivables Group, 445 12th Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.14 

     11.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order 
shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return 
Receipt Requested to Echonet Corporation, 400 Inverness 
Parkway, Suite 250, Englewood, Colorado, 80112.  

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

                              George R. Dillon
                              Assistant Chief, Enforcement 

147 U.S.C.  301.

2Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 
200332800011 (Enf. Bur., Denver Office, April 3, 2003).

3After  the release  of the  NAL, Echonet  filed a  renewal 
application with the Commission  which was accepted on July 
28, 2003,  and granted on  October 30, 2003.  See  File No. 

447 U.S.C.  503(b).

547 C.F.R.  1.80.

647 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

7See Section  503(b)(1) of the  Act, 47 U.S.C.   503(b)(1) 
(violator liable for forfeiture  if violation is willful or 

847 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D). 

9See, e.g., Joe L. Ford,  d/b/a Ford Communications, 15 FCC 
Rcd 23721 (E.B. 2000). 

10Discussion  Radio Incorporated,  19  FCC  Rcd 7433,  7438 
(2004). See, also, Gateway Security Systems, Inc., Jamaica, 
NY, (2003 WL 22717864) (DA 03-3660) (EB 2003). 

11See Webnet Communications, Inc.,  18 FCC Rcd 6870 (2003).   
We also  reject Echonet's contention that  its unauthorized 
operation caused  no harm,  but actually served  the public 
interest.  See  AGM-Nevada LLC, 18 FCC  Rcd 1476, 1478-1479 
(E.B. 2003) (concluding that  ``the absence of interference 
or  any showing  of harm  to the  public interest  does not 
entitle AGM to a reduction of the proposed forfeiture'').

1247 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

1347 U.S.C.  504(a).

14See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.