FCC proposes $504k fine for broadcaster's misuse of Emergency Alert System tones

https://www.insideradio.com/free/fox-sports-admits-it-used-fake-eas-tones-on-radio-as-well-as-tv/article_6b18d2f0-9e1c-11ed-ab28-c7b167cea819.html

by anigbrowl • 3 years ago

100 115 3 years ago

insideradio.com

toomuchtodo• 3 years ago

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-504k-fine-against-...

antiterra2• 3 years ago

It looks like this is the incident as broadcast: https://youtu.be/-AKV57rtYfo

Also: The FCC document references the 18 Fox owned stations and says nothing about the 200+ affiliate stations. Are those stations culpable if they also broadcast Fox produced content that was in violation of EAS rules?

jacquesm3• 3 years ago

No low that advertisers won't stoop to, apparently. Incredible that they thought this was a good idea and that nobody put a stop to it. Maybe they figured that whatever the penalty they'll make it up in sales?

Waterluvian2• 3 years ago

I think it’s more thoughtlessness than anything. The ad contractor probably thought it was a cool campaign theme. Like when they throw sirens and car horns on radio ads.

It’s not like those times that Hanes Underwear played the “brown noise” on AM radio. What a commute that was.

antiterra2• 3 years ago

It seems incredibly boneheaded like some production team possibly didn’t even know these tones were still a real & serious thing. Whatever oversight existed around content also completely failed.

If there was evidence that the creators actually did a calculation to determine that the base fine of $144,000 was worth it, that’d be a nightmare for them

capableweb• 3 years ago

So just so I don't misunderstand, it is illegal to reproduce that sound? Just for TV or in general, literally illegal tones? Seems to be just two tones put together (853 and 960 Hz), weird if you could make such a thing illegal.

According to what I can find, it's missing something called a SAME header that the tones are supposed to be prefixed by, maybe that's why FOX thought they could get away with it?

Edit: For clarification, the particular message that needs o be sent to be considered "Emergency Broadcast" is not just the "Attention signal", it's has many other vital parts (like the header in the message that it begins with). Besides that, the Attention Signal has to be at least 8 seconds long as long, otherwise I'm assuming it should be considered one. The one FOX broadcasted seems to have been ~3 seconds.

dekhn• 3 years ago

It's obviously more complicated than that. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Alert_System#Tone_us...

MBCook4• 3 years ago

I would assume it’s illegal on public airwaves when not an actual emergency where EAS was activated.

This makes sense because advertisers could misuse it to grab attention (exactly as Fox did) and cause people to start to ignore the sound due to false signals.

Just like it’s usually illegal to have lights and sirens on your car.

I’d be interested in the story of how this happened. How did no one say “that’s probably not a good idea”? Even without knowing the law existed?

dbcurtis• 3 years ago

Two tones together are not illegal in general. However... think about 1950's cold-war era technology, and how much you could do with it. One of the conditions of license of being a broadcaster was/is to listen to an upstream station, and with automated equipment, detect that tone and switch your own transmitter into emergency mode and propagate that tone pair if you are an intermediate station.

So, not illegal in general, but illegal to transmit it on broadcast channel.

I would even bet that if you searched E-Bay long enough, you could find a 1950's-era vacuum tube AM radio with tone-squelch tuned to those tones so that you could leave the radio on and just hear the duck-and-cover message without the distraction of that nasty Rock-n-Roll music that the kids are all listening to.

kube-system3• 3 years ago

There are rules that must be followed when using licensed spectrum. Breaking one of those rules comes with consequences.

The tones aren’t illegal. Misusing public emergency infrastructure is illegal.

colechristensen• 3 years ago

It is, more or less, illegal to broadcast the sound if you fall under the regulation of the FCC. You can put it in a movie and play it in a theater, you can play it on your stereo, put it on YouTube, etc. Basically you aren't allowed to distribute it over channels where the real alerts are distributed.

humanistbot• 3 years ago

It is illegal to reproduce that sound on US public airwaves in a non-emergency context.

There are two syllables in English such that if you shout them in sequence in a crowded theater in a non-emergency context, it is also a crime: fi-re.

neodypsis• 3 years ago

Why does it look like it was made in the 80s?

renewiltord• 3 years ago

It's supposed to imitate this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF4BCMs-8BE

duxup3• 3 years ago

Holy smokes yeah that sounds just like the EAS tones. We can't be desensitizing folks to legitimate emergency announcements.

Fine them to high heaven.

scotty794• 3 years ago

When was the last legitimate emergency of this kind? I'm not from USA.

palmscenter3• 3 years ago

“The FCC document references the 18 Fox owned stations and says nothing about the 200+ affiliate stations.”

Im fact the FCC mentions the affiliates several times. One example: “Therefore, we find FOX responsible for broadcasting the Promotional Segment containing the EAS Tones on 18 of its owned-and-operated broadcast stations, transmitting the Promotional Segment to 190 of its network-affiliated television broadcast stations, and causing the transmission of the Promotional Segment on Fox Sports Radio and the Fox Sports on XM channel.”

Are those stations culpable if they also broadcast Fox produced content that was in violation of EAS rules?

Station licensees are responsible for the content they broadcast. In this case at least the FCC went after the content source, which is itself also a licensee.

not2b• 3 years ago

For a company of Fox's size this is a small fine.

anigbrowl3• 3 years ago

It'd be interesting to contrast post-broadcast website engagement with other ad campaigns for similar events; perhaps the payoff exceeded the cost, though obviously it's not the sort of stunt they can repeat without putting their broadcast licenses at risk.

mikeiz4044• 3 years ago

For context: It’s ~0.01% ($.5M/$4.4B) of the company’s revenue for that year.

(I’m not weighing in one way or the other here)

That may be difficult, however, since the FCC says in its proposal that the company had $4.44 billion of revenue in 2021.

Edit: Wow, looks like I really messed up the math. It has been updated. Thanks for the comments pointing that out/asking about it.

munk-a2• 3 years ago

Can you clarify if that's Fox Sports, this particular Fox branch or the Fox Corporation as a whole?

morisy• 3 years ago

Is that profit for the sports division only? Briefly looking just found the overall profit:

  2021 Profit:   $       2,150,000,000
  Proposed Fine: $             504,000
  Fine / Profit * 100:          0.023%

[Profit Source](https://www.google.com/finance/quote/FOX:NASDAQ?sa=X&ved=2ah...)

karaterobot• 3 years ago

Fox now has 30 days to either pay the fine or to appeal, including seeking a reduction in its size. That may be difficult, however, since the FCC says in its proposal that the company had $4.44 billion of revenue in 2021.

Emphasis added.

Sounds like they're suing Fox, and Fox's gross profit for 2022 was $4.86 billion, so that's more like 0.01%.

tim--• 3 years ago

11%? Source?

duxup3• 3 years ago

It maybe is but do it again and I wonder if they can jack that up ...

metadat• 3 years ago

Lightly discussed earlier today as well:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34577793 (3 comments)

SSchick• 3 years ago

Tangentially:

I honestly wish the same was for radio stations and any emergency/siren sound that are commonly heard in traffic, it makes me absolutely paranoid. No responsible radio station should use these sounds or broadcast music containing them.

bee_rider• 3 years ago

Also break noises.

Nowadays I guess the vast majority of AM/FM radio listening takes place in cars, so it would be nice to tailor the laws to that.

btown• 3 years ago

Or noises meant to mimic the vibration of a phone! If there's anything likely to cause people to simultaneously take their eyes off the road, it's that!

anigbrowl3• 3 years ago

The original headline was 'Fox Sports Admits It Used Fake EAS Tones On Radio As Well As TV' but it seems like people inside the broadcast industry have been following this case for a while, and it didn't convey the context of the admission coming as part of an enforcement action. I felt the first line provided a better summary of the issue for a casual reader.

cmurf• 3 years ago

$500K per transmitter seems more reasonable as a deterrent. $500K total seems more like a royalty payment.

dave783• 3 years ago

Maybe I'm not as cynical as most here, but I find it hard to believe that any American company would willfully violate this law because it "only" cost $500k. Even for a company the size of Apple (as an example of the wealthiest company I can easily think of), I would think $500k is still a pretty big expense and not one anyone would take lightly.

eftychis2• 3 years ago

I think FCC needs to make it something like 150% of expected profit + $50 million and above. Then maybe it will make a dent or sense. Plus, getting the DoJ involved.

tl;dr: if executives/board members don't go to jail for things there is always a right price for a company to break the rules.

LanceH• 3 years ago

You say this without knowing the actual regulations, obligations, and posted penalties, of course.

eftychis2• 3 years ago

My comment (clearly to the average person) implies what needs to be done to work as an effective deterrent, viewed in a black box setting.

You can see the description of the facts from FCC's point of view here [https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-4A1.pdf] -- as linked in the article -- describing the social damage Fox inflicted.

FCC makes clear that this is what is prescribed and that given the profits of Fox it has no impact in the company's operation. Thus, there is no reason to reduce it.

If you feel otherwise perhaps you have a more positive view of how companies make decisions in the U.S. which is great.

P.S. And for readers' convenience here is the forfeiture framework FCC uses here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/503 It is inadequate from my vantage point.

P.S.2. It is common secret, and a running joke here -- check other hackernews posts -- that FCC has no teeth. Regulations need to change.

froglets• 3 years ago

Is there any reason they couldn’t keep the ad online or in a podcast?

MBCook4• 3 years ago

Unless that was a part of some plea agreement (“we won’t go for $1.5 million if you admit and promise…”). The FCC has no jurisdiction over those.

trimbo• 3 years ago

Out of curiosity, can movies and shows use them? Do they censor it out if the movie is ever shown on broadcast TV?

Naturally the example that came up when I searched is The Purge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns8t4Y9G4wU

kube-system3• 3 years ago

They’d have to censor it. Or it would programmatically activate the emergency systems that it controls.

MBCook4• 3 years ago

The Wikipedia page for the EAS notes that CBS had to pay a fine for using it in an episode of The Big Bang Theory.

throwanem12• 3 years ago

That isn't a valid SAME header. It's incorrectly encoded and the pitch is too low.

Both errors are likely intentional, specifically to avoid inadvertent broadcast interruptions. I still wouldn't expect a broadcaster to take a chance on it, but I would be surprised if it actually triggered an EAS receiver.

noodlesUK• 3 years ago

I feel like this is generally far too small of a fine for something this serious. A deliberate use of an emergency signal to further an advertising campaign, especially an emergency signal that is literally designed to hijack neighbouring radio stations (though I’m not reading that this happened in this case) seems like a pretty egregious thing, and should result in a fine big enough to be noticeable on the balance sheets. I agree with some of the other commentators here that we should go further and ban things like car horns and brake squeals etc in radio programming (where a large number of listeners are driving and noises like that could result in fatal collisions). I feel like a 500k fine would be justifiable for a car horn or similar, not a “prepare for a serious threat to life” emergency signal that is meant to sound very distinctive.

If I went to a public building and played a plausible sounding fake fire alarm over a megaphone I would almost certainly be arrested. They did this but to potentially millions of people.

ericmay2• 3 years ago

Yea I agree. Something like $504,000 per second might be better.

costco• 3 years ago

I'd rather a $500,000 fine that actually gets collected than the ridiculous approach we take to spam calls where we fine people [9 figures](https://commsrisk.com/more-enormous-fines-proposed-for-roboc...) and make no attempt to collect it. TCPA's $1500/call sounds great but in actuality no one has have ever paid anything close to that and the spammers don't have anywhere near the amount of money to do that.

JumpCrisscross• 3 years ago

It's an obscure mistake. The fine is a message. The deterrent is the fine for repeat violations, which would be higher.

tdeck• 3 years ago

Is it an obscure mistake? I don't know anyone who works in broadcasting and I know about the EAS tones and that they're reserved for an emergency. I would expect a network to have at least this minimal knowledge and to review content they broadcast.

samstave3• 3 years ago

Hasn't yelling "FIRE" in any venue been a really punishable crime for many a decade?

kylecazar• 3 years ago

Coincidentally I've seen a few articles "debunking" this recently, but I feel like a cop could pretty easily shoehorn someone doing so into another offense category.... Like disorderly something or inciting something.

https://reason.com/2022/10/27/yes-you-can-yell-fire-in-a-cro...

https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog/legal-mythbusting-serie...

throwanem12• 3 years ago

That's not germane. Broadcast licensees agree as a condition of receiving and maintaining their licenses that they will not do what Fox Sports did.

Am4TIfIsER0ppos• 3 years ago

No. It is perfectly legal to campaign against your government being in a war. Well at least in US, other places don't have free speech.

throwanem12• 3 years ago

The attention tone is for human consumption. The SAME header (the "chirps" of FSK-encoded data that precede the attention tone in an EAS broadcast) is the machine-readable part, and what will activate EAS receivers and cause broadcast interruptions in downstream stations.

derekp7• 3 years ago

we should go further and ban things like car horns and brake squeals

While I agree with this in general, you need to be careful that songs like the "Nash Rambler" song wouldn't be banned. Same with a lot of other 50's - 60's hot rod songs that feature intros with tires squealing or car horns, etc. Maybe apply this only to advertisements but not to songs? But then again if it is unexpected it could be just as jarring if it is a new song you haven't heard before.

toss1• 3 years ago

Yup.

This is literally poisoning the well of public discourse.

They should be adding a few zeros and pulling licenses.

kevviiinn• 3 years ago

literally poisoning the well of public discourse

But that's Fox's bread and butter, it's what they do best!

samstave3• 3 years ago

Yet again we all ask the same: WHERE do the fines go?

How audit?

Recall Pfizer was fined $2+ BILLION for stuff they did a few years ago (not talking about the TRILLIONS in fraud recently revealed)

But WHERE SPECIFICALLY do the 'fines' wind up?

Also, if we are facing a gov't shutdown because we ran out of money in our budget, then how the F were we able to supply Ukraine (the most corrupt, according to some) with 100B++ in 'aide'

Where the hell is accountability in ANY of our agencies... and if not accountability, transparency?

kube-system3• 3 years ago

Most federal fines go to the treasury unless there are laws stating otherwise, and then Congress decides what to do with it. There are many thousands of pages of documentation on treasury.gov if you are interested in learning more. In the end, Congress must authorize all spending.

astrange2• 3 years ago

The government cannot run out of money, it owns a money printer.

And there isn't a shutdown, you're thinking of the debt ceiling, which is basically the government refusing to pay its credit card bills even though it's perfectly capable of it.

charcircuit3• 3 years ago

This violates free speech. I'm glad the internet allows for more freedom of speech than radio and tv

throwanem12• 3 years ago

Compliance with EAS regulations is a condition of broadcast licensure. This isn't a free speech issue under law; it's a violation of a term in a contract freely entered upon by a broadcast network with the US government, and fines are one of the possible penalties enumerated for such violations.

charcircuit3• 3 years ago

Is there a way to broadcast on the radio or tv without getting into such contract that limits what you can broadcast?

If you can only talk if you are prohibited from saying something don't you see how that violates free speech?

Vespasian• 3 years ago

Even if it were, which it isn't as others pointed out, sometimes free speech takes a backseat to other needs of society.

In this case it's the desire to have an effective warning system for extreme events such as heavy weather.

It obviously wouldn't work if advertisement industry would be able to condition people to ignore it as a false alarm.

The same is true for putting lights, writing and sirens on your car which imply you are a member of emergency services.

Overtonwindow• 3 years ago

Has anyone else turned off the emergency alerts on their phone?

The first time I got an amber alert I was sitting in my living room and it was for something that happened 40 miles away, so I turned off all of the emergency alerts. I went for Christmas to visit my parents and an emergency alert went off and they're like we can't stop it, they go off all the time, and so I took their phones and turned off the emergency alerts.

Am I out of the norm or have other people experienced this, have also turned off the alerts?

IIsi50MHz• 3 years ago

My devices let me separately disable Amber alerts without disabling all alerts.

For a few years, I kept them all on, but after umpteen alerts that I had miniscule chance of helping with[1], I disabled Amber alerts.

[1] Too far out of area, or working from home without a view of any traffic, too sick. Or sometimes excessively vague descriptions of suspect vehicle.

FCC proposes $504k fine for broadcaster's misuse of Emergency Alert System tones

Related Stories