Honest Business or Dolt?

[The Butler]

    In the TRAINS News Wire story, "FCC levies $5.25 million fine against Canadian National," Canadian National agrees to pay the FCC said fine because in a 2012 internal audit CN "...uncovered unauthorized transactions dating back to 1995, and it also revealed that CN and its predecessors had constructed, relocated, modified, or operated several hundred wireless facilities without FCC approval, beginning as far back as 1990."  CN, upon learning this, voluntarily disclosed these errors to the FCC and with the FCC, CN is taking steps to prevent this from happening again.

    The few comments on the article range from incompetent FCC/government to CN should have fixed the problems quietly and never said a word.

    What are your thoughts, folks?

[blue streak 1]

1.  Did CN disclose because they became aware that FCC was investigating ?

2.  Is this a pattern of CN pushing the envelope with regulators ?

3.  . ?

[Murphy Siding]

     Right is right, even if it's inconvenient.  I read this as the violations came from IC dealings, and CN kind of inherited the issue?  The people who were actually responsible for the decision are probably long gone anyway. Besides, CN probably knew that this would surface at some point. If you knew you were going to eventually have to pay the fiddler, whey not do it now, when the price- monetarily and politically- was the most reasonable? 

[schlimm]

We should give credit to CN for being honest and forthcoming.

[mudchicken]

I wouldn't be surprised if other railroads (especially shortlines and possibly other Class 1's)  have similar issues, much of which comes from building/repairing/relocating point to train (PTT) radio masts and getting sloppy on the follow-up paperwork. (The people who used to support the documentation for the grunts in the field are no longer there.)....If you think that all of the PTC masts that are in place today are properly located and documented, you're whistling in the dark.

Surveyors and the Survey profession have a similar struggle with GPS low wattage base radios, licenses and bandwidth spectrum changes.

...and then there are the railroad employees not using proper radio procedure (The FCC has ears! and is eyeing your checkbook.)

[schlimm]

mudchicken

I wouldn't be surprised if other railroads (especially shortlines and possibly other Class 1's)  have similar issues, much of which comes from building/repairing/relocating point to train (PTT) radio masts and getting sloppy on the follow-up paperwork. (The people who used to support the documentation for the grunts in the field are no longer there.)....If you think that all of the PTC masts that are in place today are properly located and documented, you're whistling in the dark.

Surveyors and the Survey profession have a similar struggle with GPS low wattage base radios, licenses and bandwidth spectrum changes.

...and then there are the railroad employees not using proper radio procedure (The FCC has ears! and is eyeing your checkbook.)

Sounds like their frugality or sloppiness causes problems for others?    Maybe tighter enforcement is needed? 

[Ulrich]

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and call it an honest mistake. 

[blue streak 1]

schlimm

We should give credit to CN for being honest and forthcoming.

 

  Our airline experience would have the FAA concentrating on some item.  With an investigation if we found a problem we would self disclose.  That many times disclosure would be the end of it or maybe a slight slap on the wrist.  But if we had not self disclosed the penalties could have been substantial.  Remember Value Jet got shut down for a short time.

[Overmod]

I think it always pays to read the actual source material before starting with the comments.  (Note that the page I've linked allows download of the material in a number of file formats for convenience)

The FCC people make the point in the report that CN found the original 'problem', that there was no measurable interference to any other spectrum user, and that CN itself came forward and reported the additional cases it found. 

I find it very, very hard to read this other than the FCC really sticking it to the Canadians 'because they could'.  I don't see much beyond coffer enrichment behind it ... and the perhaps unintended consequence that 'being up front' about essentially victimless problems most certainly did not go unpunished.  But I encourage you all to read the actual material and form your own conclusions.

[schlimm]

I believe you are taking my quote and applying it to the IC/CN current case, when it was clearly a reply to Mudchicken's post on the problems with unreported transmission bases.   Primary source material is always preferred, as is preserving the context of a quotation.

[Overmod]

schlimm

I believe you are taking my quote and applying it to the IC/CN current case, when it was clearly a reply to Mudchicken's post on the problems with unreported transmission bases.

Taken as such, and post modified accordingly.

But notice that in most cases what mudchicken is describing will still be 'victimless' in terms of actual interference with actual other users who care.  I'm just not in favor of heaping statutory penalties on people making mostly documentation errors, just as I never quite understood the point of requiring knowledge of the tower-light regulation penalties on the old First Class Radiotelephone license exam. 

[schlimm]

Overmod

Taken as such, and post modified accordingly.

Thank you!

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Murphy Siding

[snipped - PDN] . . . I read this as the violations came from IC dealings, and CN kind of inherited the issue?  The people who were actually responsible for the decision are probably long gone anyway. . . .

Yes, and he might now be at CP - if it's E. Hunter Harrison, that is.  I don't know or have any actual info, but will observe that he was in charge of IC back then, so as CEO he's 'responsible' whether or not he is actually 'at fault'.

- Paul North.

[ChuckCobleigh]

Overmod

I'm just not in favor of heaping statutory penalties on people making mostly documentation errors, just as I never quite understood the point of requiring knowledge of the tower-light regulation penalties on the old First Class Radiotelephone license exam. 

Hmmm. I don't remember questions on tower light penalties.  Of course, it's been 49 years, so memories might have faded.  I think the emphasis at that time was just to keep the wicks trimmed neatly on the tower lights.

[mudchicken]

The fines are there to hopefully correct defective behavior or lax compliance. If the penalty is being used in a political or harassment sense, the person or agency will wind up dancing on the carpet for that.

I know of several cases where the folks trying to use fines or false claims to harass have drawn a growl from FRA (including a state senator). I would assume FCC would react the same way FRA has.

[blue streak 1]

ChuckCobleigh

Hmmm. I don't remember questions on tower light penalties.  Of course, it's been 49 years, so memories might have faded.  I think the emphasis at that time was just to keep the wicks trimmed neatly on the tower lights.

 

Exact tower position and statement of lights were required on FCC permits and be operative at one time but   ---  ITS Too many years. FCC is just acting on behalf of US Geological survey and the FAA.  At one time all towers at 75 feet had to be lighted and noted on survey;  sectional & local FAA charts.  76 feet to 150 feet 2 light clusters, 151 - 225  three lights, etc. May have changed  any one know ?  Strobe lights may be different ?

Also are on 7-1/2  & 15 minute maps.

[tree68]

Current standards for lighting include anything over 200 feet - which is why you see a lot of cell towers just under 200 feet.

Towers near airports have different requirements, based on a formula which includes distance from the nearest runway.

[erikem]

Default FCC height limit for amateur radio antennas has been 200 feet since at least the late 1960's, with exceptions due to proximity to an airport (i.e. in line with what Tree68 wrote). Note that an "airport" can be the proverbial grass strip capable of handling nothing larger than a J-3 Cub...

- Erik

[Norm48327]

tree68

Current standards for lighting include anything over 200 feet - which is why you see a lot of cell towers just under 200 feet.

Towers near airports have different requirements, based on a formula which includes distance from the nearest runway.

And in my estimation, those requirements are flawed. A few summers ago, we were flying into Mt. Pleasant, SC. Five miles northeast are two 2000 ft towers that are marked only by strobe lights and their paint easily blends in with the ocean background. Quite difficult to pick out of the usual haze. They should have been painted the classic red and white. The towers are close enough to the traffic pattern to be a hazard.

[tree68]

Norm48327

Five miles northeast are two 2000 ft towers that are marked only by strobe lights and their paint easily blends in with the ocean background. Quite difficult to pick out of the usual haze. They should have been painted the classic red and white. The towers are close enough to the traffic pattern to be a hazard.

Remember, too, that air navigation charts include information on towers and other hazards to flight.  Just as a railroad engineer is supposed to be familiar with his territory, pilots should have a decent idea of what's where if it will interfere with their flying.

Outside of approaches and the like, I think the normal minimum altitude is something like 500' above the ground.  I'll gladly stand corrected.

On paint - I heard a story from a tower owner regarding another tower neighboring his.  Someone - FCC or FAA came by and asked who owned the tower, then got out some sort of reference cards and was checking the paint color.  Apparently it was too faded, as a tower crew was shortly thereafter seen painting the tower.

I think that the requirement for the orange and white paint is seven stripes, regardless of the height of the tower. 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Would be nice if the FCC was more diligent in its basic mission, like enforcing rules against station signal 'drift'/ interference (WHYY 90.9 in Philly is often 'walked on' by the Temple Univ. station WRTI 90.1), or allowing better reception and signal strength from the Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) network, a bad joke at best.

- Paul North. 

[Overmod]

tree68

I think that the requirement for the orange and white paint is seven stripes, regardless of the height of the tower. 

Here is the FCC advisory circular regarding current lighting and painting requirements (downloadable PDF).

A couple of notes: 

See section 21 (chapter 2, p.3) where we read:  "14 CFR part 91, section 119, requires pilots, when operating over other than congested areas, to remain at least 500 feet (153m) from manmade structures." -- this in addition to altitude requirements.

And the discussion of painting (see chapter 3, p.6) notes that the 'seven band rule' (with orange at top and bottom, producing the 'odd' number of stripes) does apply -- but on towers up to 700'; more bands are required for taller ones...

Meanwhile, here is an FCC page describing the 'official' take on the general subject (this particular page refers to DTV towers, but of course the only real practical difference with many other forms of 'radio tower' is the type of radiating elements...)