T-Mobile Fined over Tower Lighting Violations

T-Mobile USA has been fined US$8,000 for several breaches of US rules regarding the need to continuously exhibit all high intensity and medium intensity obstruction lighting on its base station towers. On June 24, 2002, an agent from the telecoms regulator, while conducting random tower inspections, inspected an antenna structure near Davis City, Iowa. During the inspection, the agent determined that the antenna structure did not exhibit all the required high intensity and medium intensity obstruction lighting.

VoiceStream (T-Mobile's previous brand-name) was notified of the problem, and the company responded that the photocell at antenna structure became damaged, causing the high and medium intensity obstruction lighting to become inoperable and the red obstruction lighting (required only from sunset to sunrise) to operate during both daylight and nighttime hours, and that VoiceStream repaired the photocell on June 29, 2002. Mr. Menser also stated that VoiceStream did not notify the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") of the outage at any time 3 because "the red lights and beacon were operational and . . . no alarms were received."

On July 24, 2002, the FCC's Kansas City Office issued a NAL for a forfeiture in the amount of US$10,000 to VoiceStream for willful and repeated failure to continuously exhibit all high intensity and medium intensity obstruction lighting, in violation of Section 17.51 of the Rules. In its response, filed August 23, 2002, VoiceStream sought cancellation or mitigation of the monetary forfeiture. Although VoiceStream admits that it violated Section 17.51(b), it contends that it did not do so willfully or repeatedly. In addition, VoiceStream asserts that the violation of 17.5 is mitigated by its "frequent inspections prior to the single lighting malfunction" and "implementing a swift remedy" and by its having "not experienced a similar equipment failure or been the subject of a violation of Commission Rules pertaining to tower lighting."

The regulator says that it has examined VoiceStream's response to the NAL pursuant to the statutory factors above and in conjunction with the Policy Statement as well. As a result of the review, the regulator concluded that VoiceStream had repeatedly violated Section 17.51(b) of the Rules and found that, while there is no basis for cancellation of the proposed monetary forfeiture, a reduction to US$8,000 is warranted."

Posted to the site on 4th July 2003