Info and News

Defibrillator Sets Patient’s Clothes Alight

The Associated Press reports that a spark from a defibrillator ignited the clothes of a heart attack victim inside an ambulance.  Instead of restarting her heart, the defibrillator set her on fire.

According to the medical examiner’s office, the 47-year old woman from New London, Connecticut, was already dead when the fire started.  She had died of natural causes, and the fire did not contribute to her death.  No one in the ambulance crew was injured by the flames, which were doused by a fire extinguisher.

Not surprisingly, an investigation into the cause of the fire has been initiated, with various State, local, and Emergency Medical Services officials involved.

Mary Newman, of the National Center for Early Defibrillation in Pittsburgh, remarked that her group has never received a report of a defibrillator starting a fire.  She also pointed out that, “When you defibrillate a person, they are already dead.” She continued, “You can’t make them any worse off than they are.”
 

UK:  Ofcom Replaces the Radiocommunications Agency

There’s a new sheriff in London-town.  The regulatory structure for communications and equipment has been overhauled in the United Kingdom.  Five formerly separate regulators – the Radio Authority, the Radiocommunications Agency, Oftel, the Independent Television Commission (ITC), and the Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC) have been eliminated and consolidated into a single new entity:  Ofcom, the Office of Communications.

Ofcom is the new communications sector regulator, and assumed power at the end of 2003.  Their website URL is www.ofcom.org.uk.  Continuity with the activities of the previous organizations is maintained on the site under the heading “Legacy Regulators.”
 

EU Amends Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)

The European Union has issued Directive 2003/108/EC, amending the Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), 2002/96/EC.  As originally written, the WEEE directive contained a take-back provision which created retroactive liability for equipment producers that could expose some of them to serious economic risk.  This amendment clarifies the responsibility for environmental costs of electronic equipment disposal.

The amendment instructs Member States to adjust their laws so that the costs for recovery, collection, treatment, and environmentally sound disposal are apportioned as follows:

• After August 13, 2005, producers of the replacement products are to be responsible for the costs of disposing of the equipment they replace.  This applies to WEEE being replaced in other than private household use.
• For historical waste not being replaced by a new product, the costs of disposal will be borne by the users.
• Producers and users (other than private households) may enter into other arrangements to apportion costs
• National laws implementing these arrangements should be in place by August 13, 2004.
   

CPSC Safety Recall of Computer

Sony is recalling 5600 of its VAIO notebooks because their power units could give the users an electrical shock.  The affected model numbers are the PCG-FRV25 and PCB-FRV27.  The recall affects units sold in June and July of last year.  Although no one has been injured, neither Sony nor the US Consumer Product Safety Commission are taking any chances.

Apparently, users can experience “a mild shock” when the PC is run on AC power while its internal modem is connected to the telephone lines.  The possibility of shock occurs during an incoming ring.  Reportedly, Sony will repair the computers, pay shipping costs, and extend the warranty for an additional two years.
 

FCC Reacts to Super Bowl Half-Time Show

Even if you didn’t watch the Super Bowl half time show, you’ve probably heard of the uproar caused by the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake performance.  (For the record, your editor watched the game, but got up for refreshments at half-time and missed the “show”.)  Apparently, many were not amused.  In a Public Notice dated February 6, The FCC noted that it has received more than 200,000 complaints on this subject!

On February 2, the day after the Super Bowl, FCC Chairman Michael Powell issued a statement calling the halftime broadcast a “classless, crass, and deplorable stunt” and instructed the Commission to immediately begin a “thorough and swift” investigation.  All of the other FCC Commissioners quickly issued statements that condemned the incident and supported Chairman’s Powell decision.
 

FCC Hits Station with Record Fine for Indecent Programming

The FCC has hit a group of Florida FM radio station licensees, all subsidiaries of Clear Channel Communications, by proposing a huge fine of $755,000 for repeated airing of what it calls indecent material during broadcasts of the “Bubba the Love Sponge” program.  The fines, or in FCC terms, the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture were levied for 26 incidents of indecent broadcast and additionally for several file keeping violations.  The statutory maximum for each indecency incident is $27,500; but assessing fines for each incident really adds up. 

The FCC alleged, among other things, indecency violations, intimidation by Clear Channel of the complainant, the promotion and glorification of illegal drugs in broadcasts and web sites, and a number of record keeping violations.

In its Notice, the FCC noted that, while it is authorized to license radio and television broadcast stations, its role in overseeing program content is very limited due to the First Amendment.  However, it does have authority to enforce provisions on obscene or indecent programming.  The Notice describes the criteria by which such decisions are made, and for those interested, describes the programming at issue in lurid detail. 

( http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-17A1.pdf )

This was considered an important enough incident that all of the FCC’s Commissioners made additional public comments.  Chairman Powell pointed out that the FCC’s enforcement efforts in this area have increased several fold in recent years.  One Commissioner, Commissioner Michael Copps dissented.  He wanted even stronger action, and suggested that a license revocation hearing was appropriate.
 

Do Not Call Registry and Telemarketers Caller ID Updates from the FCC

Tired of those mealtime sales calls?  Here’s two items that you’ll appreciate.

• On January 29, 2004 the FCC’s rules on telemarketing caller ID became effective.  These rules were adopted last July as part of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) proceeding, and are now active.  Previously, many telemarketers refused to provide caller ID information, because many people would use that to screen the call.  Now, they must provide either calling party number (CPN) or automatic number identification (ANI), and when available by the telemarketer’s carrier, the name of the telemarketer.  Any number that is supplied in this manner must permit an individual to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign.  And, of course, caller ID makes it easier for the called party to simply ignore the call.
• The do-not-call registry is up and running.  The FCC recently announced the first enforcement action under the FCC’s National Do Not Call Registry.  A citation was issued to CPM Funding, Inc., d/b/a California Pacific Mortgage, for failure to honor the registry.  Enforcement Bureau Chief David Soloman called it “a landmark enforcement step….to ensure that consumers are not bothered by unwanted, intrusive calls to their homes.”
   

FCC Slams Junk Faxer With $5 Million Fine

The FCC has slammed the company Fax.com, Inc., for faxing unsolicited advertisements with the largest fine it has ever issued--$5,379,000.  This order is an “Order of Forfeiture”, not a Notice of Apparent Liability. 

The Commission found that Fax.com had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act on 489 separate occasions, and imposed the maximum fine of $11,000 for each violation.  The FCC stated that “Fax.com’s primary business activity itself constitutes a massive on-going violation of the TCPA.”  The Commission rejected Fax.com’s arguments that the junk fax ban is unconstitutional and the fine excessive.  The full ruling may be found at:  (http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-242654A1.html)

Info and News brought to you by Curtis-Straus LLC 527 Great Road Littleton MA 01460
Phone 978.486.8880 Fax 978.486.8828

To see all previous news letters click here

To unsubscribe to this email click here