940 FedeTat Oomrnunications Oornlnission Be-POTts
F.e.C. 72-431
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
IVASHINGTON, D.C. 20554
S'l'ATION-INITIATED TELEPHONE CALLS ",VHICH)
FAIL To CO:'.HPLY 1VITH SECTION 73.1206 OF
THE RULES j
ALiT 18, 1972.
THE COJl.fnfISSION BY COl\I:.\nSSIONERS B-uRon (CHAIRMAN), BARTLEY,
HOBERT E. LEE, JOHNSON, H. REX LEE, REID AND \?\TILEY, ISSUED TIlE.
FOLLOI-YISa PUBLIC NOTICE:
STATIO:\T-INITIATJm TELEPHONE CALLS 1VIIICI-I ADVERSELY AFFECT THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AND FAIL To COMPLy,VUH SECTION 73.120G UP
THE R.ULES
The Comnlission has received a numbe-r of complaints concerning 
the broadcasting of harassing and embarrassing telephoneconversa~­
tions without giving notice to the party caned as required by Section
73.1206 of thc Commission's Rules.
These calls are made by the licensee to provide entertainment pro 
gramming for broadcast, and involve asking the party coiled questions
of an harassing, embarrassing, orperplexing nature designed to elicit
reilctions usually expected from "'practical jokes." As with "practical
jokes" the, results are sometimes shocking and harmful tQ a degree
not expected, and such results can be avoided by strict adherence to
Section 73.1206 of the Rules.
Illustrative instances of this practice may be found in the f01l0,V1l1g
cases. A station represe,nt.ative called a heatuy salon O1,yner, stating
that the caller's wife had her hair dyed at the beauty salon about a
week prior to the call and that her hair ,vas falling out. The annOUlleer
then asked the beauty salon owner what he ,vas going to do abollt it.
The party ealJed hung up in disgust. Later he learned that a radio
station had called him and was concerned that the broadcast would
have adverse consequences to his business. He said that dalIla-ge to
the woman's hair is now believed to be a fact by many persons. At no
time Ivhile on the ait was he informed that his conversation was being
simultaneously broadcast. The licensee said that it was its practice to
so notify the party called sometime before the end of the broadcast,
but that the practice v·ms not followed in this instance.
In another case a disc jockey, identifying himself as representing
a fictitious compa.ny, called a housewife telling her that he understood
that she had purchased a new piece of plumbing equipment and that
he wanted to talk to her about it. She said she was not interested,
he persisted, and she hung up. The next day the man called again,
he persisted ma.king emba.rrassing suggestions in poor taste including
the suggestion that he come to the house to photograph the new equip-
35 F.C.C. 2d
St(d'ion-Initiated Telephone Calls
H18nt. The housewife angrily hung up.~~third call was made t.he
next day during '\vhich the 111an told the h011S8\vi£0 that the \"hole
thing was a joke, that hE\ was a disc jockey, and that the, prior con 
versation had be,cn recorded.
The la.dy complained that she. was upset because her husband was
awa:y on business
j
shoo ,vas home with three small children, and she
had found out via the Better Business Bure,au that the company, which
the D.J claiIned to represent, was nonexistent. The nC8nsee's 'practice
1vas not to give any notice of recording during the telephone conversa 
tion, but to giVB notice of recording and intention to broadcast at
some time lateT before the actual broadcast was Inude. Such notice
\vas not given to the lady in this instance..
Another variation ]8 fonnd in the practice or a broadcast shttion
ll1aking a recording of a tele,phone, eonvel'sation for broadcast purpose
with the intention of seeking, at the end of the recording, the permis 
sion of the party caned to later broadcast the recording. In the par 
ticular case, the party called hung up before his pe-rD1issiol1 to
broa~ca.stwasobtained~and the recording was later broadcast \vithout
permISSIOn.
By Public Notice, dated Februarv 4, J966, No.~'8'002,FCC 66-88,
the C0111mission took eognizanc€', o-f broadcasts or eontests and promo 
tions adversely a.ffecting the public interest, resulting, among ot-heT
thing-s, in alarm to the public about imaginary dan!;!'ers. infringement
of p-nblic or private rights or the right of jwivaC\v, and a-nnoyancc
or embarrasslTlent to innocent parties. That Public N otiee is applicable
to situations described above.
l,Ve re111ind all lieensees that Section 73.1206 of our Rules requires
that hefore a telephone conversation is recorded for later broadcast
or is begun for simultaneous broa.dcast, the licensee must inform the
other party tha.t the conversation \vill be recorde.d for broacle-ast pur 
poses or will be broadcast live, as the case luay be. The ree-ording: of
such conversation with the intention of informing the other party
later-whether during the conversation or afte.r it is completed but
before it is broadcast--cloes not. comply with the Rule if the conve.rsa 
tion is recorded for possible broadcast. Like"\vise, the initiation of
a live broaclcast of a conversation with the intention of seeking the
other party's permission for its broadcast sonlethue- during the con 
versation, does not constitute con1plia-l1c-e.
Lieensees also are reminded that c-ompJiance \vith Section 73.1206
of the Rules does not excnse theln fro1l1 compliance \vith local or
interstate tariff requirements that a tone-wa.rning device be used in
eonjunction with any recording of bYo-way conve-rsations. The. inter 
state and intrastate tariffs also contain provisions prohibiting the nse
of telephone service "... in a manner reasonably to be expected to
frighten, abuse, torn1ent, or harass another." The Aluerican Telephone
and Telegraph Company and major independent telephone companies
are requested to review the foregoing tariff regnlations with licensees
within the areas of their operating companies.
S5 F.e.c. 2d
109--003-72~-4
942 FecleTal OomTl1u,nioat£ons 0mn
t
tn£88ion Repo'rts
Finally, it should be noted that Section 223 of the Communications
..ctct and similar provisions in the laws of each state make certain tYPES
of harassing or annoying telephone calls a criminal offense. For ex 
ample, Section 223(1) (B) of the Act provides criminal penalties
for making an interstate call without disclosing the identity of the
caller and with intent'~tomilloy, abuse, threaten or harass any person
at the called number."
Action by the Commission May 17, 1972, by letters. Commissioners
Burch (Chairman), Bartley, Robert E. Lee, Johnson, H. Rex Lee,
Reid and Wiley.
35 F.e.e. 2d