The FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau struck another blow against specialized mobile radio station owner Marc Sobel when it opposed his Revised Request for Inquiry and Investigation that is pending with the Federal Communications Commission.
Sobel is asking the FCC to initiate a full investigation into the circumstances surrounding a decision made by a bureau administrative law judge that revoked his licenses, denied scheduled hearings on others and dismissed his pending finder’s preference applications.Administrative law judge John Frysiak ruled that a business agreement between Sobel and James Kay Jr. essentially transferred control of 800 MHz licenses from Sobel to Kay. The FCC must approve such license transfer. The judge also concluded that Sobel had misled and deceived the commission regarding Kay’s involvement with the stations.
Sobel’s attorney, Robert Keller, argues that Sobel was singled out for harassment and harsh treatment by the bureau because of his friendship with Kay. Kay is involved in his own battle with the FCC over the take back of his Part 90 frequencies. Keller argues the bureau violated Sobel’s rights and believes he has presented evidence to prove the bureau revoked Sobel’s licenses in bad faith and without sufficient grounds.
“Marc Sobel’s `Revised Request for Inquiry and Investigation’ is nothing more than a transparent attempt to delay the resolution of the issues in this proceeding and to distract the commission from the pertinent issues of unauthorized transfer of control and misrepresentation/lack of candor by Sobel,” wrote the bureau. “While Sobel attempts to paint a picture of misconduct and unfair treatment by the bureau, his picture misstates or ignores pertinent facts and simply ignores applicable case law.”
The bureau is urging the FCC to “expeditiously and thoroughly” review Sobel’s hearing record. The bureau said it believes that after such a review, the commission will conclude that Sobel is not qualified to be a licensee.
The administrative law judge’s initial decision was based on testimony given by both Sobel and Kay regarding a management agreement between the two that had Kay performing all the financial and administrative duties regarding Sobel’s licenses and Sobel being paid by the hour to maintain the facilities.
