4 ms·
I think FCC needs to make it something like 150% of expected profit + $50 million and above. Then maybe it will make a dent or sense. Plus, getting the DoJ invo
by eftychis 4y ago
I think FCC needs to make it something like 150% of expected profit + $50 million and above. Then maybe it will make a dent or sense. Plus, getting the DoJ involved.
tl;dr: if executives/board members don't go to jail for things there is always a right price for a company to break the rules.
- LanceH 4y agoYou say this without knowing the actual regulations, obligations, and posted penalties, of course.
- eftychis 4y agoMy comment (clearly to the average person) implies what needs to be done to work as an effective deterrent, viewed in a black box setting. You can see the description of the facts from FCC's point of view here [https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-4A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-4A1.pdf] -- as linked in the article -- describing the social damage Fox inflicted. FCC makes clear that this is what is prescribed and that given the profits of Fox it has no impact in the company's operation. Thus, there is no reason to reduce it. If you feel otherwise perhaps you have a more positive view of how companies make decisions in the U.S. which is great. P.S. And for readers' convenience here is the forfeiture framework FCC uses here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/503 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/503 It is inadequate from my vantage point. P.S.2. It is common secret, and a running joke here -- check other hackernews posts -- that FCC has no teeth. Regulations need to change.