4 ms·

Maybe elevate your tone a bit. https://www.fcc.gov/enforcement/orders https://www.fcc.gov/enforcement/orders you can just look at the enforcement actions. Yes

Maybe elevate your tone a bit. https://www.fcc.gov/enforcement/orders https://www.fcc.gov/enforcement/orders you can just look at the enforcement actions. Yesterday's actions include 7 $25k fines apparently all for companies illegally importing banned drones (a procedural fine just for ignoring the investigation attempts). You can peruse that list and find plenty of things, lots of pirate radio recently. They absolutely do go after apparent small fry and your "mcdonalds manager" absolutely has assets that can be seized. >Yeah the FCC could probably pull an ATF and shoot a bunch of people over fairly petty crimes but that costs political goodwill that I'm not sure the FCC has to burn. The FCC doesn't have guns, they can't arrest you

cucumber3732842 25d ago
This is exactly the kind of circle jerk commentary I was complaining about. Tone doesn't make right. The notices of liability the FCC posts to their website are not final orders. They're the federal equivalent of when your zoning sends a notice saying "your patio is 6in too close to the property line, according to the aerial photos it's been there since <years ago>, you owe use <insane number of dollars>". It's essentially civil enforcement speak for "hey asshole, lawyer up and take this seriously". So then like a naive idiot you reply back "this patio predates my ownership of the property" and the money grubbing commissioner fires back "don't care, pay up". This is what the forfeiture order the FCC post on their website are. That said, the FCC is less slimy and less interested in fine money than your local commissioner probably is and I personally hold them in high regard. Most of these end in the subject of the enforcement simply changing their behavior and paying a trivial fine (the lawyers are the real winners). To quote those numbers as if they're final is no less dishonest than to quote lawsuit claims as if they're final judgements. >They absolutely do go after apparent small fry and your "McDonalds manager" absolutely has assets that can be seized Once again, you can't get blood from a stone. You might get a little but it's not worth the squeeze It is not politically sustainable to make a habit of ruining small time businesses and individuals (we're not talking about the Sackler family here) over nonviolent violations in technical laws where there is no clear chain of causation from the violation to some sort of harm to life or limb. The Mcdonalds Manager will settle for $5k, throwing away his storage unit of Alibaba stuff and not doing that anymore. The reason I brought up the ATF is because they have a track record of forcing compliance with arcane arbitrary laws and they do it through flamboyant violence. This comes at political cost. >The FCC doesn't have guns, they can't arrest you Right, they'd get the FBI be the muscle like all the other Feds that don't have entry teams do. The feds effectively all have guns. It's just a question of how many desks the papers must cross before they turn into bullets.

cucumber3732842 25d ago

This is exactly the kind of circle jerk commentary I was complaining about. Tone doesn't make right. The notices of liability the FCC posts to their website are not final orders. They're the federal equivalent of when your zoning sends a notice saying "your patio is 6in too close to the property line, according to the aerial photos it's been there since <years ago>, you owe use <insane number of dollars>". It's essentially civil enforcement speak for "hey asshole, lawyer up and take this seriously". So then like a naive idiot you reply back "this patio predates my ownership of the property" and the money grubbing commissioner fires back "don't care, pay up". This is what the forfeiture order the FCC post on their website are. That said, the FCC is less slimy and less interested in fine money than your local commissioner probably is and I personally hold them in high regard. Most of these end in the subject of the enforcement simply changing their behavior and paying a trivial fine (the lawyers are the real winners). To quote those numbers as if they're final is no less dishonest than to quote lawsuit claims as if they're final judgements. >They absolutely do go after apparent small fry and your "McDonalds manager" absolutely has assets that can be seized Once again, you can't get blood from a stone. You might get a little but it's not worth the squeeze It is not politically sustainable to make a habit of ruining small time businesses and individuals (we're not talking about the Sackler family here) over nonviolent violations in technical laws where there is no clear chain of causation from the violation to some sort of harm to life or limb. The Mcdonalds Manager will settle for $5k, throwing away his storage unit of Alibaba stuff and not doing that anymore. The reason I brought up the ATF is because they have a track record of forcing compliance with arcane arbitrary laws and they do it through flamboyant violence. This comes at political cost. >The FCC doesn't have guns, they can't arrest you Right, they'd get the FBI be the muscle like all the other Feds that don't have entry teams do. The feds effectively all have guns. It's just a question of how many desks the papers must cross before they turn into bullets.