In article <
20230402003706.GA1906300@telecomdigest.us>,
Bill Horne <
malQRMassimilation@gmail.com> wrote:
* I had to read the amount shown above three times before I believed
* it. This dunning notice is so clearly an example of bureaucratic
* arrogance and overreach
Nonsense.
* possible: if I understand it, the FCC appears to be demanding that
* the owner of a building take steps to stop a tenant, squatter, or
* transient from using a ten-watt FM transmitter to "broadcast" to
* local listeners
The PIRATE Act[1] (Pub. L. 116-109, passed by Congress and signed by
President Trump in 2020) authorizes penalties for unlicensed
broadcasting of up to $20,000 per day, with an overall limit of
$2,316,034,[2] and allows the FCC to fine the property owners where transmitters are located in addtion to the station operators. The
legislation requires the FCC to conduct annual enforcement sweeps in
the top 5 markets for pirate activity and make an annual report to
Congress.
The specific language is codified at 47 USC 511(a):
Any person who willfully and knowingly does or causes or
*suffers to be done* any pirate radio broadcasting shall be
subject to a fine of not more than $2,000,000. (emphasis mine)
The same language is used in the implementing regulations, 47 CFR
1.80(b)(c). "Suffers to be done" allows for the FCC to go after
anyone who tolerates pirate activity on their property, although it's
implicit in the choice of verb that some knowledge on the part of the
landlord must be demonstrated -- but the FCC could easily force the
issue simply by serving the landlord with a Notice of Apparent
Liability. If the landlord does not then take action to evict the
pirate, the fines start racking up even if the FCC can't prove that
they knew (or should have known) about their tenant's activity prior
to receiving notice.
The FCC's procedure used to be more forgiving, in addition to the
fines having been lower: the Enforcement Bureau would previously have
issued a Notice of Unlicensed Operation prior to proceeding to a
Notice of Apparent Liability, but in the new legislation Congress
required them to dispense with this extra step.
-GAWollman
[1] Not to be confused with intellectual property legislation of the
same name passed in 2004.
[2] The actual legislation as enacted says "2,000,000" but elsewhere
in the U.S. Code, its is provided that all dollar amounts are to be
adjusted for inflation unless the law explicitly specifies otherwise.
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)