From: wollman@bimajority.org   
      
   In article <20230402003706.GA1906300@telecomdigest.us>,   
   Bill Horne   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: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)