Commissioner Won't Enforce Pirate Act

[TheBigA]

An FCC Commissioner says he won't enforce the Pirate Act because of a vague supreme court decision:

Simington Challenges FCC's Right To Fine Pirate Radio Operators - Radio Ink

FCC Commissioner Simington is now challenging the organization's authority to levy multi-million dollar penalties against pirate radio.

radioink.com

The Pirate Act is still law. It wasn't overruled or even mentioned in the Chevron case. Any additional exceptions need to be brought up in court. It's not up to a commissioner to decide if he will or won't enforce the law. When someone who is supposed to enforce the law says he won't enforce the law, that person should be replaced.

 

[boombox4]

An FCC Commissioner says he won't enforce the Pirate Act because of a vague supreme court decision:

Simington Challenges FCC's Right To Fine Pirate Radio Operators - Radio Ink

FCC Commissioner Simington is now challenging the organization's authority to levy multi-million dollar penalties against pirate radio.

radioink.com

The Pirate Act is still law. It wasn't overruled or even mentioned in the Chevron case. Any additional exceptions need to be brought up in court. It's not up to a commissioner to decide if he will or won't enforce the law. When someone who is supposed to enforce the law says he won't enforce the law, that person should be replaced.

Whether he can determine whether to enforce, or not enforce the law, and how much discretion he has to enforce a law depends on how the FCC enacting legislation was written. The FCC, being a commission, is part of the executive branch, and as we see in all sorts of cases (DOJ, Treasury, DHS, SEC, FTC, etc.) these commissions and bureaus (all part of the Executive Branch, given powers by Congress) have fairly broad discretion over whether they want to enforce a law, or which laws they want to enforce.

 

[Kelly A]

I generally try to avoid stereotyping, but look at this guy. He's a millennial. He's likely someone in the age bracket who hasn't grown up with radio nor understands the ill effects that illegal broadcasters have on the industry, not to mention straight-up violations of laws.
Now, if someone were stealing and reselling Internet wireless bandwidth that affected smartphone users, this guy would likely call for life in prison for offenders.

 

[fybush]

He's 45. Born in 1979.

 

[Kelly A]

He's 45. Born in 1979.

That seems to be around the breakpoint between media consumers who find radio important and those who don't. That's also why advertisers are trying to reach an audience between 18 and 45.

 

[PTBoardOp93]

The Pirate Act is still law. It wasn't overruled or even mentioned in the Chevron case

That is not necessarily the case. The decision that ended Chevron deference broadly ended the authority of executive agencies to fill in the blanks where Congress left blanks. Given Congress's tendency to find out what is in a bill by passing it, that is certain to create regulatory holes.

In this example, it appears Commissioner Simington is questioning the Commission's authority to levy monetary fines at all. He voted not to endorse a fine against broadband providers two weeks ago:

Simington Statement: FCC Proposes Cumulative $470K Fine for ACP Data Collection Violations

www.fcc.gov

And three weeks ago he voted against fining television broadcasters for running non-compliant advertising targeted at children during E/I programming:

Simington Statement: FCC Fines 19 Station Groups for 'Kid Vid' Violations

www.fcc.gov

Given that fines are essentially the primary enforcement tool the Commission has, if Commissioner Simington is correct, the FCC would be a useless organization.

 

[Plate Blocker]

He's 45. Born in 1979.

Whatever the term used, Kelly A's points are completely accurate.

 

[bigdonho]

Look who appointed this guy to the FCC. He is a stooge for the telcom industry. Look who the FCC lodges the largest fines against. The FCC can't send people to jail. Fines are the only enforcement mechanism. If they revoke a license to operate, just keep operating. What are they going to do?

 

[TheBigA]

That is not necessarily the case. The decision that ended Chevron deference broadly ended the authority of executive agencies to fill in the blanks where Congress left blanks. Given Congress's tendency to find out what is in a bill by passing it, that is certain to create regulatory holes.

But there were no "blanks" in the Pirate Act. It was very specific in the fines the FCC could impose. So until it's either repealed or struck down, it's still law. When the courts "broadly" rule on things, it doesn't mean the agencies just stop doing their job. That's what Simington is doing. He is interpreting the court, while his job is enforcing the law. A lot of these radical decisions by the supreme court will be relitigated to get more specificity. Until then, the laws that weren't covered are still laws and should be enforced.

 

[radiofan2023]

The Justice Department needs to start collecting fines from the pirates that have exhausted their appeals to the FCC. In general, how long does it take to exhaust FCC appeals against fines? Even better would be modifying the Pirate Act to include mandatory increasing jail time for pirate activity after the first time.

 

[CTListener]

He's 45. Born in 1979.

45, eh? Is that some sort of dog whistle to the proud survivalist boys playing radio illegally? Stand back and stand by?

 

[radiofan2023]

That seems to be around the breakpoint between media consumers who find radio important and those who don't. That's also why advertisers are trying to reach an audience between 18 and 45.

From this article it seems more like he has more sympathy for solo station operators, and just doesn't like regulations:

Getting to Know Nathan Simington - Radio World

"I did not come up through the Washington regulatory world, I came up through the private capital world."

www.radioworld.com

 

[fybush]

45, eh? Is that some sort of dog whistle to the proud survivalist boys playing radio illegally? Stand back and stand by?

Purely an observation that he doesn't qualify as a "millennial" by any definition of that term.

 

[Kelly A]

Purely an observation that he doesn't qualify as a "millennial" by any definition of that term.

Depending on what resource, that observation could be considered splitting hairs. Even in this definition, its a four year difference:
"Millennials are those born between 1981 and 1996, currently ages 26–41. These individuals were shaped by digital communication technologies and are known for their intrinsic desire for a sense of communal, democratic innovation where one is always expected to share new ideas and work as a team player (Karr, 2021)."