There is a thread at eHam titled "FCC Fines" that I found a bit disturbing, as there is some undercurrent suggestion that the FCC ought to spend more time and money going after those who violate its rules, apparently under some misconception that the FCC is a law enforcement agency. The argument is based on the recent NALs issued against a couple of hams who have been causing intentional QRN on 14.313 etc. for years, and unhappiness about a) how long it has taken to get to this point, and b) the large amount of the fines (the idea being, if they'd have moved faster and imposed lower fines, like traffic ticket amount fines, these hams would have been shown the error of their ways along time ago, paid up, and become model hams as a result. Yeah, right.)
So I got to thinking about how the FCC actually lays and collects fines. Well, the fact is, the FCC doesn't actually work that way, because it has no statutory authority to do anything but yank a ham's license for violation of Part 97 rules. (Actually, it's the same statutory authority it has to regulate commercial broadcast stations under whatever part that is, and I'm too lazy to go look it up right now.)
Because of that, the FCC issues NALs (Notices of Apparent Liability) proposing fines based on its interpretation of its regulations, and informs the offender that they now have a choice of contributing the full amount to the US Treasury, negotiating a lower amount and contributing that amount to the US Treasury, or going to court to contest the NAL in its entirety. Note that in neither of the first two cases does the money go to the FCC, other than indirectly as part of the national budget. And note carefully that word, "propose". It isn't "levy" or "collect" or "impose", and that's for a reason — no statutory authority!
If the amateur refuses to pay after all of that, I think — if I understand it correctly — that the only recourse the FCC has of its own accord is to revoke the amateur's license and "red light" him for future license applications. They would have to turn any proceedings for monetary and property forfeiture over to the DOJ, because they do not have that kind of authority.
So in sum,the FCC says, we have found you in violation of regulation blah blah section blah blah subsection blah. We therefore propose that you pay $xxxxx (with a minimum of $5000 I believe) because you have been a bad operator. If you agree, pay the Treasury. If you agree but can't pay the full amount that we propose, we'll negotiate. If you disagree, well, shoot, we'll have to turn this over to the DOJ for action, because Congress doesn't let us have our own administrative courts and judges and doesn't allow us to issue warrants and attach funds and all that fun law enforcement stuff.
We say we want the FCC to go after these people, and that's well and good; that's what the Enforcement Bureau is for. The current enforcement regime seems very benign to me and generally prevents the FCC from bothering the occasional ham who accidentally QRNs 14.076MHz because he forgot to turn his linear off before operating JT65 (which seemed like what was happening yesterday right after I posted that bitchy post below), or who forgot to sign every 10 minutes during his QSO. That's where the OO's should be stepping in and writing the occasional "be a good ham" note.
OK, so now comes this proposal, or insinuation, or whatever it was that I felt like the poster was trying to say on eHam, i.e., "FCC should be like traffic cops and issue small fines for [what amount to significant] regulatory violations." To this I demur and object; it is a slippery slope that none of us want to slide down. Do we really want the FCC to have confiscatory powers over and above revocation of licenses as some sort of incentive to spend more time and money on enforcement? Think about it: Do you really want the potential of seeing the FCC on your doorstep for some minor operating misstep, like accidentally running too much power, or forgetting to sign every 10 minutes, or, God forbid, using in a fit of madness a bit of colorful language on the bands? (And don't say you don't make operating mistakes and/or sometimes let slip the dogs of cursewords. We all make mistakes.)
When all is said and done, we need to be careful what we wish for. Sure, it took 16 years in KZ8O's case to get him a $22,000 NAL, and it may take just as long to ever see anything come of that, since he'll undoubtedly take it to court and contest it. But I'd rather see the FCC spend their time going after the truly egregious offenders than for it to have confiscatory incentive to come after me or you or some other poor slob ham for some minor, momentary infraction of the rules. Give any government bureau incentive-based enforcement powers, and the next thing we'd know, they'll have SWAT teams and be executing no-knock raids on the unsuspecting (and generally innocent) population.
