Did you read the thread? Someone claimed that net income of an entity causing willful radio interference is irrelevant and that only marginal gains (as opposed to its "core business") made from its willful interference should be considered. I disagreed. I was then told I was "missing the point" and that Marriott does not have evil plans and that they don't/didn't attempt to influence rulemakers to permit their interference. This story doesn't fit the facts of what happened, so I called it out.
The point you're still missing is that if an activity is only worth $5 to you, then a $10 penalty will make you stop. It doesn't matter if you're Bill Gates.
Also, the penalty should be as small as possible to get the desired outcome. If the penalty is $100,000, you're more likely to put up a fight than if it's $10, regardless of your income or how much you valued the original activity.
Assume that the offending behavior is worth $X to the offender. Also assume that the regulatory fine levied for that behavior is $Y. Further assume that $Z is the cost for the offender to achieve regulatory compliance. For the sake of argument, $W is the cost of resisting the regulator (including fines).
The benefit of passive non-compliance is $X - $Y.
The benefit of compliance is -$Z.
The benefit of active resistance is $X - $W.
A rational actor will choose the option with greatest benefit, so $Y > $X + $Z will encourage compliance over non-compliance. If $W > $X + $Z, that also encourages compliance over resistance. In either case, it is apparent that $Z amount is working against the regulator.
As long as the benefit achieved from continuing the behavior plus the benefit of not having to pay the cost to stop doing it exceeds the external costs of continuing, it will not stop.
But there's more. Assume $V to be the cost of resuming the behavior after it stops. Now, in order to achieve nonzero $X, $V must be paid.
Now the benefit of non-compliance is $X - $V - $Y.
The benefit of compliance is $0.
The benefit of resistance is $X - $V - $W.
That puts a higher cost on the other side of the equation. the ability to rip out, confiscate, and destroy the equipment forces the actor to discount the cost of just unplugging all of its devices, which is what allows the fine to be matched to the benefit from continuing the activity.
Thus, the FCC can look at the mean daily income realized from jamming and set that as the initial guess for a persuasive daily fine. But the FCC also has to make the total cost of fighting them in court higher than just paying the fines, otherwise everybody would fight.
>The point you're still missing is that if an activity is only worth $5 to you, then a $10 penalty will make you stop.
Only if you accept that immediate relative dollar values are a person's (in this case a non-physical, corporate entity's) only motivation. This view is cynical and likely not true in all cases.
I think your point is contradictory,
First you claim that income vs. penalty is the only concern, but at the end of your post you appear to claim that there is a threshold at which income and/or perceived value of the original activity ceases to be a concern.
>... regardless of your income or how much you valued the original activity.
I'm willing to accept that the actual persons that determine Marriott's policies, and therefore physical activities in the real-world (through the policy-makers' and/or their subordinates' actions), are motivated purely by the actions' perceived ability to extract currency from other people. However, that is all the more reason to consider the totality of the organization and its income in any judgement about the organization. As a matter of cost-benefit analysis, the organization may judge that they can absorb a particular fine, but will continue its "evil" behavior, in the sole pursuit of profit, by attempting to hide or disguise the offending behavior. We've seen this pattern play out over and over throughout history and even in very recent history in many industries, including mining, banking, manufacturing, political influencing, etc. Marriott itself even began going down that path by attempting to legitimize its interference through obscure (at least to most of the people affected by the interference) political means.
Just to be clear, are you arguing the fine should be a percentage of net income or some other method that varies based on the revenue of the parent entity?
> Did you read the thread? Someone claimed that net income of an entity causing willful radio interference is irrelevant and that only marginal gains (as opposed to its "core business") made from its willful interference should be considered.
No, that's not what happened. Someone claimed that Marriott's net income was irrelevant to Marriott's internal decision-making process in this particular case. No one said it was irrelevant to their moral or criminal status, or to whether and how much they should be punished. You're arguing a point that no one was making.
>Someone claimed that Marriott's net income was irrelevant to Marriott's internal decision-making process in this particular case.
Can you point out who claimed that and where? I don't think the person I originally responded to made that specific claim, only the more general claim that net income was not relevant (and they made that claim indirectly).
It's likely an absurd notion that net income is irrelevant to Marriott's internal decision-making processes. Of course, none of us were there when decisions were made, but if you claim that marginal gains are what drive Marriott's decisions then you must accept that net income is relevant. Margins are (and can only be) built on top of net.
Examining margins to the exclusion of net is madness, although based on some comments I read on HN it wouldn't be surprising to find some (or many) on here that have already gone deep down that hole.
You're still missing the point though it seems the reason is that you've mistaken the context of the original "the relevant number is not their net income." To help spell it out:
1. seanp2k2 expressed doubt that a $600,000 fine would dissuade a company with a quarter net income of $192,000,000.
2. dsjoerg points out that in the context of what is dissuasive to a company net income is not particularly relevant. Rather, whether or not punitive action is persuasive depends on whether the gains are considered worth more than the losses from the punishment.
This is the context of the thread: how much of a cost does it take for Marriott to be dissuaded?
So when you say "Someone claimed that net income of an entity causing willful radio interference is irrelevant and that only marginal gains (as opposed to its "core business") made from its willful interference should be considered." you have to remember that this is in context of whether it's enough to convince Marriott to stop causing willful radio interference.
And when people were telling you "that Marriott does not have evil plans", they weren't speaking as to the morals of Marriott's actions. They were saying that Marriott's motives for their actions are the profits those actions generate and not some context-less desire to just be evil or to block wi-fi for the sake of blocking wi-fi.
And nobody said that Marriott "don't/didn't attempt to influence rulemakers to permit their interference." The closest is Vivtek's statement that the company wouldn't take well to an officer making it "his or her quixotic personal vendetta". A joint petition for a favourable interpretation is a relatively low-cost, low-commitment action and doesn't speak to the company having any desire to turn it into a vendetta or throw a significant portion of their income at trying to retrieve a small chunk of their income.
Basically, you replied to dsjoerg by saying that net income's relevance is that it represents the ability to fight an issue and the thread since them has been people trying to point out that it wouldn't be in Marriott's best interest to put significant resources in fighting it and so net income remains largely irrelevant. Your replies, meanwhile, seem to come out of left field, apparently discussing moral and legal viewpoints but not the actual topic of whether punitive action is persuasive to Marriott. This is why schrodinger said you were missing the point and the fact that you seem to be having a different discussion from the rest of the thread is the reason PhasmaFelis asked what you think others are disagreeing with. No one is actively disagreeing that blocking wi-fi to sell wi-fi is evil or illegal, nor are they actively agreeing. They're having a different discussion entirely.
