If the second fine is also low that would indicate the first was not a shot across the bow.

Banks keep getting hit with (compared to revenue) low fines over and over again. This explanation is always given. Also the people who decide what the fine is going to be keep getting jobs at banks.

Curious. Willing to bet some of these regulators kids end up at Dish over the next few years.

Yes. I cited the financial industry for a reason.

In reference to your previous question, along with the obvious brute fact of the fines not escalating for the same infraction over time, I would take a first stab at an answer being that the stronger the "revolving door" the less likely the fines are to be serious.

Note that just a one way industry -> regulator won't necessarily produce this effect, because in that situation a regulator can still want to flex by producing meaningful fines. But the more the cycle is industry -> regulator -> and back to industry, the more the regulator is going to be thinking in terms of what will come around when they're in the industry again.

I'm not really sure anybody wants to end up at Dish, their reputation is well deserved.

You seem unfamiliar with how this works: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-show_job