Hacker News Reader

Comment by danesparza | Hacker News Reader

Hold on -- is the FCC an international body? I'm struggling to understand what Swarm did wrong here -- they launched from an INDIAN launcher after they didn't get permission to launch in the USA.

Seriously -- what power does the FCC hope to exert at this point? We live in a world where launchers exist in other countries ...

View on HN

> hey launched from an INDIAN launcher after they didn't get permission to launch in the USA

The way ITU rules work, the country responsible for a satellite is the country from where it comes. Not from which it launches. (Launch providers are supposed to verify registration with a satellite's country, oversight Indian authorities failed to provide.)

Swarm's satellite was made in America by American engineers working for an American company. If it rams into a Chinese bird, the U.S. is responsible. Hence why the FCC is pissed.

It's still weird that the FCC is the responsible US agency, which was discussed here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16555810

> It's still weird that the FCC is the responsible US agency,

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU)"is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN)" that "coordinates the shared global use of the radio spectrum, promotes international cooperation in assigning satellite orbits, works to improve telecommunication infrastructure in the developing world, and assists in the development and coordination of worldwide technical standards" [1].

If a single agency is to interface with the ITU, it makes sense for it to be the FCC.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunicatio...

> If a single agency is to interface with the ITU, it makes sense for it to be the FCC.

I don't see any reason for it to be a single agency. Not knowing anything about the details, I wouldn't think the FCC would be able to support the space-fairing expertise to properly regulate space debris given the dramatic increase in satellite density expected in the coming decades. New agencies get created all the time to deal with new regulatory fields that outgrow their initial home.

Needless to say, the UN is not a good lead to follow with respect to nimble regulatory structure.

> Needless to say, the UN is not a good lead to follow with respect to nimble regulatory structure.

I'm sure the world is waiting agog for your proposals for an alternative international body able to coordinate communication satellite frequencies and orbits across all nations.

You would rather it be the Air Force perhaps?

I can't imagine that being an improvement on any axis ...

NASA or the FAA would seem a more obvious choice for regulating space debris than the FCC.

Sure, it would seem more obvious, but that's the federal government. Why are the NPS and BLM under the DOI but USFS is under the USDA? Tons of USFS land borders NPS and BLM so it seems like one department in charge would make sense...

I'm going to guess NASA didn't want it or wasn't trusted to do so. They're rocket scientists, not trash men / women.

The FAA does planes.

It's like - I'm guessing - the FCC got it because the first non-gov satellites were for comms. It's not likely the Luddites in Washington DC would have anticipated the situations we have today.

> The FAA does planes.

They also oversee the launch and reentry of space vehicles, amongst numerous other roles.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/as...

But when did that role begin?

> Why are the NPS and BLM under the DOI but USFS is under the USDA?

Because forestry is agriculture with trees as the crop. While USFS lands are often used by the public recreationally in the same way as parks, they have a fundamentally different purpose that aligns exactly with the different government departments they are part of.

How do you fit the BLM in the mix then? Tons of grazing happens on BLM land. Quarries, mines, and oil/gas wells happen on both USFS and BLM land. Recreation happens on both. It seems like one agency administrating public lands makes more sense.

Different agencies results in different responses to the same problems, for example, white nose syndrome affecting bats in caves.

The ITU has been around since 1865. Hence the FCC's involvement.

Not sure that's true. A sibling comment suggests the opposite -- that the party that launches the satellite is responsible. I did a little digging, and some discussion around the text of the Outer Space Treaty appears to suggest that India is responsible for it[0].

[0] https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/25981/might-isros-...

The first paragraph of that question says 'address the possibility that a US company may have had spacecraft launched into orbit without the appropriate approval from the US government.'

This is a discussion of another offence against a different document and assumes the first offence against FCC regulations is valid. Be careful not to conflate the two, one causes the other.

> I'm struggling to understand what Swarm did wrong here

They're a US company not following US law.

> they launched from an INDIAN launcher

And? If it's illegal to, say, hack into your competitors servers and steal all their intellectual property, you don't get to mail a server to somewhere with weak IP laws, and then do all the theft.

> Seriously -- what power does the FCC hope to exert at this point?

Well, they can fine the hell out of Swarm (as the article explicitly states, so I'm not sure why you seem confused on this point)! That's what US regulators do when US companies violate US regulations, as (apparently) happened here.

> We live in a world where launchers exist in other countries

That doesn't do you much good if you aren't in the other country. If they wanted to not follow US laws, they probably should have moved somewhere else first.

> If it's illegal to, say, hack into your competitors servers and steal all their intellectual property, you don't get to mail a server to somewhere with weak IP laws, and then do all the theft.

Wait, why not?

Because you're still a US company which has to comply with US laws... As long as the US government finds you at fault, it can nab you and all your US assets if it pleases. Now, if you emigrate entirely and bring all your employees, assets and family and are okay with never setting foot on US soil again, then you can breach all the US laws you want

It's like committing mail fraud but sending the mail via a PO box in another country, or wire fraud and routing the call abroad. There's no magic pixie dust about the internet in cases like this, it's just another telecoms and delivery service and we've had those for a long time with settled law governing them.

According to the Outer Space Treaty (1967), which is still current international law and of which the USA is a signatory, the LAUNCHING STATE is the responsible party. The FCC is overstepping its bounds here.

This is just a company doing what any good company would do, shopping around for the best venue/set of rules for it's business. That's why companies physically located in Illinois or California incorporate in Maryland. Since India was willing to take responsibility for the launch, the USA (and FCC) is just out of the picture.

A. Swarm did what was necessary with the current state of law. It's in the spirit so I say they get a pass. Safety amongst other spacecraft is separate issue.

B. FCC will try to go overbounds--there's no law stopping them too.

Quid Pro Quo is all I have to say aside from it's exciting there's a DIY spacecraft community!

Both India and Spaceflight Industries agree that they won't launch anything from the US without a US license. This is a company that lied to everyone involved.

but we think they launched from india. other comments suggest its an Indian decision about launching.

As the article points out, satellite operators are free to choose which nation's regulatory regime they launch under, but they do have to pick one.

If India freely made an agreement with the US to only launch FCC approved US satellites by US operators, that's India's choice. As it happens India didn't actually grant them a license to launch either, they just lied about having a US license, so technically they're probably in violation of Indian law as well or at least in breach of contract.

> Maryland

Delaware?

That cannot exclude local enforcement.

They're an American company, they follow American laws, including FCC regulations

So, would an American company selling Kinder Eggs in Poland be in trouble for breaking FDA regulations?

No because there's no law that says that American companies can't sell Kinder Eggs in Poland. There is a law that says they need FCC permission to launch satellites though.

Companies can be fined for what they do overseas. A prime example is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which makes it possible to punish American companies for bribery overseas, even in countries where bribery isn't illegal or where the line between bribes and processing fees is blurred. Additionally, I know it's also possible to sue a foreign company for something they did in a foreign land. The US in that case may freeze assets associated with company or the country as a whole if the they're pissed off enough.

> Hold on -- is the FCC an international body?

Do all employees of Swarm live in international waters?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com