Hacker News Reader

Comment by metaphor | Hacker News Reader

$150,000...restated, 0.014% of cash and cash equivalents on balance sheet[1], or 0.004%/0.738% of 23Q2 revenue/profit[2], respectively.

I really doubt $150k is anywhere near sufficient to cover just the FCC's administrative costs on this one case alone. Megacaps are laughing all the way to the bank if this is all they're demanding a barely midcap company dish out, so to speak.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1001082/000155837023...

[2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1001082/000155837023...

View on HN

> really doubt $150k is anywhere near sufficient to cover just the FCC's administrative costs on this one case alone

This is a novel enforcement action. The point is to show it exists, not bankrupt the satellite industry for sport. The real threat, in any case, isn’t monetary penalties: it’s license revocation.

It doesn't appear that they revoked their license in this case, so it seems that there is still zero meaningful consequence for this company who left their trash where it doesn't belong in orbit.

I'm not suggesting that the FCC should bankrupt an entire industry just for sport, but it'd sure be nice if they imposed an actual penalty against companies who violate their license and pollute the space around our planet forcing everyone else to dodge their trash and risking collisions.

This pathetic slap on the wrist isn't going to cause Dish to think twice about not cleaning up after themselves in the future.

> This pathetic slap on the wrist isn't going to cause Dish to think twice

Only if they assume the punishment never change. A slap on the wrist is a warning.

Really strange viewpoint in this sub-thread.

If a new government agent shows up telling you to pay it, it doesn't really matter how much they ask on day one; what you have to deal with is that they're real, they're aware, and they're monitoring you now. It's undeniable. That is the change you are confronted with, and it's very real. The point isn't to put a company out of business at the first strike. It's to convince them, the board, CEO, etc that this is a real thing and they need to adjust. Before that happens, you might never really know which laws people care about and which they don't.

Indeed. Imagine if fines for individuals worked that way:

"We have video evidence of you tossing a lit cigarette next to a hiking trail in Yosemite National Park. You are hereby fined... 2.3 cents, payable within 30 days. You can appeal this ruling."

"Umm... I don't actually carry any coins..."

I don't know what the actual fine for tossing a lit cigarette next to a hiking trail in Yosemite National Park actually is, but I'm guessing that I'm going to think it is too low when I hear the actual fine. I know that I found myself in a conversation with a ranger when I found out I was participating in an non-permitted event (even though I was explicitly told otherwise). I received 2 citations with each carrying a $500 fine. Neither of my citations involved the possibility of burning down the park. So I'm basing my expectation of a fine off of those.

> but I'm guessing that I'm going to think it is too low when I hear the actual fine

> [...]

> I received 2 citations with each carrying a $500 fine.

A $1000 fine in the absence of any actual damage is completely insane and potentially life-altering for low-income people. I cannot imagine what would make you think such a fine is "too low".

I guess this is what happens when people are raised in a society where crippling punishments for slight offenses are the norm, as long as the offender is a person and not a corporation or government institution.

the $500 fine was the max allowed. when i appeared in court, they presented me the with the max and threat of jail time in the hopes i would provide information in trade for a reduction. there's a whole lot more to the situation that i'm not going into in a public forum, so you can continue to ponder the situation like you know everything.

based on the max fines being $500 for the tickets i received, i would absolutely hope that some idiot throwing a lit cigarette to the ground in a national park would be hit with a maximum fine as well. at this point, i wouldn't mind living in whatever cotton candy land you live in where a lit cigarette starting a forest fire than burns down half the state is a "slight offense". "potentially life-altering for low-income people" means nothing to me in this regard when other people can lose their home or worse because someone can't be bothered to put out their cancer stick.

They were saying you were fined egregiously for a slight offense, not that tossing a lit cigarette would be. I tend to agree, potentially $1000 for accidentally attending an unpermitted event is an absolutely bonkers amount, even as a theoretical max.

You're totally reading stuff into this that's not accurate. I have no idea where you get the concept I accidentally attended anything. I never said that I was ticketed for attending the event. From the views of the rangers, I was an active participant. The rangers originally planned to hit me with way more severe charges than a couple of tickets, but after a rational conversation with them, they realized I was not in charge. A bit of advice, don't look like you're in charge when the cops show up.

> I know that I found myself in a conversation with a ranger when I found out I was participating in an non-permitted event (even though I was explicitly told otherwise)

This is what I read. You didn't know you were attending a non-permitted event (I.e., "accidentally attended an unpermitted event"). Obviously you knew you were in attendance, but not that the event wasn't allowed, just like you said. Not sure how I could possibly be "reading into", sounds like I got it exactly right. I also understood from your original telling that the ranger knew you had no idea what was going on. It's more alarming that the organizers got more severe punishment than you, not less. Nothing you've said makes a max $1k fine less insane.

Attending the event and participating are two different concepts that I think you are trying to conflate as being the same. The people attending the event were told to pack up their stuff and leave. None of them were stopped or questioned. I was not one of them. Because I was not one of those attendees that left, by the ranger's logic, I must be involved in putting the event together. Because I'm a sucker and tried to help others, it gave the impression I was in charge.

As you can tell, I'm intentionally not going into the minute details. I'm not Sam Bankman-Friedman talking about a criminal case that I had to deal with. It is however something that I do now have a personal experience with fines from the breaking the rules in a national park. If the fines the fines for tossing a lit cigarette that could burn down the state are not at least in the vicinity of what I faced for a trivial offense, I will be very unhappy.

This is well past where I've wanted to take this, and I'll take it no futher

I agree with not trying to over penalize low income people in the absence of damage, but I think the other purpose is to act as a sort of insurance for the ones that were unlucky where the same act did cause damage larger than they can afford to cover.

> 2.3 cents

The exaggeration isn't even necessary, this is like a $1 fine for someone who makes $100k/yr and $30k on hand. I've had parking tickets which cost more for things which weren't even my fault (missing signage) but had to pay anyways because it's even more costly to take it to court.

On twitter there was talk that the real cost here is Dish admitting fault.

As that is reportedly going to cause a noticable increase in their future launch insurance costs.

That is the big thing here in addition to the fine.

In guessing space insurance is done by a human not a dumb algorithm. I reckon the human can be persuaded to ignore parking fees when deciding the risk of the rocket blowing up.

> As that is reportedly going to cause a noticable increase in their future launch insurance costs.

Interesting speculation...except there's this eyebrow raising P&E footnote buried in their 10-K filing[1; p. F-33]:

>> We generally do not carry commercial launch or in-orbit insurance on any of the satellites that we own and therefore, we will bear the risk associated with any uninsured launch or in-orbit satellite failures.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1001082/000155837023...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com