We have a free solution already but not as well known - Ham Radio. You can even send email over WinLink.
We basically punted on the 10th amendment with things like the FCC and DOE (education, not energy).
Electromagnetic waves transit state lines pretty much constantly. Even though I'm in Texas I'll get radio waves from Oklahoma, Louisiana, and even Illinois from time to time.
> Talking at a distance has nothing inherently to do with commerce.
Talking at a distance does affect commerce when that talking at a distance interferes with other people trying to talk and conduct interstate commerce. Guess I'll have to state it again, electromagnetic waves transit state lines pretty much constantly.
And it would absolutely affect interstate commerce if every state decided on different frequencies for commercial FM radio, different frequencies for cell phones, different frequencies for TV signals, different encodings for those things, etc. imagine needing to buy a different radio for NY as TX or IL or CA. Or if you needed different cell phones as you traveled state lines.
> We basically punted on the 10th amendment with things like the FCC and DOE
People being illiterate definitely affects interstate commerce. People not being able to count definitely affects interstate commerce.
Fetuses that get aborted might have grown up to be residents of another state who would've bought products there.
Marijuana sold to medical patients in one state may end up in another, reducing alcohol sales.
Socialized medicine programs offered by state governments might lessen the profits of insurance and pharmaceutical firms that are headquartered out of state.
California's labeling laws result in labels that end up on products sold in other states increasing the costs of those products.
State level environmental regulations may impact publicly traded companies and thus the stock market generally, and thereby people in other states. (This one could be used to justify basically anything)
A higher minimum wage in one state may attract workers from out of state.
Educating children about sex might reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and thus accelerate demographic collapse, harming the economy more generally.
A gay pride parade might result in social media posts shown in other states with ads next to it.
The passage or enforcement of any law might result in news stories in other states on for profit media outlets. Similarly the lack of such a law may result less work for journalists as they can't write about a law that doesn't exist.
What was even the point of the 10th amendment if it was intended to be interpreted as it is today? It seems to do nothing.
There's quite the few young hams going for cheap-ass equipment from Amazon. Not everyone can afford an ICOM station from the get-go, you start with small cheap stuff and work your way up.
It’s true that there’s no [practical] enforcement of it, in much the same way there’s no enforcement of the OTH Radars from various militaries that take out large chunks of the HF amateur bands every now and then.
So no, high-entropy random noise of substantial length wouldn't be allowed because the meaning of the message would be unclear and unknowable.
You also can't broadcast one-way messages per 97.113(b), and you're probably not having a two-way conversation with somebody via high-entrypy random noise. So there's also that.
Let's have Princeton PEAR sponsor it. Call it NCC20 for NotChaCha20.
The bandwidth allocated to amateur radio is incredibly valuable. (All of the spectrum allocated to ham radio would probably be worth literally billions if the FCC were allowed to auction it off to the private sector.)
The only thing preventing folks from attempting to use up all that spectrum for commercial purposes is the lack of encryption, which allows the ham radio community to self-police. If the traffic is encrypted, you no longer have any way to distinguish legitimate amateur traffic from commercial interests.
The flip side of this is that the government really doesn't want amateur radio being used to set up otherwise legal transmitters that could potentially be numbers stations for foreign spies. So they consider this one a national security issue and kinda do pay attention to it.
If you want to encrypt, use WiFi mesh networks if you're okay with the range limitations. If you really need ultra-long-range communication, your options are either (a) no encryption so the government+community knows what you're doing, or (b) you pay for a private service, who then inherits the legal obligation to monitor what you're doing with it.
They tried not servicing Crimea due to an unwillingness to get involved in the war, and the DoD quickly made them toe the geopolitical line. (They are also a huge customer of a military-only service called Starshield, also run by SpaceX/Starlink, which either runs separately on the same Starlink satellites, or is dedicated Starshield satellites with very similar technology.) This is the same USG that issues the launch licenses for the entire rest of the business via the FAA, so, like Apple/China, they have little option if they don’t want to be dead in the water.
If the USG wants your dish off, it will be off. No license revocation is required, just a phone call.
I am confused, it's illegal for Starlink to prove access to Russia and Russian occupied areas like Crimea because of US sanctions. So essentially the opposite of what you're claiming.
It was off, per sanctions (and other reasons) as you note.
SpaceX was opposed to turning it back on, presumably wishing to stay out of the geopolitical calculus of the war. They do have a rather lot to lose if war extends to space.
The DoD overruled them, either via requirements for Starshield, or by just laying down the law. Starlink (or perhaps Starshield, same difference) works (for Ukrainian operations) in Crimea now, last I heard.
> wanted to use Starlink as c&c for drone strikes in occupied Crimea
They sent a last second request after realizing Starlink wasn't on in Crimea. Essentially asking SpaceX to violate US law and sanctions.
> SpaceX was opposed to turning it back on
You cannot turn something back on if it was never on in the first place. I see this phrasing everywhere, it's so strange. I guess people say it because it makes it sound like Musk turned off Starlink in order to scupper the Ukrainian attack on the Russian Navy, which is not true. And others keep repeating it because they don't know better.
> The DoD overruled them, either via requirements for Starshield, or by just laying down the law
The law is that SpaceX cannot violate US sanctions. If the US Gov later exempted SpaceX from sanctions and then instructed them to turn on Starlink in Crimea, how is that "laying down the law"? The initial request didn't come from the US gov, it came from Ukraine.
https://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-upholds-decision-to-revoke-ama...
Starlink's character qualification is whether you pay their bill.
This means that Starlink is the one that needs to stay in the good graces of the government, and inherits the obligation to monitor the activities of their users.
I guarantee you if you're using Starlink to commit crimes, they're going to drop you as a customer.