Slashdot Mirror


FCC Fines Swarm $900,000 For Unauthorized Satellite Launch (reuters.com)

Swarm Technologies will pay a $900,000 fine for launching and operating four small experimental communications satellites that risked "satellite collisions" and threatened "critical commercial and government satellite operations," the FCC said on Thursday. "The California-based start-up founded by former Google and Apple engineers in 2016 also agreed to enhanced FCC oversight and a requirement of pre-launch notices to the FCC for three years," reports Reuters. From the report: Swarm launched the satellites in India last January after the FCC rejected its application to deploy and operate them, citing concerns about the company's tracking ability. It said Swarm had unlawfully transmitted signals between earth stations in the state of Georgia and the satellites for over a week. The investigation also found that Swarm performed unauthorized weather balloon-to-ground station tests and other unauthorized equipment tests prior to the satellites' launch. Swarm aims to provide low-cost space-based internet service and plans eventually to use a constellation of 100 satellites.

119 comments

  1. Now this is how you avert global warming by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Funny

    By the time the race of various companies to deploy swarms of satellites to provide internet is over, solar rays won't even be able to reach the Earth, much less warm it...

    The globe will appear wholly a steel orb from above. Only that dude driving the Tesla Space Roadster will be able to get a tan.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Now this is how you avert global warming by petermgreen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Lets do some back of the envelope calculations.

      The total revenue of all ISPs in the world is apparently about 600 billion dollars per year. A falcon 9 launch costs about 60 million dollars. So total worldwide ISP revenue could pay for about ten thousand launches per year. Lets ignore the cost of the sattelites themselves and the availability of radio channels to communicate with them. Lets say that goes on for 10 years making a hundred thousand launches. Lets say each one launches 25 small sattelites that weigh a ton each and are about the size of a car with an area of about 5 square meters.

      So in our somewhat ludicrous scenario we have a total of 1.25*10^7 square meters of satellites. The surface area of the earth is about 5*10^14 square meters.

      Satellites won't be blocking out the sun any time soon.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    2. Re: Now this is how you avert global warming by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 2

      The space junk will be blocking on-trivial launches, though.

      All so Facebook users can share their baby pictures and cat videos. And so Amazon can spam their mail order catalogs.

    3. Re: Now this is how you avert global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next time you're outside, put your thumb up to block out the sun.

      Your thumb is not suddenly growing to the same surface area as the sun.

      You are mildly retarded and have failed a basic IQ test, I'm afraid.

    4. Re: Now this is how you avert global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your thumb is much closer to your eyes than the satellites, and is not moving thousands of miles an hour. I have already wasted far more time on you than you are worth.

    5. Re:Now this is how you avert global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The satellites may be much, much smaller. Small enough that it looks like launching consumer Wifi access points and so the tracking issue alluded to in TFS is that if they go dead they may lose track of them.

      https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/fcc-accuses-stealthy-startup-of-launching-rogue-satellites

      I wonder what the lifetime is exactly too. E.g. naturally deorbit within 2-3 years?

    6. Re:Now this is how you avert global warming by nnet · · Score: 1

      Then we just throw more xml at it.

    7. Re:Now this is how you avert global warming by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Fibre optic cable costs a bit more but should be laid when ever a public road is laid, as it lasts quite a bit longer than a satellite, probably something like ten times longer and is a whole lot easier to repair and maintain. Satellites should be all about looking out into space and looking at the earth. Just lay the fibre optic cable already and be done with it for over a century. If backward morons dig it up to sell, well, wait a century and try laying it again, the rest of the world will be much better served by governments laying a fibre optic backbone, no different to public roads. In fact any public road should be served by a fibre optic backbone. Only the insane greed of a tiny handful of incumbent telecoms is blocking better outcomes. Those fuckers should be tried for treason and hung, well, locked up for life.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    last time i checked, the fcc didn't own outer space

    1. Re: jurisdiction by Miamicanes · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, but it *does* unambiguously have jurisdiction over the transmitters the company operated in Georgia.

    2. Re:jurisdiction by rossdee · · Score: 2

      Especially as they were launched from India

    3. Re:jurisdiction by mysidia · · Score: 5, Informative

      last time i checked, the fcc didn't own outer space

      According to the consent decree any entity launching satellites wishing to serve a U.S. market must adhere to all commission rules. Swarm's satellites becomes subject to US jurisdiction the moment one of their satellites transmits or receives a signal to or from a US destination or source.

      Also, as a US company, Swarm is automatically subject to US jurisdiction, and they must adhere to FCC rules and licensing requirements prior to operation of any radio equipment on a ground station or on a satellite in orbit.

    4. Re: jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see new trend, know from UK - transmitters operated from oil platforms or barges ... more than 12 miles from the coast.
      Perhaps rent the space on the floating casino for command & control?
      In another band they can transmit song FSCK FCC ...

    5. Re:jurisdiction by mcvos · · Score: 1

      last time i checked, the fcc didn't own outer space

      That's absolutely an issue. The more affordable and accessible rocket launches become, the easier it will be for companies to avoid US/Russia/EU regulation and launch from countries that have looser regulation. That could be an advantage when the major powers try to hold back some developments (asteroid mining?), but it can definitely lead to dangerous situations. Particularly in LEO. Maybe LEO does need some binding jurisdiction.

    6. Re: jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont known if you have been there paying attention lately but India is about the last place you want to go for digital or economic freedom.

    7. Re: jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure but you can have plenty of Space Freedom from India.

    8. Re:jurisdiction by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      You can launch wherever you want. Just don't have a ground station in the US without a license to communicate with the satellite. If this was an Indian company with their ground stations in India then they would just need to play by India's rules.

    9. Re: jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dangerous...the costs of the launch and equipment mean only a few will do it and they will get it or lose their money.

    10. Re:jurisdiction by mysidia · · Score: 2

      I got news for you about transmissions... they arent "to" a specific place.

      It doesn't matter. The US government has worldwide jurisdiction to regulate ALL the activities of any entity that either
      (1) Is US-based, or (2) Operates in the United States --- operating in the US includes doing any business in the US, residing in the US, or having any substantial activity in the US even through a subsidiary, partnership, or outsourcing arrangement ----- transmitting signals while over US airspace or that can be received at a location in the United States --- and definitely includes all operations of any US-based ground station.

    11. Re:jurisdiction by jythie · · Score: 1

      They do have jurisdiction over US based companies though. Moving your violations overseas is always a risky move.

    12. Re:jurisdiction by jythie · · Score: 1

      This. It was a US company using a US ground station for a US market, that had its permission denied by US regulators so they moved their launch to another country for that particular phase.

    13. Re:jurisdiction by onepoint · · Score: 1

      You are correct that it is an absolute issue, That's why venture capital firms have offshore trusts designed to invest in these items... as long as the money does not show up on the USA books directly, they can not be accounted as illegally earned revenue ( and taxed at the highest rate ).

      So to invest in a company that is doing a launch in India and is India based, I need to move the money offshore, the move it again to another investment entity and then to the company in India. Once the service is perfected, then they move everything to the Europe and the rest of the world.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    14. Re:jurisdiction by onepoint · · Score: 1

      not that simple, your business entity can not be in the USA or some other countries. in reference to launching. each country has rules of the road. and in this case, they were told to fix up or go home, they found a loop hole, got caught and luckily just got a small fine.

      justice department-FCC should have hammered them harder

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    15. Re: jurisdiction by mcvos · · Score: 1

      As big as India is, the world is larger than India.

    16. Re:jurisdiction by PPH · · Score: 1

      They have jurisdiction over ground stations located within their jurisdiction. So DON'T YOU DARE point a dish at a Canadian satellite and try to bypass US TV networks and broadband providers.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    17. Re: jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SUPERPOWER BY 2020!

    18. Re: jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why didn't they just transmit to Mexico? Besides, Mexico would have been much cheaper to launch. They'll put a whale on the moon for $200, so how much do you think a tiny satellite would cost?

    19. Re: jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whaleziac is that you ?

    20. Re:jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      last time i checked, the fcc didn't own outer space

      According to the consent decree any entity launching satellites wishing to serve a U.S. market must adhere to all commission rules. Swarm's satellites becomes subject to US jurisdiction the moment one of their satellites transmits or receives a signal to or from a US destination or source.

      Also, as a US company, Swarm is automatically subject to US jurisdiction, and they must adhere to FCC rules and licensing requirements prior to operation of any radio equipment on a ground station or on a satellite in orbit.

      If that is the case, then at the time of the launch, they were not subject to FCC jurisdiction. So, how can they be fined for putting them in space? I mean, I can see see how they can fine them for using them to transmit to the US... But it seems like the FCC is overreaching here...

    21. Re: jurisdiction by edris90 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever read the story of yurtle the turtle? By Dr Suess. the decrees of the us about it's raining tight to rule, because it said so, always reminds me of that book. Yertle the Turtle king of all he sees took all his fellow Turtles and stood on all their backs claiming to own the sky until the turtle pile collasped on itself. Now all yurtle could see was muck and ruin.

    22. Re:jurisdiction by mysidia · · Score: 1

      If they had no ground stations, receivers/transmitters in the US, then the FCC likely would likely not have had a leg to stand on ---- Not that they would be outside of US legal jurisdiction, But because they'd be outside the regulatory authority delegated to the FCC.
      The FCC's jurisdiction is the radio spectrum and radio stations, in a way the FCC has no authority to regulate "space". The FCC themselves rely on the "loophole" in that they have the regulatory power over radio stations that operate in the US --- including on ground, ship, airplane, or satellite.
                Its just that practically ALL satellites need to be remotely controllable, and they require radio communications for that --- so a satellite without a radio is fairly useless, and the FCC deems for itself the authority to regulate EVERYTHING about a satellite, just because the satellite happens to have a radio on board.

      A car analogy would be like.... the FCC starts making rules about how fast you can design your vehicle to go, because your vehicle has a radio built into it, and the FCC has regulatory power over radios, and therefore, in their view, they can regulate the design, deployment, and use, of any gadget as part of the licensing requirements of the radio which is built into that gadget.

      Over time the FCC deemed for themselves the authority to regulate more than just the frequency usage and the operation of transmitters --- but safety aspects as well, such as required safety hardware, signage, markings and lighting on towers. .... But since all satellites basically need a radio, the FCC just deems satellites as flying transmitters.

      However, even if you are a US citizen and have to follow US laws.... you're still subject to US legal jurisdiction, but when you're outside the US: the FCC's regulations on radios and radio spectrum specifically don't apply to your radio transmissions ---- your FCC licenses aren't even valid (unless through treaty); every country regulates their own spectrum --- usually in cooperation with the ITU -- But in particular, the treaties are such that the FCC cannot apply their regulations.

  3. 100 Satellite Swarm by mentil · · Score: 2

    I'm really wondering how this startup, hoping to deploy up to 100 satellites, is going to have the infrastructure or economy of scale to offer cheaper service than Iridium Next (with 75 satellites) or SpaceX's 12,000 Starlink satellites.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re: 100 Satellite Swarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1) raise funds
      2) spend funds on proof of concept. Lie about future costs
      3) raise lots more funds.
      4) huge pay raise, bonuses and company leases all around.
      5( bankruptcy.

      Remember, excessive optimism is legally distinct from fraud, even if it looks realllllllllly similar.

    2. Re: 100 Satellite Swarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't need to. They just need to develop the tech and patent it, then they sell out to the big guys.

    3. Re: 100 Satellite Swarm by PPH · · Score: 1

      How much is left to patent? LEO communications satellites aren't novel. And tweaking the orbits, number of satellites and/or operating frequencies are 'obvious' changes.

      I guess the only thing left is to append 'using the Internet' and reset the clock on all the patents to zero.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:100 Satellite Swarm by raftpeople · · Score: 1

      Iridium:
      Cost to build=36 million per satellite
      Launch=7 million per satellite

      Swarm:
      Cost to build=50k to 200k per satellite
      Launch=40k per satellite

  4. We can't have that! by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Interesting

    No wonder the FCC is up in arms. A new ISP that is independent from cables down here? That could cut into the profit margins of their masters!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:We can't have that! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Errr no. Bypassing the FCC's requirements and breaking their rules would have happened in the pre Villain of the Internet FCC as well.

    2. Re:We can't have that! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Informative

      No wonder the FCC is up in arms. A new ISP that is independent from cables down here? That could cut into the profit margins of their masters!

      Actually, the problem is that the satellites are smaller than 10cm in one of their dimensions and thus may become untrackable. The US has a duty and authority under the Outer Space Treaty to regulate their citizens to ensure continued access to space for all. Since Swarm Technologies is a US company, it falls under this jurisdiction. India is also a signatory to the treaty and shouldn't have launched this payload if the US didn't approve it.

      From the wiki article:

      "the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty" and that States Parties shall bear international responsibility for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities.

      What's absolutely retarded is that it's easy to make your tiny satellite larger artificially by inflating it. No additional mechanism, you just put a few grams of benzoic acid in a balloon and it will self inflate when it's in space.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:We can't have that! by onepoint · · Score: 1

      finally someone points out some of the issues that are involved.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    4. Re:We can't have that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " India is also a signatory to the treaty and shouldn't have launched this payload if the US didn't approve it."

      the USA can eat a dick. Pretty much if they are against it, then the rest of the world should be for it. I am so sick of you fucking trumpasses. You lost the ability to dictate shit by not revolutioning when that fat russian troll was elected. So sick of it, and heres the rest of the world who just wants to turn you chumps off and never hear about you again.

    5. Re: We can't have that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah well fuck you too. We should cut the old leech world off like our forefathers did. Kick out all the lazy libs. Keep only workers.

    6. Re: We can't have that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libs buy and sell lazy coal mining faggots like your father. You're worth nothing.

    7. Re: We can't have that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, say "lazy coal miner" and expect to be taken seriously.

      You libs really are lazy...can't even come up with a defense so you just repeat after me...I'll lead you off a cliff easily in that braindead game.

  5. If only the FCC could have protected us sooner. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Irresponsible heathens like Marconi and Tesla had no permits or licenses. It's amazing we're still alive without the protection of licensing agencies, permits and bureaucrats. Why, the Wright brothers didn't even have pilot licenses! We need more rules to protect us.

  6. America is circling the drain by hyades1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    America isn't much of a space power anymore. The rest of the world and the corporations it has surrendered its launch capacity to should tell Uncle Sam to just fuck off.

    Russia, China and India are already eating America's lunch. No doubt Kim Jung Nukem will soon be putting up satellites whenever they like, and telling the US to take a long, hard suck on his Taepodong.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:America is circling the drain by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      This has nothing to do with America's space power and everything to do with an American company using American airwaves refusing to follow the rules laid out by the regulator for this sort of thing.

    2. Re:America is circling the drain by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Great! the US government has sucked at rocketry for a long time. It's good we stop wasting money on this garbage and spend it on productive things instead. Let the others waste their wealth. We'll sit and watch with popcorn.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:America is circling the drain by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      If they'd paid the appropriate bribes, none of this would have happened.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    4. Re:America is circling the drain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. This is what crackheads actually believe!

  7. WTF U cant just launch a Satellite where ever? by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Well Fuck that... :(

    --
    [($)]
    1. Re:WTF U cant just launch a Satellite where ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the Uber model of getting into the satellite business.

    2. Re: WTF U cant just launch a Satellite where ever? by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      It's more the Bird/Lime model. Uber doesn't dump hardware they own out on public sidewalks.

  8. Dumb.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this the compny launching those satellites for cali weather? Bold move there guys

    1. Re: Dumb.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose if they renounce citizenship and tell the FCC to go fuck themselves, call assets in Georgia a loss, then people can sign up over the net from wherever. The FCC could always go Great Firewall of China, but once again, fuck them.

  9. How much power does the FCC have? by Bruinwar · · Score: 1

    "The Federal Communications Commission is an independent agency of the United States government created by statute to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable."

    So they don't cover yelling to my neighbor but if I use a wire/cable or any kind of radio, they do? What if someone comes up with new technology that doesn't use wire, cable, satellite, or any known form of radio frequency? Yes, science fantasy, but a big fat what if? The new tech allows large data transfers (including voice of course) with total security. Yes, its Orson Scott Card fantasy but I find the idea intriguing.

    Some folks would go bonkers I'm sure.

    --
    SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
    1. Re:How much power does the FCC have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FCC was the real downfall of the indigenous peoples of North America. They failed to obtain licenses for the use of smoke signals.

    2. Re: How much power does the FCC have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comms that goes up and down to space is not interstate. The FCC is overreaching.

    3. Re:How much power does the FCC have? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Then the FCC would just amend their charter to cover what technology is used.

    4. Re:How much power does the FCC have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might use visible light or near infrared already, that's called free space optics. "Light telephones" were even made really long ago, simply by focusing sunlight and make it wiggle from the sound wave vibrations. They had limited usefulness and range.

    5. Re: How much power does the FCC have? by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Radio signals have always bumped up and down from the ionosphere.

    6. Re:How much power does the FCC have? by jythie · · Score: 2

      Then the FCC would not care. Their whole thing is trying to regulate a limited shared resource: spectrum. If someone develops a communication method that does not have this problem, the FCC likely is not going to care since it does not impact the things they are tasked with regulating.

    7. Re:How much power does the FCC have? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      I'd say about $900,000 worth.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    8. Re:How much power does the FCC have? by Bruinwar · · Score: 1

      OK that makes sense, thanks!

      Although when I said "Some folks would go bonkers..." the FCC wasn't my first thought. I was thinking law enforcement, recording industry, etc. Comcast/AT&T/Verizon might poop their pants a bit also. What the FCC is tasked to regulate would likely be changed fast.

      --
      SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
  10. Speed of light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can anyone tell me the speed of "light" for Gamma rays vs the speed of light for radio waves.

    They should be slightly different, if they are, I can explain where matter is on the EM spectrum.

  11. Re: How many is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and apparantly still less than it would cost to pay a people smuggler to get them out of the former united states.

  12. Just to clarify by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

    The fine isn't for putting satellites in orbit via India after permission from the U.S. was denied. And it's not for operating said satellites after their launch per se. Those factors probably contributed to the FCC being harsh with this company, but they're not the justification for the fine.

    The fine is for transmitting on certain frequencies reserved for communications with satellites. Broadcasting on those frequencies requires a license from the FCC, which this company apparently didn't obtain. According to TFA, they've now obtained that license, and are operating the satellites again.

    1. Re:Just to clarify by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >"The fine is for transmitting on certain frequencies reserved for communications with satellites. Broadcasting on those frequencies requires a license from the FCC,"

      Exactly. There might be a lot of hate on Slashdot toward the FCC for perhaps exceeding their mandate in certain other issues, but THIS particular example is exactly why the FCC exists. If anyone were allowed to just broadcast on whatever frequencies they like for whatever purpose they like, critical infrastructure could be severely impaired and cause real damage/loss/chaos.

    2. Re:Just to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are space-based internet services supposed to be possible in the U.S.? Will every customer be required to get a license from the FCC, or are customers supposed to communicate with the satellite using frequencies that are free to use?

      Maybe the real reason for the fine is that Swarm didn't pay to reserve a set of frequencies for use by them and by customers?

    3. Re:Just to clarify by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The company that owns the satellite and gives you the receiver gets a license to use a specific range of frequencies. They pay FCC for those frequency reservations. In this case Swarm simply used a range of frequencies that wasn't theirs. There are ranges you can use 'free' (eg. 800MHz, 2.4GHz etc) but not at the powers required to reach a satellite (typically you're allowed to use up to 2W as long as you're not interfering with anyone else).

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re:Just to clarify by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      >"The fine is for transmitting on certain frequencies reserved for communications with satellites. Broadcasting on those frequencies requires a license from the FCC,"

      Exactly. There might be a lot of hate on Slashdot toward the FCC for perhaps exceeding their mandate in certain other issues, but THIS particular example is exactly why the FCC exists. If anyone were allowed to just broadcast on whatever frequencies they like for whatever purpose they like, critical infrastructure could be severely impaired and cause real damage/loss/chaos.

      These folk must have been real cowboys. I can get an experimental radio license without much problem, and the rules for balloon launches are pretty straightforward. Straightforward to the point that I could right now conduct relevant research easily, without skirting the law.

      Any restrictions regarding ballooning are strictly safety and letting the FAA know what is going on.

      Why get licensed? Here's the NTIA chart of frequency allocations. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files... I have a big printout of this on my office wall to educate folks who just want to "pick a frequency and go". Now for the satellites. A whole lot of coordination has to happen if you want to put satellites in orbit. They have a troubling aspect of being impromptu kinetic energy weapons, or just space debris that can clog up desirable orbits. If the US denied them, there was probably a good reason. Perhaps we are seeing why.

      These folk are meddling in the affairs of dragons - they should be glad they were only fined by the F.C.C.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:Just to clarify by strikethree · · Score: 1

      If anyone were allowed to just broadcast on whatever frequencies they like for whatever purpose they like, critical infrastructure could be severely impaired and cause real damage/loss/chaos.

      If it is so trivial to impact critical infrastructure and cause real damage/loss/chaos, then why aren't The Terrorists doing it? It is not that hard to build a transmitter.

      I know it is possible to cause some amount of economic chaos, but if that chaos becomes too severe, it is easily solvable with a HARM missile.

      I think you overstate the necessity of the FCC; however, I am not trying to argue against the necessity of the FCC.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    6. Re:Just to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Only official licensed sources of truth are allowed to broadcast into peoples heads.

    7. Re: Just to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because transmitters are a location beacon?
      programmable missiles can lock onto that sort of thing...

  13. This is how big business does things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Illegally, not giving a flying f**k about laws, rules and regulations.

    This is directly from the big book of all things Trump.

  14. Space/LEO != FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LEO needs to be governed by a neutral governing body made up from agencies from all countries, not the FCC, and not part of the FCC.

    Rather than the american 'oh it threatens our monopoly so fuck off' approach (possibly other countries are included there too).

    1. Re: Space/LEO != FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just needed to apply for a license to communicate with the satellite from the us. They actually have it now and are using the four satellites. Launching it from India is not illegal (though I'm surprised they didn't raise the same concerns about trackability of such a small satellite). If they also put the ground stations outside the us no FCC license is required at all.

    2. Re: Space/LEO != FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only the adults had already done exactly that... Oh wait they have. That's what have is the test that have launch authorization responsibility to each country. In the US we delegated that responsibility to the FCC.

  15. Never seen a satellite dish? by raymorris · · Score: 2

    I guess you've never seen a satellite dish?
    It actually matters where you point it.

    Btw, I'm transmitting this message to Slashdot's server, with instructions to post it (htttp verb "POST").

  16. Ps: Maybe you were thinking of "broadcast"? by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you were thinking of the word "broadcast"? Broadcast means to transmit over a wide area. Broadcast and transmit are different words because they have different meanings.

    1. Re:Ps: Maybe you were thinking of "broadcast"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should ask Santa for a thesaurus for christmas this year.

  17. Uh, cellphones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you have a cellphone? Do you have a license for that cellphone? Of course not. The carriers and manufacturers are licensed and the phones are "type-accepted" by the FCC, meaning they meet certain specifications and are legally allowed to transmit on licensed cellular frequencies. Satellite internet service would be the same.

    1. Re: Uh, cellphones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cellphone towers are land-based.

  18. Lawlessness is everywhere. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The idea that we will break the law, pay the fines and life will be grand is a real concern. Lawlessness in businesses is no more than a wild west shout out. By now everyone is aware of the Chinese CFO being arrested in Canada, but what they most likely don't know is that the company (I won't promote a company nor mention its name as it should be forgotten) has taken this strategy. NOT only do they continuously break the law they have actually stated that they will break the law and pay fines as they can achieve greater profits.

    This concept of breaking the law with minimal financial consequences is how China is run. Steal IP, pay a small fine, build up their industries. It is time that fines are increased to fit the crime. These people should have been fined the amount that would have been the cost if things had gone wrong. If they had taken out another company or countries satellites the cost to replace them as well as financial damage should have been the fine. Then people like Boy Musk will put down the crack pipe, spend some time in jail, get his fill of sex, and the world may become a safer place to live. Also, The U.S. and other countries need to use the corporate death penalty to put businesses that abuse the law and shut them down.

    1. Re: Lawlessness is everywhere. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two questions:

      What law(s) has SpaceX/Starlink broken?

      Were you dropped as a child?

  19. Good, we need another company to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is great news! Another company I can sue when Mir/SkyLab/ISS/whatever falls outta the sky! Bring it on!

  20. Re: How many is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Out? To where? No other first world country lets in so many people and provides for them, lets them work, become citizens and so on, legally or otherwise. I dont know what planet you live on but I live on the one where ignorant eurofags post stupid shit on American sites in a failed attempt to insult their superiors and restore their lost glory.

    Hint: a united EU with no borders will not bring back your once global power. It will only hasten your trip to full slavery.

  21. Re: How many is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nicely done.

  22. Fuck the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    last time i checked, the fcc didn't own outer space

    According to the consent decree any entity launching satellites wishing to serve a U.S. market must adhere to all commission rules. Swarm's satellites becomes subject to US jurisdiction the moment one of their satellites transmits or receives a signal to or from a US destination or source.

    Also, as a US company, Swarm is automatically subject to US jurisdiction, and they must adhere to FCC rules and licensing requirements prior to operation of any radio equipment on a ground station or on a satellite in orbit.

    The message the FCC sends with this fine is "Don't base your business in the U.S." No harm was done by the launch and yet the FCC is pissed because the startup didn't ask their permission to operate.

    1. Re: Fuck the FCC by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Or you know, just "If you want to do business in the U.S., you must comply with U.S. laws and regulations."

      You really think any other country would let them continue to operate without comment if they flagrantly violated their laws?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re: Fuck the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The message the FCC sends with this fine is "Don't you dare speak to our vassals."

      FTFY.

      We live behind an economic Iron Curtain. The markets for various products and services are owned by the various companies that have received licenses from The Supreme Soviet. You and I are 'the market' and as such, we are owned by our masters and told who we may or may not associate with.

    3. Re: Fuck the FCC by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Or you know, just "If you want to do business in the U.S., you must comply with U.S. laws and regulations."

      ie. don't base your business in the US. Complying with US laws and regulations eats into profit margins. Why do you think all this outsourcing stuff happens in the first place?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  23. If you're gonna calculate, do It real-like! by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Since you're all serious Mr Frowny Mc FrownFace, did you factor in:

    1) Self replicating satellites that construct new satellites out of sun-beams and cosmic particles or bits of the moon.

    2) What about satellites with unfolding panels that spread super wide, eh?

    3) Absolutely no-where on your envelope did I see calculations involving volume of existing space junk filling gaps! For shame.

    Between all those factors, my new estimates are that in fact there are TWO layers of satellites completely covering the earth.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re: If you're gonna calculate, do It real-like! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why stop there? How about satellites which attack and then cannibalize other satellites, to make more satellites?

    2. Re: If you're gonna calculate, do It real-like! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is how skynet started. Just saying.

  24. Re: How many is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Samefag obviously samefagging.

  25. The permit costs... by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 0

    So what they're telling us is that if you want to launch a bunch of satellites anywhere you like, the permit-cost is $900K. Sounds like a great deal to me.

    1. Re: The permit costs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should be much less to get an experimental license for this test. On the order of 100$. I did it before.

  26. Rain Waste On Suburbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bold capitalists with no care how many people may die when their unauthorized launch blows up and rains waste on an elementary school. Sounds like a SHITHOLE COUNTRY to me.

  27. Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't build your ground station in USA.

  28. Isn't this kind of racist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean enforcing the nations border laws is considered racist. Why is keeping LEO free of debris not racist. That space debris just like undocumented illegal invaders have every right to migrate wherever they want.
        If the illegal invaders out-compete and outfight the native blacks and whites, it just means the white and black people were not strong enough. If my untrackable cubesat damages CNN's 100 million dollar satellite, or if it steps on some freqs, it just means my satellite outcompeted them. CNN should be more inclusive and welcoming of my poor disadvantaged satellites that did not have the benefit of white parents and billions of dollars of lobbying effort.

    End Space Racism. End The FCC. The electromagnetic spectrum is not the exclusive domain of CNN and Fox Media.

  29. Collisions power satelites, increase surface area by aberglas · · Score: 1

    So your even your car size satellite will eventually end up as billion of particles after a few good high speed collisions.

    The surface area of a cube 1m^3 is 6m^2. But if that is smashed into 10^9 mm sized cubes, the area becomes 6000m^2. Smash it into micron sized bits and you might well have an effect on global warming.

    So no need to cut back on coal. Just launch lots of satellites. Makes about as much sense as any other argument in that space.

  30. Re: Hmmm slight jurisdictional overreach? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you think the FCC can fine anybody over a launch?
    Obviously the fine is for the spectrum it uses in the US after being denied a license...because that spectrum is reserved for satellites that already exist.

  31. Re:Hmmm slight jurisdictional overreach? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Launched from India, where the FCC has no jurisdiction, into space, where the FCC has no jurisdiction. Are they actually going to pay this?

    Transmitting to/from the USA, where the FCC has jurisdiction. Being /. I don't expect you to read the article, but c'mon, it was in the summary.

  32. The Valley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... disruption turns out to just be breaking the law and ignoring regulation.

    Great.

  33. Re: How many is that? by edris90 · · Score: 1

    No... They will continue to thrive in freedom, while we become more and more slaves. American freedom has become an oxymoron. All the checks our system to keep the balance have been compromised. Europe will surpass the United States collapse under its own weight because they keep it small and managable

  34. Am I the only one . .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one to be happily surprised to see this law being applied to a corporate entity and not be one of those stupid stories where a high school science team with a balloon and a camera is at the receiving end?

  35. Re:Collisions power satelites, increase surface ar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are LEO satellites. They won't clog things up for long because there's tiny amount of atmospheric drag where they'll be sitting. A compact satellite can deal with it, but as small particles their drag to mass ratio is enormous in comparison, and they have no means of actively maintaining their orbit.