8 ms·

How does the FCC have jurisdiction? Maybe the radio broadcast in US territory. However, it was not even an American rocket? I am sorry, but not sure how the FC

by anfilt 9y ago

How does the FCC have jurisdiction? Maybe the radio broadcast in US territory. However, it was not even an American rocket? I am sorry, but not sure how the FCC has any jurisdiction here. However, I can see the issue with them being small and hard to and track, but still not sure how FCC is even the right entity to handle this. However, the US is also is weird for instance taxes are based of citizenship not were you live geographically. For instance if you have lived in Japan for 10 years you still would have to pay taxed back to the US.

giarc 9y ago
>The FCC is responsible for regulating commercial satellites, including minimizing the chance of accidents in space. Perhaps also important is that Swarm is an American company.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  And the FCC is a group chartered with regulating interstate communications, not with being orbital traffic cops.
  - kosievdmerwe 9y ago
    And the secret service was originally tasked with protecting the monetary system. Organizations can expand their duties based on criteria other than their initial charter.
  - olympus 9y ago
    The FCC is charged with regulating communications of all distances, not just those crossing state lines. One of their primary missions is ensuring fair access to the wireless spectrum and keeping someone from jamming it and preventing others from communicating legally. Satellites must communicate to be effective, and satellites form a significant portion of our communications backbone. A rogue satellite operating over spectrum it isn't licensed for prevents other from using that spectrum, and a rogue satellite colliding with another satellite could cause debris and disable a bunch of other communications platforms. The FCC isn't being orbital traffic cops, it is doing its job. While the FCC has done a bunch of distasteful stuff regarding net neutrality recently, the folks taking actin agains Swarm are clearly in the right.
- londons_explore 9y ago
  Perhaps swarm set up a foreign subsidiary to do the launch, and then got permission from a foreign regulating body.
  - olympus 9y ago
    Its possible, but the fact that they applied for a US license that was denied makes any actions taken by a foreign headquartered company look fishy. At the very least, the US based portion of the company is still responsible for following the law in the US and the foreign country would be held responsible for approving the launch of a dangerous satellite if there is ever a collision. Considering that the founder and the employees live and work in California there probably isn't a foreign headquarters and probably isn't approval from a foreign country.
juandazapata 9y ago
American company using American banking system. FCC has all the jurisdiction. They should've incorporated in a different country.
- adventured 9y ago
  That wouldn't make any difference at all. If they go to India or New Zealand, and cause havoc for the FCC by doing something stupid, the US can crush them just the same by working with those governments. Essentially all nations capable of putting things into space have generally shown a desire to be good neighbors with everyone else when it comes to space. Just going to a different country wouldn't spare a company from the consequences of their actions.
  - 4ad 9y ago
    So you are saying the US is the world's bully and we'd better get in line?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - s73v3r_ 9y ago
      No, they're saying that all of the space-going nations tend to cooperate, and that they generally want to keep things safe for all.
  - r3bl 9y ago
    > Essentially all nations capable of putting things into space have generally shown a desire to be good neighbors with everyone else when it comes to space. China intentionally blew up one of their old satellites in 2007, in an event that increased the amount of space debris by as much as 75%. NATO responded a month later by adopting guidelines for such thing never to happen again. More info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_mi...
- asdsa5325 9y ago
sjs382 9y ago
They're physically located in, do business in, and are incorporated in the US.
- patrickyeon 9y ago
  That's a different Swarm. The one making satellites is http://www.swarm-technologies.com/ http://www.swarm-technologies.com/ The rest of what you said is correct though: the FCC has jurisdiction because the company being discussed is an American one.
  - sjs382 9y ago
    Fixed! (for reference, I incorrectly stated "Hell, even their domain name is a .us")
iaw 9y ago
The company that produced the payload for the rocket is in the US and was denied their application to launch this payload because it poses a risk to other satellites and spacecraft. If all companies were outside of the US then it would come down to whether a treaty or similar agreement exists (of which I am not aware).
- JorgeGT 9y ago
  > a treaty or similar agreement exists (of which I am not aware). If you're interested you can take a look at the "five United Nations treaties on outer space" which are the basis of international space law: http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties.html http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties.html Specifically, under the terms of the Space Liability Convention, a state which launches an object into space is liable for damages caused by that object. A practical example was the crash of Kosmos 954 over northern Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954
  - iaw 9y ago
    I can't upvote you more than once, but thank you! This'll be interesting to look into.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> How does the FCC have jurisdiction? Because of its regulatory authority over commercial sstellites; the operator of these satellites applied to the FCC for approval and was denied because they did not meet safety (detectability by certain instruments) requirements. > but still not sure how FCC is even the right entity to handle this. It's the “right entity” because of the responsibility assigned to it by Congress. Whether Congresd should have given that responsibility to some other agency is, perhaps, a valid question, but fairly distant from the immediate case.
- 4ad 9y ago
  > It's the “right entity” because of the responsibility assigned to it by Congress. I was not aware the US Congress has jurisdiction over the entire planet.
  - parent5446 9y ago
    I'll bite. They don't, but they very much do have jurisdiction over the operation of domestic corporations engaged in interstate commerce, which this clearly is.
    - 4ad 9y ago
      Correct, and that is an US-internal dispute between whoever is responsible (FCC seems to think it is) and that particular company. But this HN discussion is not about that at all. Most of the comments here about jurisdiction in space. FCC has no jurisdiction on that, although they surely seem to think they do, and it's bewildering to see all the US-centric comments who also think that. Is what Swarm did bad? Yes, if we were to take FCC at face value (why should we?). Should the FCC be allowed to reprimand this american company? Probably, assuming FCC is telling the truth. Should the FCC act like the universal arbiter of space? No, it should not, and the sociopolitical attitude displayed here is much worse and harmful than the space pollution from Swarm.
      - parent5446 9y ago
bozomcgee123 9y ago
The outer space treaty requires countries to take responsibility for/regulate their citizens and corporations actions in outer space. Regardless of location that such activities take place. This is why rocket lab has a FAA launch license, despite operating out of new zealand. Also, Senator Ted Cruz has been calling for revisiting this requirement in the outer space treaty. I’m not sure if anyone knows why yet - presumably he is getting some preasure from somewhere to modify it. I know it had some people scratching their heads as to why for a while. It’s not like the treaty is prescriptive. Maybe he wants corps or individuals to be able to have sovereignty in outer space or something.
DoubleCribble 9y ago
>For instance if you have lived in Japan for 10 years you still would have to pay taxed back to the US. Only on US earned income. There are no taxes on any FEI if you stay off of US soil for 330 days in any consecutive 12 month period. [0] [0]https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-earned-income-exclusion-physical-presence-test https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...
- anfilt 9y ago
  Oh at least there is an exclusion. Looking further at this it looks like it start in the year 2006.[0] It has limit $100,800 and some other things that can not be excluded. However, I guess my knowledge was a bit out of date. Although, it would still suck to work 6 months in japan, and then work 6 months in the US for instance. [0]https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-earned-income-exclusion-physical-presence-test https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...
- hudibras 9y ago
  >Only on US earned income. For Japan at least, this is incorrect. If you are an American living in Japan, both countries will tax your unearned income[0], regardless of the source. [0]Social Security and other government pensions being the main exceptions.

by anfilt 9y ago

giarc 9y ago

>The FCC is responsible for regulating commercial satellites, including minimizing the chance of accidents in space. Perhaps also important is that Swarm is an American company.

craftyguy 9y ago
And the FCC is a group chartered with regulating interstate communications, not with being orbital traffic cops.
- kosievdmerwe 9y ago
  And the secret service was originally tasked with protecting the monetary system. Organizations can expand their duties based on criteria other than their initial charter.
- olympus 9y ago
  The FCC is charged with regulating communications of all distances, not just those crossing state lines. One of their primary missions is ensuring fair access to the wireless spectrum and keeping someone from jamming it and preventing others from communicating legally. Satellites must communicate to be effective, and satellites form a significant portion of our communications backbone. A rogue satellite operating over spectrum it isn't licensed for prevents other from using that spectrum, and a rogue satellite colliding with another satellite could cause debris and disable a bunch of other communications platforms. The FCC isn't being orbital traffic cops, it is doing its job. While the FCC has done a bunch of distasteful stuff regarding net neutrality recently, the folks taking actin agains Swarm are clearly in the right.
londons_explore 9y ago
Perhaps swarm set up a foreign subsidiary to do the launch, and then got permission from a foreign regulating body.
- olympus 9y ago
  Its possible, but the fact that they applied for a US license that was denied makes any actions taken by a foreign headquartered company look fishy. At the very least, the US based portion of the company is still responsible for following the law in the US and the foreign country would be held responsible for approving the launch of a dangerous satellite if there is ever a collision. Considering that the founder and the employees live and work in California there probably isn't a foreign headquarters and probably isn't approval from a foreign country.

juandazapata 9y ago

American company using American banking system. FCC has all the jurisdiction. They should've incorporated in a different country.

adventured 9y ago
That wouldn't make any difference at all. If they go to India or New Zealand, and cause havoc for the FCC by doing something stupid, the US can crush them just the same by working with those governments. Essentially all nations capable of putting things into space have generally shown a desire to be good neighbors with everyone else when it comes to space. Just going to a different country wouldn't spare a company from the consequences of their actions.
- 4ad 9y ago
  So you are saying the US is the world's bully and we'd better get in line?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    No, they're saying that all of the space-going nations tend to cooperate, and that they generally want to keep things safe for all.
- r3bl 9y ago
  > Essentially all nations capable of putting things into space have generally shown a desire to be good neighbors with everyone else when it comes to space. China intentionally blew up one of their old satellites in 2007, in an event that increased the amount of space debris by as much as 75%. NATO responded a month later by adopting guidelines for such thing never to happen again. More info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_mi...
asdsa5325 9y ago

sjs382 9y ago

They're physically located in, do business in, and are incorporated in the US.

patrickyeon 9y ago
That's a different Swarm. The one making satellites is http://www.swarm-technologies.com/ http://www.swarm-technologies.com/ The rest of what you said is correct though: the FCC has jurisdiction because the company being discussed is an American one.
- sjs382 9y ago
  Fixed! (for reference, I incorrectly stated "Hell, even their domain name is a .us")

iaw 9y ago

The company that produced the payload for the rocket is in the US and was denied their application to launch this payload because it poses a risk to other satellites and spacecraft. If all companies were outside of the US then it would come down to whether a treaty or similar agreement exists (of which I am not aware).

JorgeGT 9y ago
> a treaty or similar agreement exists (of which I am not aware). If you're interested you can take a look at the "five United Nations treaties on outer space" which are the basis of international space law: http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties.html http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties.html Specifically, under the terms of the Space Liability Convention, a state which launches an object into space is liable for damages caused by that object. A practical example was the crash of Kosmos 954 over northern Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954
- iaw 9y ago
  I can't upvote you more than once, but thank you! This'll be interesting to look into.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> How does the FCC have jurisdiction? Because of its regulatory authority over commercial sstellites; the operator of these satellites applied to the FCC for approval and was denied because they did not meet safety (detectability by certain instruments) requirements. > but still not sure how FCC is even the right entity to handle this. It's the “right entity” because of the responsibility assigned to it by Congress. Whether Congresd should have given that responsibility to some other agency is, perhaps, a valid question, but fairly distant from the immediate case.

4ad 9y ago
> It's the “right entity” because of the responsibility assigned to it by Congress. I was not aware the US Congress has jurisdiction over the entire planet.
- parent5446 9y ago
  I'll bite. They don't, but they very much do have jurisdiction over the operation of domestic corporations engaged in interstate commerce, which this clearly is.
  - 4ad 9y ago
    Correct, and that is an US-internal dispute between whoever is responsible (FCC seems to think it is) and that particular company. But this HN discussion is not about that at all. Most of the comments here about jurisdiction in space. FCC has no jurisdiction on that, although they surely seem to think they do, and it's bewildering to see all the US-centric comments who also think that. Is what Swarm did bad? Yes, if we were to take FCC at face value (why should we?). Should the FCC be allowed to reprimand this american company? Probably, assuming FCC is telling the truth. Should the FCC act like the universal arbiter of space? No, it should not, and the sociopolitical attitude displayed here is much worse and harmful than the space pollution from Swarm.
    - parent5446 9y ago

bozomcgee123 9y ago

The outer space treaty requires countries to take responsibility for/regulate their citizens and corporations actions in outer space. Regardless of location that such activities take place. This is why rocket lab has a FAA launch license, despite operating out of new zealand. Also, Senator Ted Cruz has been calling for revisiting this requirement in the outer space treaty. I’m not sure if anyone knows why yet - presumably he is getting some preasure from somewhere to modify it. I know it had some people scratching their heads as to why for a while. It’s not like the treaty is prescriptive. Maybe he wants corps or individuals to be able to have sovereignty in outer space or something.

DoubleCribble 9y ago

>For instance if you have lived in Japan for 10 years you still would have to pay taxed back to the US. Only on US earned income. There are no taxes on any FEI if you stay off of US soil for 330 days in any consecutive 12 month period. [0] [0]https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-earned-income-exclusion-physical-presence-test https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...

anfilt 9y ago
Oh at least there is an exclusion. Looking further at this it looks like it start in the year 2006.[0] It has limit $100,800 and some other things that can not be excluded. However, I guess my knowledge was a bit out of date. Although, it would still suck to work 6 months in japan, and then work 6 months in the US for instance. [0]https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-earned-income-exclusion-physical-presence-test https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...
hudibras 9y ago
>Only on US earned income. For Japan at least, this is incorrect. If you are an American living in Japan, both countries will tax your unearned income[0], regardless of the source. [0]Social Security and other government pensions being the main exceptions.