7 ms·

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

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 ...

kingbirdy 9y ago
They're an American company, they follow American laws, including FCC regulations
- criddell 9y ago
  So, would an American company selling Kinder Eggs in Poland be in trouble for breaking FDA regulations?
  - mikeyouse 9y ago
    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.
  - c3534l 9y ago
    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.
throwawayjava 9y ago
> Hold on -- is the FCC an international body? Do all employees of Swarm live in international waters?
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> 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.
- jessriedel 9y ago
  It's still weird that the FCC is the responsible US agency, which was discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16555810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16555810
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > 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_Telecommunication_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunicatio...
    - jessriedel 9y ago
      > 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.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jonathlee 9y ago
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.
- recharged95 9y ago
  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!
- greglindahl 9y ago
  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.
  - Latteland 9y ago
    but we think they launched from india. other comments suggest its an Indian decision about launching.
    - simonh 9y ago
      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.
Lazare 9y ago
> 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.
- scientician 9y ago
  > 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?
  - Arn_Thor 9y ago
    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
  - simonh 9y ago
    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.

kingbirdy 9y ago

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

criddell 9y ago
So, would an American company selling Kinder Eggs in Poland be in trouble for breaking FDA regulations?
- mikeyouse 9y ago
  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.
- c3534l 9y ago
  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.

throwawayjava 9y ago

> Hold on -- is the FCC an international body? Do all employees of Swarm live in international waters?

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> 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.

jessriedel 9y ago
It's still weird that the FCC is the responsible US agency, which was discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16555810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16555810
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > 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_Telecommunication_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunicatio...
  - jessriedel 9y ago
    > 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.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jonathlee 9y ago

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.

recharged95 9y ago
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!
greglindahl 9y ago
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.
- Latteland 9y ago
  but we think they launched from india. other comments suggest its an Indian decision about launching.
  - simonh 9y ago
    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.

Lazare 9y ago

> 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.

scientician 9y ago
> 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?
- Arn_Thor 9y ago
  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
- simonh 9y ago
  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.