4 ms·

> FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly said the size of the penalty “is probably not significant enough to deter future behavior, but the negative press coverage is l

> FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly said the size of the penalty “is probably not significant enough to deter future behavior, but the negative press coverage is likely to prevent this company and others from attempting to do this again.” To me, this reads like they're abdicating their responsibility. I'm sure their goal is to punish the company without destroying it. But if even the regulator doesn't believe the fine is going to serve as a deterrent, why do we even have a regulator for this arena?

criddell 8y ago
> punish the company without destroying it Aside from a massive fine, is there anything else they could have done? Could they have jailed the executives and investors? Could they have revoked their corporate charter?
- blihp 8y ago
  If the goal was truly to discourage the action, the obvious thing to do would have been to require the company to de-orbit, or otherwise forfeit the use of, the satellites. If the company had sufficient funding the message received would have been 'well, we better not do that again'. If it didn't have sufficient funding, that would have been the message to all the companies that came after. The fine barely represents a speeding ticket and signals to anyone else that there will be effectively no action if they do the same thing in the future.
  - mirashii 8y ago
    Just as an FYI, there doesn't exist a way to deorbit those any faster than they are already decaying, so that's not a real option.
    - blihp 8y ago
      Thanks for the info... I wasn't aware that there was no means of propulsion on those. Oh well, it's not like that option would have been seriously considered if there was.
- howard941 8y ago
  > Could they have jailed the executives Probably not. https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1068-violation-fcc-regulations-47-usc-502 https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1068-vio... > and investors? Passive investors? No > Could they have revoked their corporate charter? The Commission couldn't, no. Corporate entity revocation (dissolution) is more a thing that happens when the entity fails to pay fees to a state or territory than it is a punishment: It's intentionally trivially easy to create corporate entities.
sokoloff 8y ago
I read that as "the financial penalty is not significant enough on a standalone basis to deter future violations, but that perhaps the fine combined with the press coverage may prevent it." If you're a VC or company backer now, how willing are you to put your money behind some company that's liable to be the second intentional violator of these regulations?
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  I think there must be enough VCs out there who are willing to intentionally snub regulations, otherwise companies like Uber, Lyft and Lime would never exist.
- carbocation 8y ago
  Yes, I read this the same way you did, but I came to a different conclusion. If the regulatory agency will tailor-make your fine to make sure that it's not too stiff, I don't see why any startup would follow the rules the first time around. Compliance has costs. If you ignore compliance and your project doesn't work, then you spared yourself the time and money needed for compliance, and you won't care about the fine. If you ignore compliance and your project does work, then the fine will not kill you, and you'll know it's worth coming into compliance. I don't think I'm more "move fast and break things" than the average HN'er; this just seems like the logical outcome of fines that are intentionally too small. What am I overlooking?
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    I'm also working under the assumption that the fine has some statutory basis and that might be limiting the regulator (perhaps negatively from their point of view, positively from my point of view). I wouldn't want the FCC to have arbitrary and unlimited power.
    - illumin8 8y ago
      The assumption I'm making based on the press (that certain FCC commissioners disagreed with the original fine) is that the current GOP-controlled FCC commissioners like Ajit Pai intentionally reduced the fine because they want to be a "pro-Business" FCC. When your political agenda is intent upon removing any teeth that a regulatory body has so that you can recreate your perfect libertarian state, you see fines like this that are toothless.
btown 8y ago
To me, this reads like “yea we know this is BS, the press coverage is actually likely to just communicate that you can get away with this type of thing with just a slap on the wrist, but our hands are tied in how we can penalize this.” To the larger point, though, even an imperfect regulator is important. There will always be different types of businesses - those who intend to skirt the law and those who attempt to follow it whatever it may be - and regulators keep the second set from acting like the first set, reducing the quantity of bad behavior. They certainly wish they had the fangs to deter both, but at least this may deter the latter.
- carbocation 8y ago
  Yes, I think your interpretation is supported by the next line in the article, too: "O’Rielly said an initial fine negotiated by FCC staff was rejected by some commissioners, which led to reopening settlement talks."
ceejayoz 8y ago
The size of this penalty alone isn't likely to be a deterrent. The fact that the next penalty doesn't have to be $900k is the deterrent. It's a lot harder to say "we thought it was OK" now.
- dr_orpheus 8y ago
  I believe this will definitely be true. I'm sure that Swarm will have a very difficult time obtaining their next license for whatever they launch. It is already very difficult for a commercial company to get an FCC license. Especially when you are a small company with limited resources like Swarm. I worked for a different smallsat company, including working on the FCC application and it was a nightmare dealing with them. We submitted our initial application for a license, got comments back from the FCC and then we provided them with more data in response to their questions. Then after 2 years of the FCC just sitting on our license application we got a 3 sentence letter saying out application had been denied with no explanation of why.
  - wbl 8y ago
    Meanwhile a bunch of people put up satellites as a hobby, and having been doing it since the 4th satellite ever.
    - dr_orpheus 8y ago
      The hobbyist satellites still have to get licenses to communicate like everyone else. They are usually "dropped off" in low orbits, which are below the ISS and will decay in a few months so there isn't a concern with orbital debris.
      - wbl 8y ago
        Yes they get the license like everyone else. That undermines your complaint about how onerous it is. And OSCAR has lifetimes of more then a few months.
        8y ago

criddell 8y ago

> punish the company without destroying it Aside from a massive fine, is there anything else they could have done? Could they have jailed the executives and investors? Could they have revoked their corporate charter?

blihp 8y ago
If the goal was truly to discourage the action, the obvious thing to do would have been to require the company to de-orbit, or otherwise forfeit the use of, the satellites. If the company had sufficient funding the message received would have been 'well, we better not do that again'. If it didn't have sufficient funding, that would have been the message to all the companies that came after. The fine barely represents a speeding ticket and signals to anyone else that there will be effectively no action if they do the same thing in the future.
- mirashii 8y ago
  Just as an FYI, there doesn't exist a way to deorbit those any faster than they are already decaying, so that's not a real option.
  - blihp 8y ago
    Thanks for the info... I wasn't aware that there was no means of propulsion on those. Oh well, it's not like that option would have been seriously considered if there was.
howard941 8y ago
> Could they have jailed the executives Probably not. https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1068-violation-fcc-regulations-47-usc-502 https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1068-vio... > and investors? Passive investors? No > Could they have revoked their corporate charter? The Commission couldn't, no. Corporate entity revocation (dissolution) is more a thing that happens when the entity fails to pay fees to a state or territory than it is a punishment: It's intentionally trivially easy to create corporate entities.

sokoloff 8y ago

I read that as "the financial penalty is not significant enough on a standalone basis to deter future violations, but that perhaps the fine combined with the press coverage may prevent it." If you're a VC or company backer now, how willing are you to put your money behind some company that's liable to be the second intentional violator of these regulations?

AmericanChopper 8y ago
I think there must be enough VCs out there who are willing to intentionally snub regulations, otherwise companies like Uber, Lyft and Lime would never exist.
carbocation 8y ago
Yes, I read this the same way you did, but I came to a different conclusion. If the regulatory agency will tailor-make your fine to make sure that it's not too stiff, I don't see why any startup would follow the rules the first time around. Compliance has costs. If you ignore compliance and your project doesn't work, then you spared yourself the time and money needed for compliance, and you won't care about the fine. If you ignore compliance and your project does work, then the fine will not kill you, and you'll know it's worth coming into compliance. I don't think I'm more "move fast and break things" than the average HN'er; this just seems like the logical outcome of fines that are intentionally too small. What am I overlooking?
- sokoloff 8y ago
  I'm also working under the assumption that the fine has some statutory basis and that might be limiting the regulator (perhaps negatively from their point of view, positively from my point of view). I wouldn't want the FCC to have arbitrary and unlimited power.
  - illumin8 8y ago
    The assumption I'm making based on the press (that certain FCC commissioners disagreed with the original fine) is that the current GOP-controlled FCC commissioners like Ajit Pai intentionally reduced the fine because they want to be a "pro-Business" FCC. When your political agenda is intent upon removing any teeth that a regulatory body has so that you can recreate your perfect libertarian state, you see fines like this that are toothless.

btown 8y ago

To me, this reads like “yea we know this is BS, the press coverage is actually likely to just communicate that you can get away with this type of thing with just a slap on the wrist, but our hands are tied in how we can penalize this.” To the larger point, though, even an imperfect regulator is important. There will always be different types of businesses - those who intend to skirt the law and those who attempt to follow it whatever it may be - and regulators keep the second set from acting like the first set, reducing the quantity of bad behavior. They certainly wish they had the fangs to deter both, but at least this may deter the latter.

carbocation 8y ago
Yes, I think your interpretation is supported by the next line in the article, too: "O’Rielly said an initial fine negotiated by FCC staff was rejected by some commissioners, which led to reopening settlement talks."

ceejayoz 8y ago

The size of this penalty alone isn't likely to be a deterrent. The fact that the next penalty doesn't have to be $900k is the deterrent. It's a lot harder to say "we thought it was OK" now.

dr_orpheus 8y ago
I believe this will definitely be true. I'm sure that Swarm will have a very difficult time obtaining their next license for whatever they launch. It is already very difficult for a commercial company to get an FCC license. Especially when you are a small company with limited resources like Swarm. I worked for a different smallsat company, including working on the FCC application and it was a nightmare dealing with them. We submitted our initial application for a license, got comments back from the FCC and then we provided them with more data in response to their questions. Then after 2 years of the FCC just sitting on our license application we got a 3 sentence letter saying out application had been denied with no explanation of why.
- wbl 8y ago
  Meanwhile a bunch of people put up satellites as a hobby, and having been doing it since the 4th satellite ever.
  - dr_orpheus 8y ago
    The hobbyist satellites still have to get licenses to communicate like everyone else. They are usually "dropped off" in low orbits, which are below the ISS and will decay in a few months so there isn't a concern with orbital debris.
    - wbl 8y ago
      Yes they get the license like everyone else. That undermines your complaint about how onerous it is. And OSCAR has lifetimes of more then a few months.
      - 8y ago