3 ms·

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

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.
jstanley 8y ago
I don't think you're overlooking anything, that sounds eminently reasonable. New companies with new ideas can get their first projects off the ground cheaply. As they become established and do more projects, they abide by the rules. There's only a small number of "rule-breaking" projects, and plenty of scope for innovation. Where's the problem?
- dsr_ 8y ago
  Let's start a new LLC for every launch. After all, launches are expensive, and LLCs are cheap. FCC will only penalize us a little because it's always the first launch. A little later: the FCC said we couldn't do that with LLCs that we own or are directed by people who work for us, so let's hire a series of unconnected LLCs, one per launch. We'll have to pay a bit more, but it's always the first launch. We just sell them satellites and connect them with buyers. A little later: oops, Ajit Pai is doing community service for the rest of his life. Let's find a new loophole.
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  The problem is when the harmful consequences of that innovation that hits society is much larger than the value of the innovation. A second, slightly less important problem is that this turns markets into government-sponsored winner takes all, even when the market conditions aren't pushing for that.
howard941 8y ago
There was quite a bit of willful violation here involving not only the launches but also the balloon and satellite communications. The only significant thing I can think of you've not mentioned is the commission's political composition and the signal the small fine sends for multiple knowing, intentional violations is "go for it".

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.

jstanley 8y ago

I don't think you're overlooking anything, that sounds eminently reasonable. New companies with new ideas can get their first projects off the ground cheaply. As they become established and do more projects, they abide by the rules. There's only a small number of "rule-breaking" projects, and plenty of scope for innovation. Where's the problem?

dsr_ 8y ago
Let's start a new LLC for every launch. After all, launches are expensive, and LLCs are cheap. FCC will only penalize us a little because it's always the first launch. A little later: the FCC said we couldn't do that with LLCs that we own or are directed by people who work for us, so let's hire a series of unconnected LLCs, one per launch. We'll have to pay a bit more, but it's always the first launch. We just sell them satellites and connect them with buyers. A little later: oops, Ajit Pai is doing community service for the rest of his life. Let's find a new loophole.
marcosdumay 8y ago
The problem is when the harmful consequences of that innovation that hits society is much larger than the value of the innovation. A second, slightly less important problem is that this turns markets into government-sponsored winner takes all, even when the market conditions aren't pushing for that.

howard941 8y ago

There was quite a bit of willful violation here involving not only the launches but also the balloon and satellite communications. The only significant thing I can think of you've not mentioned is the commission's political composition and the signal the small fine sends for multiple knowing, intentional violations is "go for it".