5 ms·
$150k sounds like a rounding error for a satellite operator. Is there a rapidly increasing fee schedule or other penalties, such us restricted future launches?
by rdtsc 3y ago
$150k sounds like a rounding error for a satellite operator. Is there a rapidly increasing fee schedule or other penalties, such us restricted future launches? Otherwise it would be folded into the regular operating expenses.
- krisoft 3y ago> Otherwise it would be folded into the regular operating expenses. If you read the consent decree[1] you can see that the monetary fee is not the only thing DISH agreed to. In section 18 you can see they agreed to implement a compliance plan. Basically they improve on their fuel tracking, and end of mission planning. This makes it more likely that this thing won't happen again, and also makes it easier to argue if it still happens that it happened wilfully. 1: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23-888A2.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23-888A2.pdf
- willcipriano 3y agoWouldn't they have also implemented a compliance program if they were fined 10% of revenue, you know to avoid future fines?
- cryptonector 3y agoThis is like getting a traffic infraction warning ticket from a police officer instead of an actual summons. If it has the desired effect then it's better than the alternative.
- idontpost 3y ago[dead]
- AnthonyMouse 3y agohttps://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/85j254/til_of_the_dazexiang_uprising_in_qin_china_2/ https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/85j254/til_o... > Wouldn't they have also implemented a compliance program if they were fined 10% of revenue, you know to avoid future fines? They would have spent up to 10% of revenue on lawyers and lobbying to get out of the fine entirely and thereby have no fear of another one.
- willcipriano 3y agoSo they are too big to regulate? Great let's split them up.
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoIt's not actually that big of a company. They only made ~$200M last year. But 10% of their revenue is $1.7B. It would cost them almost a decade's worth of profit, so that's how much they'd spend to prevent it, which is plenty enough to influence legislation. "Percent of revenue" fines are dumb and create crazy incentives.
- rdtsc 3y agoWell of course it won't look like a traffic ticket, when they just pay with a credit card online and call it done. There is paperwork and "promises" and agreements. They have to have a compliance "officer" now and they have to report that propellant tracking has been implemented. That's still a drop in the bucket to have to shorten the life of their satellites. The fuel alone probably costs more than $150k.
- epivosism 3y ago[flagged]
- UseStrict 3y agoAh yes, the true day-to-day life we all experience launching multi-million dollar satellites by a multi-billion dollar company, endangering the safe launch and operation of other satellites not just domestic but globally. If they couldn't be bothered to put enough fuel in the cannister to deorbit, they get fined. I don't see why that requires a full trial.
- epivosism 3y agoI just find it strange that in this and the other story, everyone is saying that the initial fine should have been larger. Is the theory that the company is going to ignore this? That seems implausible; I'm guessing that they're scrambling to avoid further problems and make sure the relationship with their regulator is good. From the regulator's perspetive, what benefit would it do to actually put them out of business, or to seriously wound them, or scare them more? Or, are we trying to establish a precedent that "you may be seriously damaged even upon first infraction"? Is that the behavior we want companies to anticipate - that the government will attack super hard upon first infraction? If that's what we want, okay. But to me that seems too strong, since there are tons of laws and rules with arbitrary enforcement; given that it makes sense that when agencies get involved, they initially fire warning shots like this so companies know someone is paying attention. Then in a month, if the company hasn't taken serious steps to solve this, the regulators can start nuking companies who don't comply. I'm definitely pro regulation, but there's a trade-off because companies need to know the rules so they can plan, budget, consult, etc. so having this initial trigger that working to figure out what is allowed/forbidden/etc is good. Companies pre-emptively being extremely scared will have huge costs (money/environmental/speed), too, especially when it's for things which don't matter or which agencies don't actually care about.
- RugnirViking 3y agoI think its a combination of pitiful fines aganst large tech companies in the past which actually have been ignored, and the concern over having so much debris in orbit that space travel becomes difficult or impossible. We could literally ground ourselves - its important to remember that things up there won't come down. While I agree at you that this isnt the adtech buisness staffed by ghouls that see fines as a cost of doing buisness, the idea of adding to space debris is rightfully met with horror, so any amount of money short of compoany-ending will be seen as people getting off lightly
- bryanlarsen 3y ago> other penalties, such us restricted future launches? This. There are other compliance conditions, and failure to comply means no more launch licenses.
- philipwhiuk 3y agoIt establishes a level of liability and bad behaviour which means if it collides with something they'll probably have an easy time suing dish for the cost of the satellite (millions).
- jerf 3y agoIn general, a lot of government fees and penalties are not just about that penalty, it's about the fact that if you do it again, the next one will be much, much bigger. Read the $150K as a warning shot across the bow. There are some places where this doesn't seem to operate very well, particularly in the financial world, but in general, this is often the idea behind these penalties. Especially for the first time a law is getting enforced; it isn't really very just to ignore a law for years/decades and then one day out of the blue slam someone with multi-million dollar judgments. There are even some Common Law doctrines that the targets could use to argue against such penalties holding up in court, though, as always, trying to counter a written law with common law general doctrines is tricky. But I'd say there's at least a good chance you could get a sudden, huge initial penalty argued way down in a lawsuit.
- 3pt14159 3y agoYes. And also, it's bad PR for the team responsible. Managers don't want to have trouble hiring people. After the first fine, the message can be "we're modernizing to stop this from happening!" But getting multiple fines over years is going to make the best of the talent poor essentially unavailable to hire.
- slingnow 3y agoYou really think their hiring pool is going to shrink because they got fined for $150,000? The person they are hiring is likely going to cost more than the whole fine. And OK, let's say they keep getting fined. Seems like a badge of honor these days. Move fast and break things, right? The government just doesn't like, get us, man. We're the good guys here and they're trying to slow us down with red tape and bureaucracy.
- lostlogin 3y agoI think the point you’re responding to is saying it isn’t about the money, it’s the reputation hit. If you have several choices and one is getting sanctioned for shitty practices, maybe you’ll look elsewhere. Saying you’re a rocket engineer sounds pretty neat, but the shine wears off a bit if people recognise your employer for negative reasons.
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoIt’s a novel enforcement action. The point isn’t to bankrupt the American satellite industry, it’s to gently encourage better behaviour.
- Fatnino 3y agoThey also had to accept liability. So if their space junk wrecks some other sattelite they will be super on the hook for the whole cost. Now, most probably nothing is out there waiting to get run over by a derelict Dish bird, but if there was...