FCC Fines Swarm $900,000 For Unauthorized Satellite Launch (reuters.com) 119
Swarm Technologies will pay a $900,000 fine for launching and operating four small experimental communications satellites that risked "satellite collisions" and threatened "critical commercial and government satellite operations," the FCC said on Thursday. "The California-based start-up founded by former Google and Apple engineers in 2016 also agreed to enhanced FCC oversight and a requirement of pre-launch notices to the FCC for three years," reports Reuters. From the report: Swarm launched the satellites in India last January after the FCC rejected its application to deploy and operate them, citing concerns about the company's tracking ability. It said Swarm had unlawfully transmitted signals between earth stations in the state of Georgia and the satellites for over a week. The investigation also found that Swarm performed unauthorized weather balloon-to-ground station tests and other unauthorized equipment tests prior to the satellites' launch. Swarm aims to provide low-cost space-based internet service and plans eventually to use a constellation of 100 satellites.
Now this is how you avert global warming (Score:3, Funny)
By the time the race of various companies to deploy swarms of satellites to provide internet is over, solar rays won't even be able to reach the Earth, much less warm it...
The globe will appear wholly a steel orb from above. Only that dude driving the Tesla Space Roadster will be able to get a tan.
Re:Now this is how you avert global warming (Score:4, Interesting)
Lets do some back of the envelope calculations.
The total revenue of all ISPs in the world is apparently about 600 billion dollars per year. A falcon 9 launch costs about 60 million dollars. So total worldwide ISP revenue could pay for about ten thousand launches per year. Lets ignore the cost of the sattelites themselves and the availability of radio channels to communicate with them. Lets say that goes on for 10 years making a hundred thousand launches. Lets say each one launches 25 small sattelites that weigh a ton each and are about the size of a car with an area of about 5 square meters.
So in our somewhat ludicrous scenario we have a total of 1.25*10^7 square meters of satellites. The surface area of the earth is about 5*10^14 square meters.
Satellites won't be blocking out the sun any time soon.
Re: Now this is how you avert global warming (Score:2)
The space junk will be blocking on-trivial launches, though.
All so Facebook users can share their baby pictures and cat videos. And so Amazon can spam their mail order catalogs.
Collisions power satelites, increase surface area (Score:2)
So your even your car size satellite will eventually end up as billion of particles after a few good high speed collisions.
The surface area of a cube 1m^3 is 6m^2. But if that is smashed into 10^9 mm sized cubes, the area becomes 6000m^2. Smash it into micron sized bits and you might well have an effect on global warming.
So no need to cut back on coal. Just launch lots of satellites. Makes about as much sense as any other argument in that space.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're gonna calculate, do It real-like! (Score:2)
Since you're all serious Mr Frowny Mc FrownFace, did you factor in:
1) Self replicating satellites that construct new satellites out of sun-beams and cosmic particles or bits of the moon.
2) What about satellites with unfolding panels that spread super wide, eh?
3) Absolutely no-where on your envelope did I see calculations involving volume of existing space junk filling gaps! For shame.
Between all those factors, my new estimates are that in fact there are TWO layers of satellites completely covering the ear
Re: (Score:2)
Fibre optic cable costs a bit more but should be laid when ever a public road is laid, as it lasts quite a bit longer than a satellite, probably something like ten times longer and is a whole lot easier to repair and maintain. Satellites should be all about looking out into space and looking at the earth. Just lay the fibre optic cable already and be done with it for over a century. If backward morons dig it up to sell, well, wait a century and try laying it again, the rest of the world will be much better
Re: jurisdiction (Score:5, Informative)
No, but it *does* unambiguously have jurisdiction over the transmitters the company operated in Georgia.
Re: (Score:3)
Especially as they were launched from India
Re:jurisdiction (Score:5, Informative)
last time i checked, the fcc didn't own outer space
According to the consent decree any entity launching satellites wishing to serve a U.S. market must adhere to all commission rules. Swarm's satellites becomes subject to US jurisdiction the moment one of their satellites transmits or receives a signal to or from a US destination or source.
Also, as a US company, Swarm is automatically subject to US jurisdiction, and they must adhere to FCC rules and licensing requirements prior to operation of any radio equipment on a ground station or on a satellite in orbit.
Never seen a satellite dish? (Score:3)
I guess you've never seen a satellite dish?
It actually matters where you point it.
Btw, I'm transmitting this message to Slashdot's server, with instructions to post it (htttp verb "POST").
Ps: Maybe you were thinking of "broadcast"? (Score:2)
Perhaps you were thinking of the word "broadcast"? Broadcast means to transmit over a wide area. Broadcast and transmit are different words because they have different meanings.
Re: (Score:3)
I got news for you about transmissions... they arent "to" a specific place.
It doesn't matter. The US government has worldwide jurisdiction to regulate ALL the activities of any entity that either
(1) Is US-based, or (2) Operates in the United States --- operating in the US includes doing any business in the US, residing in the US, or having any substantial activity in the US even through a subsidiary, partnership, or outsourcing arrangement ----- transmitting signals while over US airspace or that ca
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Or you know, just "If you want to do business in the U.S., you must comply with U.S. laws and regulations."
You really think any other country would let them continue to operate without comment if they flagrantly violated their laws?
Re: (Score:2)
Or you know, just "If you want to do business in the U.S., you must comply with U.S. laws and regulations."
ie. don't base your business in the US. Complying with US laws and regulations eats into profit margins. Why do you think all this outsourcing stuff happens in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
last time i checked, the fcc didn't own outer space
That's absolutely an issue. The more affordable and accessible rocket launches become, the easier it will be for companies to avoid US/Russia/EU regulation and launch from countries that have looser regulation. That could be an advantage when the major powers try to hold back some developments (asteroid mining?), but it can definitely lead to dangerous situations. Particularly in LEO. Maybe LEO does need some binding jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
As big as India is, the world is larger than India.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not that simple, your business entity can not be in the USA or some other countries. in reference to launching. each country has rules of the road. and in this case, they were told to fix up or go home, they found a loop hole, got caught and luckily just got a small fine.
justice department-FCC should have hammered them harder
Re: (Score:2)
If they had no ground stations, receivers/transmitters in the US, then the FCC likely would likely not have had a leg to stand on ---- Not that they would be outside of US legal jurisdiction, But because they'd be outside the regulatory authority delegated to the FCC.
The FCC's jurisdiction is the radio spectrum and radio stations, in a way the FCC has no authority to regulate "space". The FCC themselves rely on the "loophole" in that they have the regulatory power over radio stations that operate in
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct that it is an absolute issue, That's why venture capital firms have offshore trusts designed to invest in these items... as long as the money does not show up on the USA books directly, they can not be accounted as illegally earned revenue ( and taxed at the highest rate ).
So to invest in a company that is doing a launch in India and is India based, I need to move the money offshore, the move it again to another investment entity and then to the company in India. Once the service is perfecte
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have jurisdiction over ground stations located within their jurisdiction. So DON'T YOU DARE point a dish at a Canadian satellite and try to bypass US TV networks and broadband providers.
100 Satellite Swarm (Score:3)
I'm really wondering how this startup, hoping to deploy up to 100 satellites, is going to have the infrastructure or economy of scale to offer cheaper service than Iridium Next (with 75 satellites) or SpaceX's 12,000 Starlink satellites.
Re: 100 Satellite Swarm (Score:3, Interesting)
1) raise funds
2) spend funds on proof of concept. Lie about future costs
3) raise lots more funds.
4) huge pay raise, bonuses and company leases all around.
5( bankruptcy.
Remember, excessive optimism is legally distinct from fraud, even if it looks realllllllllly similar.
Re: (Score:2)
How much is left to patent? LEO communications satellites aren't novel. And tweaking the orbits, number of satellites and/or operating frequencies are 'obvious' changes.
I guess the only thing left is to append 'using the Internet' and reset the clock on all the patents to zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Cost to build=36 million per satellite
Launch=7 million per satellite
Swarm:
Cost to build=50k to 200k per satellite
Launch=40k per satellite
We can't have that! (Score:1, Interesting)
No wonder the FCC is up in arms. A new ISP that is independent from cables down here? That could cut into the profit margins of their masters!
Re: (Score:2)
Errr no. Bypassing the FCC's requirements and breaking their rules would have happened in the pre Villain of the Internet FCC as well.
Re:We can't have that! (Score:5, Informative)
No wonder the FCC is up in arms. A new ISP that is independent from cables down here? That could cut into the profit margins of their masters!
Actually, the problem is that the satellites are smaller than 10cm in one of their dimensions and thus may become untrackable. The US has a duty and authority under the Outer Space Treaty to regulate their citizens to ensure continued access to space for all. Since Swarm Technologies is a US company, it falls under this jurisdiction. India is also a signatory to the treaty and shouldn't have launched this payload if the US didn't approve it.
From the wiki article: [wikipedia.org]
"the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty" and that States Parties shall bear international responsibility for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities.
What's absolutely retarded is that it's easy to make your tiny satellite larger artificially by inflating it. No additional mechanism, you just put a few grams of benzoic acid in a balloon and it will self inflate when it's in space. [scienceagogo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
finally someone points out some of the issues that are involved.
America is circling the drain (Score:3, Interesting)
America isn't much of a space power anymore. The rest of the world and the corporations it has surrendered its launch capacity to should tell Uncle Sam to just fuck off.
Russia, China and India are already eating America's lunch. No doubt Kim Jung Nukem will soon be putting up satellites whenever they like, and telling the US to take a long, hard suck on his Taepodong.
Re: (Score:3)
This has nothing to do with America's space power and everything to do with an American company using American airwaves refusing to follow the rules laid out by the regulator for this sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
If they'd paid the appropriate bribes, none of this would have happened.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF U cant just launch a Satellite where ever? (Score:2)
Re: WTF U cant just launch a Satellite where ever? (Score:1)
It's more the Bird/Lime model. Uber doesn't dump hardware they own out on public sidewalks.
How much power does the FCC have? (Score:2)
"The Federal Communications Commission is an independent agency of the United States government created by statute to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable."
So they don't cover yelling to my neighbor but if I use a wire/cable or any kind of radio, they do? What if someone comes up with new technology that doesn't use wire, cable, satellite, or any known form of radio frequency? Yes, science fantasy, but a big fat what if? The new tech allows large data trans
Re: How much power does the FCC have? (Score:1)
Radio signals have always bumped up and down from the ionosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
OK that makes sense, thanks!
Although when I said "Some folks would go bonkers..." the FCC wasn't my first thought. I was thinking law enforcement, recording industry, etc. Comcast/AT&T/Verizon might poop their pants a bit also. What the FCC is tasked to regulate would likely be changed fast.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say about $900,000 worth.
Just to clarify (Score:5, Informative)
The fine is for transmitting on certain frequencies reserved for communications with satellites. Broadcasting on those frequencies requires a license from the FCC, which this company apparently didn't obtain. According to TFA, they've now obtained that license, and are operating the satellites again.
Re:Just to clarify (Score:5, Insightful)
>"The fine is for transmitting on certain frequencies reserved for communications with satellites. Broadcasting on those frequencies requires a license from the FCC,"
Exactly. There might be a lot of hate on Slashdot toward the FCC for perhaps exceeding their mandate in certain other issues, but THIS particular example is exactly why the FCC exists. If anyone were allowed to just broadcast on whatever frequencies they like for whatever purpose they like, critical infrastructure could be severely impaired and cause real damage/loss/chaos.
Re: (Score:2)
>"The fine is for transmitting on certain frequencies reserved for communications with satellites. Broadcasting on those frequencies requires a license from the FCC,"
Exactly. There might be a lot of hate on Slashdot toward the FCC for perhaps exceeding their mandate in certain other issues, but THIS particular example is exactly why the FCC exists. If anyone were allowed to just broadcast on whatever frequencies they like for whatever purpose they like, critical infrastructure could be severely impaired and cause real damage/loss/chaos.
These folk must have been real cowboys. I can get an experimental radio license without much problem, and the rules for balloon launches are pretty straightforward. Straightforward to the point that I could right now conduct relevant research easily, without skirting the law.
Any restrictions regarding ballooning are strictly safety and letting the FAA know what is going on.
Why get licensed? Here's the NTIA chart of frequency allocations. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files... [doc.gov] I have a big printout of this o
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone were allowed to just broadcast on whatever frequencies they like for whatever purpose they like, critical infrastructure could be severely impaired and cause real damage/loss/chaos.
If it is so trivial to impact critical infrastructure and cause real damage/loss/chaos, then why aren't The Terrorists doing it? It is not that hard to build a transmitter.
I know it is possible to cause some amount of economic chaos, but if that chaos becomes too severe, it is easily solvable with a HARM missile.
I think you overstate the necessity of the FCC; however, I am not trying to argue against the necessity of the FCC.
Re: (Score:2)
The company that owns the satellite and gives you the receiver gets a license to use a specific range of frequencies. They pay FCC for those frequency reservations. In this case Swarm simply used a range of frequencies that wasn't theirs. There are ranges you can use 'free' (eg. 800MHz, 2.4GHz etc) but not at the powers required to reach a satellite (typically you're allowed to use up to 2W as long as you're not interfering with anyone else).
The permit costs... (Score:1)
So what they're telling us is that if you want to launch a bunch of satellites anywhere you like, the permit-cost is $900K. Sounds like a great deal to me.
Re: (Score:1)