[saas_sam]

The assumption in your emotional claim here is that the FCC is in the right. Many believe they are in the wrong. Remember net neutrality? That's an example of a case where many believe the FCC is in the wrong. This might be another one of those. Unless you are intimately familiar with these regulations and their history, your opinion is probably wrong.

[resters]

Exactly. The FCC was quite likely in the wrong here as well (but in the right on net neutrality). Just because tiny sats are not detectable by US systems does not mean progress should be held back. Time for inept regulators to step aside.

The FCC ignores millions of part 15 violations every year and has allowed massive terrestrial RF noise pollution to become a major problem. This is not an agency that ever enforces much of anything, so it seems quite likely that this move was an attempt to protect crony firms with existing sats and incumbent business interests.

[stcredzero]

Just because tiny sats are not detectable by US systems does not mean progress should be held back. Time for inept regulators to step aside.

So if there's a Kessler Syndrome due to a proliferation of satellites in a class of orbits and payload sizes, due to an inability to enforce regulations, you just shrug your shoulders? Responsible innovators would first develop a means to detect those tiny sats. Corner reflectors aren't inherently heavy or costly.

so it seems quite likely that this move was an attempt to protect crony firms with existing sats and incumbent business interests.

That also seems likely.

[jessaustin]

FCC's purpose, since their creation, is "to protect crony firms". No one is shocked that they're doing it in space now.

[Rapzid]

I don't believe the parents point was an "emotional" claim. To me it read like a counter argument to throwing the responsibility baby out with the "FCC said no" bathwater.