For anyone interested, "Originating Communications Satellite Systems: The Interactions of Technological Change, Domestic Politics, and Foreign Policy" (https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4217/ch13.htm) is an interesting (?) read on the early history communications satellite regulations. (I'm absolutely refusing to dig through the ITU's documents on the subject.)

Another interesting read is Regulation and Licensing of Low-Earth-Orbit Satellites (https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...), particularly sections 1 and 2.

The bottom line is that international agreements through the ITU are responsible for frequency allocation (and presumably not damaging other people's stuff?) with the FCC being the pointy-end of the ITU and those treaties in the US. The FCC's authority in the area comes from the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Satellite_Act_o...), which has probably been modified beyond recognizability.

[This is why we like network neutrality.]

Exactly. It's mentioned twice in the article that the FCC regulates this area, but these were launched from India. What jurisdiction does the US FCC have over a device launched into space from a foreign country?

Launched from India, but made and owned by an American company. The FCC has jurisdiction over the satellites because it has jurisdiction over the satellites' owner.

> The FCC has jurisdiction over the satellites because it has jurisdiction over the satellites' owner

Moreover, if those satellites smash into another country’s bird, the U.S. taxpayer is ultimately liable.

IANAL, and a lot of this hasn't really been tested in the courts, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Liability_Convention would seem to apply:

"If State A caused the launch to happen, then State A is fully liable for damages that result from that space object."

and

"Whereas under most national legal systems an individual or a corporation may bring a lawsuit against another individual or another corporation, under the Liability Convention claims must be brought on the state level only."

Hasn't it been tested? It applied (only) once, but in that one case the responsible country (USSR) paid out the damages.

Liability was a lot clearer there - it was a Russian government satellite, launched by the Russians.

Here we've got a satellite owned by an American company launched by an Indian rocket. The US is likely to say "the Indians shouldn't have launched it!" India's likely to say "it's an American satellite!"

If you follow any "authority" to its logical end, it largely boils down to a consent of the governed, or various degrees of coercion.

Its the idea behind "fake it until you make it". People accept the "fake" long enough that either "fake" no longer accurately describes you, because you've bootstrapped in to legitimacy, or the accepting people aren't savvy/interested/powerful enough to discern your inauthenticity.

satellites will talk to something on the ground. Something owned by an a American company. So unless the satellites are TX-only, FCC has jurisdiction over the earth-located transmitters.