I thought it was sats of companies based in CA, not that the sat is "hovering" that's the comparison to off-shore property of CA corporations or individuals such as boats, etc? Also, about airlines. Not sure they pay countries they fly over without landing, wouldn't they only pay landing fees, customs fees, and taxs at an airport? When planes get routed through a sovereign nation's airspace is there any way to collect fees other than sending a bill back to its nation of origin? stu [This is a sig file] note: just expressing an opinion. Can I still do that in the 21st century? On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote:
At 8:31 PM -1000 7/11/01, Reese wrote:
I doubt it, or it would already be a dead issue.
Sure. Things happen instantaneously. Oz is all powerful.
For several decades the U.S. (and presumably Russia/FSU) has convinced the nations of the world that fees need not be paid to India, Botswana, and Shakedownistan just because U.S. satellites pass overhead. If L.A. is able to shake down Hughes for some tax to be distributed to the welfare bums and crack hoes, then Botswana and Shakedownistan will be next in line.
They aren't talking about rotating satellites though, they are talking about geostationary ones, ones that hover over CA,
None of them hover _over_ CA. Physically impossible. The Clarke Belt is well-defined. Look into it.
or are property that is administered from CA - not quite the same thing as passing overhead, or every airline would end up owing to every nation and state it flies over _for the act of flying over_ also.
News flash to Reese: Airlines DO make payments or other considerations to nations they fly over.
Jeesh. Every summer brings the return of "Reese" and "Petro."
--Tim May
-- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns