I think it is obvious that the desirability of this proposal is not obvious to an educated observer. If you believe the proposal important, the most important first step is not having connections (at least not to the political apparatus) but creating and presenting a compelling argument for its desirability.
For example: provide or reference more precise accounts of recent unrest, and present evidence that complete blackouts are a serious possibility. Provide evidence, or at least tell us why you believe, that receiving isolated communications could initiate a productive global response, or disincentivize tyranny. Provide evidence either that entire populations are unlikely to have access to traditional communication channels in the near future, or that a despot could cut off such channels without immediately causing much more alarm than any number of distress calls. Consider solutions that cost less than $100M, and conclude that they are not as cost-effective or not as easily implemented by government intervention. Etc.
In general, it seems to me that the world would be in a better state if we as a society had dismissed all proposals of the form “We should require providers of X to also provide Y” which didn’t have very, very persuasive justification. So, taking the outside view, I am incredibly skeptical of any proposed regulation of this type.
I think it is obvious that the desirability of this proposal is not obvious to an educated observer. If you believe the proposal important, the most important first step is not having connections (at least not to the political apparatus) but creating and presenting a compelling argument for its desirability.
For example: provide or reference more precise accounts of recent unrest, and present evidence that complete blackouts are a serious possibility. Provide evidence, or at least tell us why you believe, that receiving isolated communications could initiate a productive global response, or disincentivize tyranny. Provide evidence either that entire populations are unlikely to have access to traditional communication channels in the near future, or that a despot could cut off such channels without immediately causing much more alarm than any number of distress calls. Consider solutions that cost less than $100M, and conclude that they are not as cost-effective or not as easily implemented by government intervention. Etc.
In general, it seems to me that the world would be in a better state if we as a society had dismissed all proposals of the form “We should require providers of X to also provide Y” which didn’t have very, very persuasive justification. So, taking the outside view, I am incredibly skeptical of any proposed regulation of this type.