There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about who "owns" the airspace of a given country.
The US - as do other countries - retain the exclusive right of use of their airspace at all times. ICAO and all airspace classes are not global "laws" and/or treaties that countries are bound by, they are standards that countries choose to accept.
Any attempt to launch a "flying server" in "uncontrolled" airspace will be met instantly with one of the following measures by pretty much any country:
1. If it is assessed as a threat by whatever definition the government in question decides to use, and it is either in geo-stationary orbit above a country or in high altitude, it will be forcibly removed by the air force. (This is why we don't park satellites over Russia. They can and will assert their authority over their airspace and everyone will agree with them)... U2 anyone?
2. If it is low enough to be tethered to the ground, it will most likely fall under local zoning laws and/or within restricted airspace, and will be dealt with pretty damn quick as a hazard, regardless of intent.
3. If it isn't tethered to the ground and also in the middle of nowhere, its "broadcasting" more than likely violates a number of existing laws, and it will be deemed illegal and shut down, but the air force if necessary.
In short, it's probably a lot easier to find a "friendly" government and host a normal server in that country than it is to launch balloons that will most certainly be temporary, or "accidentally" flown into, perhaps during a "training exercise". And no, unless TPB is now a nation, it is not an "act of war".
Geostationary satellites are stationary over a point on the equator. You can have an inclined GEO orbit, at which point the bird describes a figure-8 ground track that's centered on the equator.
Unless there's been some extremely unusual geographical developments recently that I haven't heard of, there's no way for a GEO satellite to orbit over Russia.
...and that's what I get for trying to cram in too many topics into a single sentence.
You are of course correct. By "park" I wasn't intending to imply true geo-stationary orbit, rather "object not moving in relation to the ground", which would need to be done with self propulsion.
Bad (and incorrect) use of the term on my part. Cheers for pointing it out.
Any attempt to launch a "flying server" in "uncontrolled" airspace will be met instantly with one of the following measures by pretty much any country:
1. If it is assessed as a threat by whatever definition the government in question decides to use, and it is either in geo-stationary orbit above a country or in high altitude, it will be forcibly removed by the air force. (This is why we don't park satellites over Russia. They can and will assert their authority over their airspace and everyone will agree with them)... U2 anyone?
2. If it is low enough to be tethered to the ground, it will most likely fall under local zoning laws and/or within restricted airspace, and will be dealt with pretty damn quick as a hazard, regardless of intent.
3. If it isn't tethered to the ground and also in the middle of nowhere, its "broadcasting" more than likely violates a number of existing laws, and it will be deemed illegal and shut down, but the air force if necessary.
In short, it's probably a lot easier to find a "friendly" government and host a normal server in that country than it is to launch balloons that will most certainly be temporary, or "accidentally" flown into, perhaps during a "training exercise". And no, unless TPB is now a nation, it is not an "act of war".