> all the orbits under 500 km are also annulled and put up for negotiation

Unnecessary. There's plenty of space (no pun intended) to operate at those altitudes, even with existing and planned satellite constellations.

The real issue is regulatory, not technical. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42199498

An HN user’s opinion doesn’t matter in the context of how countries decide in international diplomacy…?

How does this make sense? Other countries could clearly decide however they like, because they don’t need to come to the negotiating table.

It's not my opinion. The ITU permitting system described in my link is the (negotiated) international system that exists today. If you're suggesting it might be re-negotiated to allow latecomers to build constellations below 500 km, then we agree.

However your idea of "annulling" permits already given out isn't necessary, or politically feasible, or even desirable.

"Annulling" is just one HN user's jealous destruction fantasy.

Are you confusing me with someone else, or have you gone deranged?

I was the one who implied the status quo, i.e. countries putting things into orbit way above 500km and nobody stopping them, is likely to prevail… with even the next best alternative very unlikely to happen.