To be honest, I'd rather my devices have a modicum of intelligence and look around to find the best frequency to use. To do otherwise leaves the whole system open to attack. What happens if this central authority server goes down? What happens if a rogue device doesn't report to the server? I'd like my robots with eyes and ears please, not being remote controlled from D.C.
Would you extend this line of thinking to the price at the pump. Let's say, hypothetically, that the end result of this is a ten cent rise in a gallon of gas, should BP be forced to make up the difference? What if the price of diesel jumps up and thus the price of fresh veggies and other consumer products jumps? Should BP also be on the hook for that? Just how much should the market and the wider society have to pay for BP's massive error? And what if BP cannot in fact entirely clean up the Gulf coast? What if the fishery is ruined for decades? Should BP be forced to pay an annual wage that averages out to be what fishermen would have received if they had been able to fish? Should BP be forced to pay for higher fish prices at restaurants and fish markets?
There are other oil companies that are not required to pay for this cleanup. Their prices will remain low. To be competitive, BP will be forced to continue selling at the same price as everyone else. So they will be unable to pass the costs on to consumers buying gasoline.
That said, BP should be responsible for *all* of these costs through damages to be awarded in court after each claimant shows proof to the court. Ideally, noone should be able to show any increase in gasoline prices due to this problem, as other oil companies remain unaffected by fines and clenaup costs, and BP has many so many other sources of oil, that this will not dramatically affect the amount of oil on the market. But anyone who can show proof of damages to the court should be compensated.
Then this is another broken system brought to you by government intervention. BP should be completely liable for all damages it causes. Anything else is patently unfair. If government intervention allows this excessive risk by covering BP, then this cannot be an indication of failure of Laissez-Faire economics by any stretch of the imagination. Only the threat of consequences keep most in line. If government intervention removes/reduces that threat, you shouldn't be surprised to see risks jump way out of line.
As far as this specific failure, this kind of highly unlikely failure is what insurance was invented for. Government regulations didn't stop this from happening. The government can only regulate and control that which it foresees. This usually means it adds regulations *after* something bad happens. Thus governments tend to be reactive.
At any rate, existing law covers this type of situation just fine. The harmed governments, industries, companies, and individuals will sue and win large settlements from BP and its insurers. Losses due to payments and increased insurance costs will hit the share price, punishing the owners (shareholders) of BP for what has happened. None of this requires new regulation. In fact, any new regulation will result in punishment being distributed beyond BP to others who were not responsible. This will likely lead to increased prices at the pump, which will then mean you and I are the ones being punished. Is this the fairness you propose?