A.P.: What you need to know about the DJI drone ban in the U.S.
- Thread starter franklinskite
- Start date
anotherlab
Well-Known Member
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
And she was violating all precedent and norms when she made this comment. And it became a campaign issue to return to normal order.
Like I said, Human Beings. Don't expect perfection. Expect correction.
Wreckhunter
Well-Known Member
Murph66
Well-Known Member
Jesus lads n lassies of the US, my heart goes out to all of you and I pray that someone in power comes to their senses very soon and sorts out this mess for you, you like all of us in Ireland have shelled out a lot of money on our hobby and for all that cash to be literally emptied down the sink is unthinkable.
I'm sure I speak for the whole drone community here in our 100% backing of you guys, is there anything WE can do to voice our opinions ? If there is just ask OK ?
I hold my hands up and openly admit I know nothing about US politics and laws, but my view (and it's not meant to kick up a swarm of controversy please) is Biden is losing the plot somewhat and Trumpty Dumpty is a joke, I laugh at the way he plays an imaginary accordion when he makes his speeches and the rules he's broken during his 4 year tenure and after are unbelievable, pointing at imaginary friends and clenching his fist, How he's avoided being under lock and key by now is anyone's guess, probably hush money again. Sorry to drone on (no pun intended) just voicing the observations from a neutral point of view.
I'm sure I speak for the whole drone community here in our 100% backing of you guys, is there anything WE can do to voice our opinions ? If there is just ask OK ?
I hold my hands up and openly admit I know nothing about US politics and laws, but my view (and it's not meant to kick up a swarm of controversy please) is Biden is losing the plot somewhat and Trumpty Dumpty is a joke, I laugh at the way he plays an imaginary accordion when he makes his speeches and the rules he's broken during his 4 year tenure and after are unbelievable, pointing at imaginary friends and clenching his fist, How he's avoided being under lock and key by now is anyone's guess, probably hush money again. Sorry to drone on (no pun intended) just voicing the observations from a neutral point of view.
the congress"person" proposing the ban arranged for her media spokesperson to get a job at the drone company that then donated over 600000 dollars to lobbyists. Bought and paid for......
Nothing is going to be confiscated/banned from current ownership. It's stunning to read these comments.
Restricting updates, prohibiting imports. preventing investments; yes.
Confiscation of UAS? Not going to happen.
No one's Huawei phone has been confiscated, nor has anyone's ZTE-connected device been confiscated, and these products have been on the ban list for much longer. Much of EU have already banned all ZTE and Huawei, but nothing is being confiscated/required to destroy. Heck, the firearms conversation is much more passionate, but no one has come up (outside of rhetoric) with the concept of confiscating firearms, either.
Further, the Senate did NOT forward the bill for signature and reconciliations are in process. The current bill which passed Congress is stalled ATM, and won't come up again until next session.
It's entirely likely the next administration will indeed support a full-on ban of DJI. This means only that DJI cannot be imported to the USA, nor could you (legally) purchase one overseas and carry it across the border. It would be a misdemeanor to do so. Nor can any Fed agency at this time, use DJI. Several states have already passed anti-DJI bills, but those only affect PUBLIC OPERATIONS, not private.
That having been said, closely watch how Congress chooses to manage the Anzu conversation:
It's very aggressive and may result in some serious issues for the people at Anzu.
Restricting updates, prohibiting imports. preventing investments; yes.
Confiscation of UAS? Not going to happen.
No one's Huawei phone has been confiscated, nor has anyone's ZTE-connected device been confiscated, and these products have been on the ban list for much longer. Much of EU have already banned all ZTE and Huawei, but nothing is being confiscated/required to destroy. Heck, the firearms conversation is much more passionate, but no one has come up (outside of rhetoric) with the concept of confiscating firearms, either.
Further, the Senate did NOT forward the bill for signature and reconciliations are in process. The current bill which passed Congress is stalled ATM, and won't come up again until next session.
It's entirely likely the next administration will indeed support a full-on ban of DJI. This means only that DJI cannot be imported to the USA, nor could you (legally) purchase one overseas and carry it across the border. It would be a misdemeanor to do so. Nor can any Fed agency at this time, use DJI. Several states have already passed anti-DJI bills, but those only affect PUBLIC OPERATIONS, not private.
That having been said, closely watch how Congress chooses to manage the Anzu conversation:
Loading…
selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov
It's very aggressive and may result in some serious issues for the people at Anzu.
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe you are missing a key point. At my last reading of the proposed legislation, there is nothing in the bill calling for an outright ban on DJI drones. It only stipulates that government agencies or agencies using government funds can not buy them, and even then there stipulations that would allow them to do so under certain conditions.
anotherlab
Well-Known Member
There is more to the ban than that. The amendment to the NDAA 2025 bill submitted by the House blocks DJI from obtaining new FCC approvals. Should that get passed into law, it would effectively block DJI from bringing in new devices into the US. That would also be used to block companies using hardware made by DJI like Anzu Robotics.
Those proposing and supporting such a ban should be voted out of office, their personal ineptitude is starkly evident.
Not yet there isn't, at least how I read it. Stefanik introduced the wording to put DJI products on the list established in the STCN Act of 2019 as an amendment. The bill, along with the amendment was then sent to committee, which as far as I know, has not made a recommendation on accepting or denying the amendment. Nor has the House voted on accepting the amendment, so at this point, it is still not a part of the bill. We need to see how the bill comes out of committee, which most likely will not be until sometime next year.
On top of that, there is nothing in the STCN Act of 2019 that says DJI can't comply with the provisions by removing certain capabilities from their products in order to bring them into compliance with the act.
While I do not disagree with your statement, it could be applied to nearly all current elected officials.
So my question is, I have a 2 year old M3 with 3 batteries that are doing fine so far. Should I preventatively order more battered at this time. I did not look at how many cycles on the batteries but I do not fly that much.Mostly when traveling.
Dale
too much unknown at this point
* it seems like it's probably a decent bet that the legislation will rule that the FCC can not issue new licenses to any new DJI drone model. This ban may include Autel. That's reportedly in the Senate version; not the House version. This isn't all certain but does seem likely
* it's becoming more possible that DJI knock-offs like Anzu could be banned too, Those drones are just too obvious in their function of avoiding the ban
* it also seems like there's a decent chance that many government agencies will have lots of hoops to jump thru to buy any DJI drones. And tariffs may make them a lot more expensive
what doesn't make logical sense is if DJI drones do constitute a national security threat, why allow existing drones to continue to operate? Of course, Congress often makes illogical legislation
what is unclear, to me at least, is if new DJI models are banned, does that mean DJI remains free to ramp up their marketing and sales of existing models like the Mavic 3 Pro and Air 3? That's another illogical part of this. And if so, what kind of upgrade latitude is allowed under the current FCC license. For example, could DJI upgrade the camera on a Mavic 3 Pro under the current license?
finally, there is the big old elephant in the room. Congress could pass this legislation. Then it becomes the mission of the FCC to interpret the language and intent of the law. How aggressive will they be, especially if they are watching DJI ramp up sales of existing drones? Could the FCC actually restrict the sales of existing drone models? I'm thinking maybe not, but it will depend on the FCC administrator and the final language of the legislation
**************************************
I've asked this before and never really received a good answer: We know that after 90 days without a logon to DJI, drones will become restricted in their flight distances. I believe it's 30M altitude and 50M distance from RC. The act of logging on lifts these restrictions. But could the FCC compel DJI to not lift these restrictions from a logon? We know those restrictions are baked into the firmware. In other words, it might be a lot easier to essentially ground existing drones then many believe. I imagine this scenario is pretty remote; but it does seem possible
*****************************************
I know this was about a gagillion more words than necessary to answer your question. I don't know if batteries will have any restrictions placed on them. Probably not but I just don't know. If you only have 3 batteries, if I was you I'd likely invest in one or two more. If nothing else, a battery rotation of 5 batteries will keep all the batteries functioning longer than a rotation of 3 batteries
Worth noting that the FCC only regulates certification of the communications hardware in the drones. That has nothing to do with battery/parts sales or how the cameras function. Once the communications aspects have been certified by the FCC they have nothing to do with how we use the drones. That's FAA administration territory unless we modify the communications to boost the power of the signaling and violate the regulated limits for the public wireless bands.
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
I suppose they could try, but I think there is an authority question... The FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate internet activity or website content. This would have to come from the FTC or commerce dept., and would require explicit legislation, which doesn't exist at the moment.
Regardless, I doubt DJI would comply, citing the interests of their existing customers, and if the gubmint tried to block access to DJI servers at the network level it's trivial to get around that with a VPN outside the US.
Last edited:
Similar threads
