DJI ban update: Some good news?

[Looking Down On You]

I searched and couldn't find any mention of this article.

DJI ban update: Current status and future implications for drone pilots

The Countering CCP Drones Act, part of the NDAA, aims to restrict the FCC from issuing new licenses to drone maker DJI and its affiliates.

dronedj.com

 

[MS Coast]

Here's Vic Moss's article which is used as a source for that one, with more on the probable effect on existing drones.

The truth about the Countering CCP Drones Act - Drone Service Providers Alliance

I’ve been wanting to write this article for the last few days, because with the fluidity and volatile nature of this subject, I didn’t know how long it would be accurate. I still don’t. However, with the amount of misinformation being shared, and the sheer number of questions being asked, I...

dspalliance.org

 

[anotherlab]

I searched and couldn't find any mention of this article.

DJI ban update: Current status and future implications for drone pilots

The Countering CCP Drones Act, part of the NDAA, aims to restrict the FCC from issuing new licenses to drone maker DJI and its affiliates.

dronedj.com

Where were you expecting it to be mentioned? It was posted yesterday on a drone-focused technology site. This topic is below the radar for most

 

[Looking Down On You]

Looked for a POST in this DJI forum.

 

[16x9frame]

Trying to figure this issue out has been a maddening exercise in sifting through pages of legal word salad. You simply cannot "follow the crowd" with these things as often the claims that go viral are misinformed or outright incorrect.

The linked articles above seem to be a better breakdown of the actual implications of this bill. The other thing I don't see being discussed is that the ban would only *prevent the drones from connecting to US communication infrastructure*. Maybe someone can correct me on this, but it seems the only impact of that would be simply to prevent the devices from connecting to the internet, The drone and its controller only need to communicate with *each other* in order to function.

If the drones were banned from connecting to any US communication infrastructure (presumably that would mean just the internet), the only impact would be that the geofencing and altitude restrictions would be disabled - meaning pilots would have to be fully responsible for operating lawfully without any assistance or restrictions from the current automated systems. If that is true, then your operations would be completely unaffected and would in some cases become easier (no more grounding glitches when you have a valid LAANC approval or waiver in effect, for instance). The only change in your workflow would be that firmware updates and video/photo file transfers would have to be done entirely via the SD card. I could see the removal of the automated compliance functions raising the ire of the FAA.

 

[anotherlab]

The linked articles above seem to be a better breakdown of the actual implications of this bill. The other thing I don't see being discussed is that the ban would only *prevent the drones from connecting to US communication infrastructure*. Maybe someone can correct me on this, but it seems the only impact of that would be simply to prevent the devices from connecting to the internet, The drone and its controller only need to communicate with *each other* in order to function.

If the drones were banned from connecting to any US communication infrastructure (presumably that would mean just the internet), the only impact would be that the geofencing and altitude restrictions would be disabled - meaning pilots would have to be fully responsible for operating lawfully without any assistance or restrictions from the current automated systems. If that is true, then your operations would be completely unaffected and would in some cases become easier (no more grounding glitches when you have a valid LAANC approval or waiver in effect, for instance). The only change in your workflow would be that firmware updates and video/photo file transfers would have to be done entirely via the SD card. I could see the removal of the automated compliance functions raising the ire of the FAA.

That's not what it means. The airwaves regulated by the FCC can be used to access the Internet, but they themselves are not the Internet. When your R/C connects to a Mavic, it is using the frequencies at 2.4 Ghz and 5 Ghz. That is regulated by the FCC.

 

[Meta4]

That's not what it means. The airwaves regulated by the FCC can be used to access the Internet, but they themselves are not the Internet. When your R/C connects to a Mavic, it is using the frequencies at 2.4 Ghz and 5 Ghz. That is regulated by the FCC.

Radio spectrum frequencies aren't infrastructure.

 

[anotherlab]

Radio spectrum frequencies aren't infrastructure.

That doesn't change anything with the proposed sanctions against DJI. The amendment added to the House's NDAA FY25 bill (and presumably will be added by Senator Tester today will specifically add components made by DJI to the FCC's Covered List.

From the FCC's "Prohibition on Authorization of “Covered” Equipment" page:

• Specifically, effective February 6, 2023, under the Commission’s revised part 2 rules and policies concerning authorization of equipment, “covered” equipment is prohibited from obtaining an equipment authorization under either the Commission’s certification procedures or its Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) procedures.
• In addition, as of February 6, 2023, new “covered” equipment can no longer qualify under part 15 rules as exempted from the need from an equipment authorization, and thus is prohibited from being imported, marketed, sold, or operated in the United States.

No new equipment from DJI that has a radio or a camera will receive FCC authorization.

 

[16x9frame]

If the goal of this bill is national security, it wouldn't make any sense to take the step to prevent a drone and its controller from communicating. If the Chinese government can't directly connect to the device at all, what would be the national security concern to justify banning the devices operation outright?

 

[anotherlab]

If the goal of this bill is national security, it wouldn't make any sense to take the step to prevent a drone and its controller from communicating. If the Chinese government can't directly connect to the device at all, what would be the national security concern to justify banning the devices operation outright?

Trying to find logic and sense in this bill is a waste of time.

What's to prevent someone from taking a Skydio drone, record "stuff," then pop the memory card and upload it to China.

 

[Divine_Madcat]

Trying to find logic and sense in this bill is a waste of time.

What's to prevent someone from taking a Skydio drone, record "stuff," then pop the memory card and upload it to China.

Nothing... absolutely nothing. Its all "feel good" ********, made worse by the financial scuminess attached to those pushing it (Skydio buying the bill's passage).