DJI ban: What happens to the drone I already own?

[Zbip57]

Now, we're hearing that the FCC has a process to revoke the licenses for current drones if it seems 'warranted'

Bruce Simpson (xjet) posted his opinions on the matter in his latest video.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocrKIx7O8bE

In the comments section under the video, Bruce made an excellent reply to someone who asked whether the ban would affect only future DJI models, or would it also apply to existing drones?

Bruce said, 'If they only ban future drones then they're saying "DJI isn't spying... but they might in future" and that's no grounds for a ban.'

 

[Meta4]

if we would have had any kind of good news about this over the last month, I might be willing to credit your optimism.

I'm not optimistic over the situation, but I have a realistic attitude to what's likely to happen and don't let my imagination run away with far-fetched ideas about things that haven't been mentioned in the bills and are unlikely to happen.

 

[AZDave]

one final thing: you've spent a lot of time here crapping on people who don't share your opinion. I suggest if our posts bother you so much you should avoid reading them

Except for this one, I've been doing exactly that.

 

[moldorf]

Bruce Simpson (xjet) posted his opinions on the matter in his latest video.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocrKIx7O8bE

In the comments section under the video, Bruce made an excellent reply to someone who asked whether the ban would affect only future DJI models, or would it also apply to existing drones?

Bruce said, 'If they only ban future drones then they're saying "DJI isn't spying... but they might in future" and that's no grounds for a ban.'

I think it's pretty clear the justifications for the ban don't withstand much scrutiny. It's not legislation crafted to address an actual problem. It's performance art and resume fluffing for congress-critters. And China hasn't earned a bit of good-will anywhere this side of the Pacific

but his point is not only spot-on, it's why I've had a hard time believing the law will just stop at banning future DJI drones. It would make no sense at all....but I guess there's no reason for it to make sense at this stage

 

[franklinskite]

And yet you trust Apple's iOS v13.5 running on your phone?


The Android version of DJI's Fly app hasn't been available for Android users via the Android app store for quite a while already due to the long delays imposed by their app certification process. Instead, DJI's updates are always immediately accessible directly from DJI's website, or via the app itself, if you choose to upgrade.


You can choose to update your grocery app, or not. It's up to you. Declining the update means you won't benefit (or suffer) from the upgrade.

‘DJI's updates are always immediately accessible directly from DJI's website, or via the app itself, if you choose to upgrade.’

You don’t understand how Apple products work. iOS user can only load an app from Apple’s App Store on to their iPhone; you can’t load apps from a browser or the app itself. It’s a walled garden.

‘You can choose to update your grocery app, or not. It's up to you. Declining the update means you won't benefit (or suffer) from the upgrade.’

Again, that’s not how iOS works. You are presented with a dialogue saying this version of the app no longer functions, and you must update.

.

 

[Zbip57]

You don’t understand how Apple products work.

Evidently not.

‘You can choose to update your grocery app, or not. It's up to you. Declining the update means you won't benefit (or suffer) from the upgrade.’

Again, that’s not how iOS works. You are presented with a dialogue saying this version of the app no longer functions, and you must update.

I use an Android phone, which let's me choose whether or not I want to update my apps.

You, on the other hand, choose to use an Apple product, even though you have chosen not to upgrade its firmware and are sticking with the obsolete iOS v13.5. Google says iOS 17.5 is the most recent version.

So your Apple product permits you to refuse firmware upgrades, but forces you to upgrade grocery apps.

Sounds to me like either Apple, outdated firmware, or your grocery store is the problem here.

 

[mavic3usa]

Government regulatory agencies have been known to get "creative" when it comes to implementing laws and using the powers that have been given to them by Congress (the people). Often it is borderline asinine what they come up with and so far away from what The People intended....and there's a way to deal wit this.

The drone community will find a second wind when it comes to legally fighting whatever direction the FAA goes with this and our legacy will be determined by the great fight which will galvanize all of our disperate thoughts on what this actually means and how this will go down for it is up to us to help shape the intent. We'll have one common vision which will be to stop the FAA from misinterpreting the law, creating new laws, and stifling the industry any further.

The battle thru the federal courts system is long and expensive (we need memberships and donations) and unique but it's noble because it involves the fundamental question of the power of the people and now is our time to shine and show that we have a voice in our own destiny. This is not a new cause, others have done it [successfully] and we should learn from them if we want to win the war, keep the drone industry vibrant and thriving, and not let this distraction slow us down.

 

[solidhouse]

If the ban is placed on all of the existing DJI drones and they are grounded through a software update, hopefully an outfit like drone hacks will come up with patch to undo it. We’ll see.

 

[anotherlab]

Evidently not.


I use an Android phone, which let's me choose whether or not I want to update my apps.

You, on the other hand, choose to use an Apple product, even though you have chosen not to upgrade its firmware and are sticking with the obsolete iOS v13.5. Google says iOS 17.5 is the most recent version.

So your Apple product permits you to refuse firmware upgrades, but forces you to upgrade grocery apps.

Sounds to me like either Apple, outdated firmware, or your grocery store is the problem here.

That's partially true.

Apple drops support for older iPhone models. For iOS 13.5, you need an iPhone 6S or newer.

Apple's walled garden is annoying if you want to sideload apps. It's also a strength as it makes it safer from having malware installed.

If we end up with a situation where the apps are banned from the store or end up with some form of kill switch in the app, then you wouldn't be able to use an iPhone. It's not the end of the world. You could get a cheap Android phone or tablet and sideload an older version of the DJI app.

I do think it's unlikely that DJI would have to update their app to "ground" the drone. The legislation that Rep. Stefanik introduced did not mention anything about forcing DJI to ground the drones. It specifically addressed being about to use Federal funds to purchase and/or operate the specified DJI and DJI licensed technologies. That was already defined in 47 U.S.C. 1601(c), her bill just adds DJI by name.

 

[moldorf]

I do think it's unlikely that DJI would have to update their app to "ground" the drone. The legislation that Rep. Stefanik introduced did not mention anything about forcing DJI to ground the drones. It specifically addressed being about to use Federal funds to purchase and/or operate the specified DJI and DJI licensed technologies. That was already defined in 47 U.S.C. 1601(c), her bill just adds DJI by name.

that's my hope. That the frenzy to be part of an anti-China jihad will bog down a little as the inertia of the Senate pace enters the equation

the last time I saw Vic Moss speak of this was Sunday in a blog. He had essentially given up on stopping this legislation in the House and was banking on the Senate as an obstacle to passage. It was a bad-news/good-news thing: bad news was there was no grandfather clause for existing drones in the House version, but good news was there was no specific provision about revoking current licenses. If that's the form of the law that gets added to the FCC's mission, there might not be any appetite in the FCC for going further than the law's language and actually grounding existing drones....

....even though that's a total fail of logic according to the supposed intent of the bill

as I understand it, since the NDAA requires congress to appropriate annually, each chamber of Congress starts wit a basic framework of the NDAA. The House has passed their version after all the pork, and amendments, and grandstanding, and vanity clauses were added and it includes the provisions of Stefanik's bill. Now it's the Senate's turn. They don't start with what the House passed...they have their own process of pork, grandstanding, and vanity. They will come up with their own NDAA and it very well may not contain Stefanik's provisions

the two bill then go to a conference committee that attempts to reconcile the differences.

it's that Senate and conference committee process that the drone advocacy associations and the first responder alliances hope to influence

the one big red flag to all this is that two different committees in the House have passed the Act as standalone legislation by votes of 43-0 and 57-1. There was not any opposition

 

[moldorf]

I think the recent actions by might actually have a substantive impact on this legislation, especially in the Senate

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[franklinskite]

2 or 3 weeks ago it was "it will never make it out of the House". Well, it made it out of the House as part of the NDAA...so now, it's "it will never make it out of the Senate". I guess next it will be "the President may veto the bill"

it used to be: 'it's unlikely they'll ban DJI drones". Then it was "they may ban future DJI drones models and not grant them new FCC licenses, but they won't ban current drones". Now, we're hearing that the FCC has a process to revoke the licenses for current drones if it seems 'warranted'

if we would have had any kind of good news about this over the last month, I might be willing to credit your optimism. But so far, ll the news has been negative and all the momentum has been against us

one final thing: you've spent a lot of time here crapping on people who don't share your opinion. I suggest if our posts bother you so much you should avoid reading them

Moldorf, I appreciate your updates. There is obvious reason for concern.

Some of the guys on this forum remind me of the man Kurt Vonnegut describes in Slaughterhouse Five on the rail car on their way to the German concentration camp. 'This ain't so bad! I've had it worse than this! No need to worry! No use getting everybody here worked up!' the obliviously happy fellow keeps saying to the others in the cattle car.

'On the eighth day, the forty-year-old hobo said to Billy, 'This ain't bad. I can be comfortable anywhere.'

'You can?' said Billy.

On the ninth day, the hobo died. So it goes. His last words were, 'You think this is bad? This ain't bad.'

 

[moldorf]

First Responders wrote a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee in opposition to the Countering CCP Drones Act being attached to the NDAA

there was an interesting excerpt to the article:

"The Countering CCP Drones Act, introduced by Representative Elise Stefanik, seeks to address national security concerns by adding DJI, a major Chinese drone manufacturer, to the FCC Covered List. This action would empower the FCC to retroactively revoke all DJI licenses without needing Congressional approval, effectively dismantling approximately 90% of all public safety drone operations. The letter highlighted that this would not only affect military personnel but also jeopardize the safety and livelihood of communities across America."

First Responders Oppose Inclusion of Countering CCP Drones Act in NDAA

it's frustrating to see all the conflicting signals about the potential revocation of FCC licenses for existing DJI drones. People like Vic Moss keep saying there is no language directing the revocation. But other's involved keep saying that if the ban passes the FCC will have the power to revoke those licenses without any congressional over-site

I have to think that the various first responder alliances have a pretty good handle on what the legislation can do, whether it's explicitly stated or not

 

[mavic3usa]

I have to think that the various first responder alliances have a pretty good handle on what the legislation can do, whether it's explicitly stated or not

Doesnt matter; any 3-letter agency whether it's the Fxx or the Axx or the Ixx can do whatever they want because their powers are not derived from explicit language from Congress...they interpret; that's true for the entire country. Wherever did you get the idea that no one can take action unless they are told exactly what to do and if they are told exactly they do can something then they can't do it? To only way to stop anyone for doing anything is to pass a law against it or get a court order reversing it; hopefully the latter.

 

[@Rip]

Who are the members in congress signing on to this ban?

Voice you opposition here! I am getting emails from my congress woman and senators.
Drone Advocacy Alliance - Home

 

[New England Droning]

Exactly. Far bigger fish to fry here right now than me worrying about an FCC secret agent taking me down at my park.
Fly common sense TRUST and that’s enough. They can come and get mine before I let this stuff ruin my flight time. Vote accordingly. Just my opinion.

I'm more worried about the karen's coming over to demand to know the make of my drone (which ) then I would refuse and then piss off karen who most likely will call said police making exaggerated claims and I would only worry about an uninformed officer...
Other than that I don't fly near people as rule. I'm over my own house or in the woods of NH, VT, or ME in New England and generally people are a nong ways away...
The FAA has virtually no enforcement branch (currently) and neither does the FCC. Meaning they do not have a special branch of agents in all 50 states able to respond to a drone flying and being identified as DJI... (But those black helicopters circling my house do have me worried...)

 

[jakethesnake]

Your existing drones will likely be safe.
This is not about national security; it’s about supply chain security.
They want DJI forced out of the US market and they hope that will allow US or ally manufacturers to compete in the space. I’ve seen this happen several times as a federal contractor. Us and the federal agencies themselves are usually the first to get hit by these types of bans and then it spreads to the rest of the population. I haven’t been allowed to have TikTok on my phone for the last year (though I don’t think they’d ever find out if I did). And I can’t source any products from a business that uses Huawei or related telecom equipment.
I bring that up because this will likely follow the Huawei route. Huawei was forced out of the US market by export controls. Existing Huawei phone users are fine (their phones can still be used on US telecom infrastructure) you just can’t find a new Huawei phone in stores anymore. Now Huawei never had a solid footing in the US market.. but DJI does. And unlike with Huawei, there’d be tens of thousands of consumers and state/local agencies that would throw a fit and file lawsuits if their current fleet were to be grounded.

 

[rjwmorrell]

Well, I guess I should open a store selling DJI drones close to the border. I imagine many Americans could end up sourcing their DJI drones from here and smuggling them back.... not that I would condone such illicit activities of course!

 

[Wreckhunter]

Your existing drones will likely be safe.
This is not about national security; it’s about supply chain security.
They want DJI forced out of the US market and they hope that will allow US or ally manufacturers to compete in the space. I’ve seen this happen several times as a federal contractor. Us and the federal agencies themselves are usually the first to get hit by these types of bans and then it spreads to the rest of the population. I haven’t been allowed to have TikTok on my phone for the last year (though I don’t think they’d ever find out if I did). And I can’t source any products from a business that uses Huawei or related telecom equipment.
I bring that up because this will likely follow the Huawei route. Huawei was forced out of the US market by export controls. Existing Huawei phone users are fine (their phones can still be used on US telecom infrastructure) you just can’t find a new Huawei phone in stores anymore. Now Huawei never had a solid footing in the US market.. but DJI does. And unlike with Huawei, there’d be tens of thousands of consumers and state/local agencies that would throw a fit and file lawsuits if their current fleet were to be grounded.

I would not be surprised if this ban is amended in the senate anyway and at least for awhile it will be safe,unless the republicans take
back both chambers in November,then it could be a mess again.

 

[mavic3usa]

I would not be surprised if this ban is amended in the senate anyway and at least for awhile it will be safe,unless the republicans take
back both chambers in November,then it could be a mess again.

Wait, you believe the drone portion of the ban will be amended and thus derail the entire bill or you believe that portion of the bill dealing with DJI drones will be amended and therefore stricken from the overall bill?

Is that all the senate has to do is disagree with other bills that get added and those bills get dropped making the house process of adding stuff to the bill useless? Or does their disagreement mean it goes back to the house for further re-agreement?

Each bill is different and often different under each congressional leadership, I don't know exactly how this works.