Slashdot Mirror
Game of Drones: As US Dithers, Rivals Get a Head Start
Amanda Parker writes Drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), are a hot ticket in Silicon Valley, but U.S. government dithering over regulations has given overseas companies a head-start in figuring out how best to exploit them. Global spending on drones could add up to close to $100 billion over the next decade, with commercial uses — from farming and filming to pipelines and parcels — accounting for around an eighth of that market, according to BI Intelligence. But for years, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the authority largely responsible for regulation in the United States, has dragged its feet, only last month issuing draft rules on who can fly drones, how and where. It's likely to be a year or more before the regulations are in place — good news for companies operating outside the U.S. and looking to build a business around drones.
I don't know, this sounds like something good for US companies. US companies are not allowed to compete with each other yet (so there is no race to be first), but they do get to sit back and watch companies in other countries make all the mistakes first, then get to implement their businesses based off those cautionary tales.
It's likely to be a year or more before the regulations are in place — good news for companies operating outside the U.S. and looking to build a business around drones.
Is that good news, really? I'm not sure I see why - if drones are unregulated enough in your country for you to start your business, what difference does it make what the US does?
In fact, is it possibly even bad news? Might potential investors see the US as "leading the way" by regulating/dithering against drones, and that might put them off investing in companies in countries where there is currently little/no regulation?
It's likely to be a year or more before the regulations are in place
So what's the current situtation? Is it unregulated, or is commercial drone flying blanket banned?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
... maybe China?
The US has already learned valuable lessons about early adoptions.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
The late-arriving FAA rules hasn't impacted anything. actually, most of the innovators were over seas, and the article is just trying to assign blame when the actual reason is that the innovators for this technology just aren't really in the USA.
But... there is also plenty of things going on in the USA, just that most of the stuff is trying to be military/gov based. Outside of this, what *actually* has stifled innovation in the USA is the homeland security; I actually know a company in the radio link and telemetry business that was expressly threatened by the DHS that they were not to develop a radio system with telemetry with live video feed.
Read: this has actually nothing to do with the FAA...
While Obama fiddles.
More government giveaways, mass illegal immigration, wars abroad.
This is why the sun is setting on the US empire.
Someone paying Dice to push drones?
Most drones are toys. They are going to be autonomous aircraft
with the intent to replace the costs of a piloting staff.
The FAA is doing just what it should do and has just shot down the idea
of Amazon flying packages noisily and dangerously around your house.
The FAA is going slow as it is an emerging technology.
The assumption of the poster is biased in favor of drones is my interpretation of the headline.
different rules for different folks.
The US is very flexible when it comes to aviation regulations. When you hear on the news "No flight plan was filed..." it is because not flight plan is required for most flights. Aircraft are allowed to fly where they want most of the time (500ft away from objects, unless congested areas). Other countries are more constrained with current manned aircraft systems, so it is easier to control where the manned systems operate, keeping them away from the unmanned systems.
Now the UAS community wants to mix it up. Flying manned and unmanned aircraft in the same airspace, will be a challenge. Keeping them separated will take special processes and procedures. Quantified right of way rules, operating in see (sense) and avoid situations. Today the only technology that will keep UAS and manned aircraft systems separate are the eyeballs in the pilot/operators heads.
Then there are all kinds of considerations beyond that. Maintenance is a big one. The batteries in drones are similar to phone batteries. From the factory, they run for a day, but after a year of regular use, they don't have the same capacity, and your typical quad copter has only one mode when the batteries die, and it isn't a glide mode.
How about coordination with other operators. The big wreck on the freeway needs a EMS helicopter to evacuate a victim, but there are 6 UAS systems (3 TV stations, 2 newspapers and a dude with his for the heck of it) filming the carnage. How do you tell the UAS systems to get out of the way?
So to make all this work, there are operator training items to consider, maintenance requirements, communications requirements, accident reporting considerations, insurance and stuff most folks haven't thought about. If you think the FAA can knock that out in a weekend, you are fooling yourself. Go have a read of the proposed Part 107 regulations. Lots of things are missing, it is just a start, and it is well thought out.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. And that hundred billion figure you're waving around is imaginary money.
Because China doesn't meddle in the M.E. nearly as much as we do, they don't have as big of a blowback terrorism problem. We pay a Meddler's Tax, and limiting drones is part of that.
Table-ized A.I.
for example, if someone flies a drone over a private party on a penthouse, there's no law against that, so it's perfectly legal (you might get sued, but that's civil law, not criminal law)
then enough penthouse owners complain, laws are passed, and now there are regulations against buzzing penthouses with your drone
so the lack of regulations means you can do anything you want
i think the function of law, in the usa at least, is you can do anything you want until told not to. rather than you can't do anything unless a law allows you
so i don't really understand what the problem is, unless it means companies won't invest in a dramatic expensive scheme if down the line someone might pass a law saying they can't do that. but that also doesn't make any sense, just use common sense: can you hurt someone by doing something? then don't do it, a law will be passed against that eventually, and a law should be passed against it if it risks lives or defiles privacy. otherwise, if you can establish a genuine business that generates income, the us government is not going to stand in your way for random reasons. or even if there is some hysteric out there who can put forth a rationale to limit the activity and garners support for that, and they complain somewhere to shut you down, then just lobby for a law establishing guidelines about how to behave in your new business sector, rather than shutting you down
i don't understand the problem
maybe what is being referred to here is modifying/ removing certain regulations that might be interpreted as limiting drones, even though they predate drones? for example, height restrictions. but those make perfect sense to me and don't need any modifications: you shouldn't ever be putting a drone into airspace where they can down a helicopter/ plane unless you make clear advance notice according to proper policies
so again, i don't understand the problem. it seems like a made up controversy
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Henceforth using the phrasing "game of _______" will be compulsory when composing the title or subhead of articles pertaining to any subject that rhymes with or shares reasonable consonance to the word "thrones".
Well there were once billions of Passenger Pigeons, the meat in the matter of Pigeon Pie. But they went extinct about 100 years ago. Was it the over hunting? Was it the same fungus that made what's now Orange County California switch from vineyards to citrus crops around 1883? Was the fungus caused by dust from the Krakatoa eruption?
Or did the minerals in the solar wind cause the fungus, and the plasma driven magnetic jolts stimulate the volcanic activity?
Some claimed that there weren't high latitude notilucent clouds until Krakatoa, but other writings including some cited by Charles Hoy Fort refuted that. He looked at many off events and doubted the quick judgements of the day. People thought meteors came from volcanoes on Earth or the Moon. Failure to consider the sun as one of the sources persists to this day. He through out all sorts of ideas, some pretty silly, but his writings mention a vast number of sources. Most of those from the 19th century have been scanned and are online. There's something different about atmospheric anomalies from an area when man had nothing in the air to explain them away with. For some fun, check out the texts or audiobooks of Charles Hoyt. Although he's gotten the most modern attention (and a biased wikipedia summary) from the nutty UFO crowd, give the silly notions some slack. Skip whacky conclusions and study the data. After all, in the 1800's some were honestly looking for a planet vulcan with an orbit inside that of Mercury to explain those spots seen on the sun... Meteors and other events were recorded in credible journals, even a president saw rocks from the sky. Consider the possible role of space weather. Could comets be from condensed solar material? The outer part of the sun is similar to the nebula material our planets were made from.
Will the drones make a good replacement for Passenger Pigeons? Some might like the hunting, but they'll need to go into something other than pie. What can you build from the pieces??
https://archive.org/details/bo...
http://umtof.umd.edu/pub/isoto...
In other news.. Stock for companies offering Flashguns or Xeon Pulse electric fences were severly depressed.
Pappaazi Lobbyist rejoice! This is a Victory to be taken all the way to the Supreme Court.
The UK is proud to be the first country to issue what amounts to a "drone licence" (BNUC-S)
Which means if I want to offer drone photography to my clients I need to sit through £1500 worth of training, pay for additional "type rating" per drone flavor, and get a certificate of airworthiness, which depending on the manufacture can cost ~£2000 (again, per drone), pay annually for CAA permission, keep a log book of hours flown, and pay for annual licence renewal and possibly re-sit the training if I'm deemed to have flown too few hours or otherwise deskilled.
This also comes with a boatload of regulations that prohibit over-flying of pretty much anything other than open countryside or property you own. So what started out as an idea to turn a hobby into a nice little adjunct to the business and differentiate ourselves in the market is now a daunting monolith of regulations, expense, and impractical regulations.
People sit on the hill, there only job is to regulate.
When it's something Obama doesn't want to get involved in, an agency like the FAA is an "independent authority". But when it's something he does want to meddle in, agencies like the EPA or FCC are part of the executive branch.
This article is disingenuous. Even if drone flying was outright banned in the US, why couldn't US companies build and fly drones in those other countries? I don't see how rules governing US airspace restrict companies from innovating and participating in foreign markets.
Because it is clear that the potential for abuse is so high that the longer we delay the better.
I say delay, because we're really only talking about the private sector. The government, law enforcement agencies, etc. are flying all the time. I'm sure with what we spend on black budget items that I can be viewed and heard day and night/in and out. Not saying anyone is, just know they can. And I sure as hell don't want private industries, particularly those who engage in advertising, being given the 'keys' to the garage. I can see the ads flying in already. "Dear homeowner. It's the right time of year to paint, mow, and generally just clean up. Recent photos suggest your home...."
good news for companies operating outside the U.S. and looking to build a business around drones.
What business is that? I see a drone buzzing my property and I take it out with my Mossberg. Pizza and all.
If aviation were regulated, when Wright brothers were building plane, would they have even bothered? Having to pay lawyers to file applications with Aviation authorities, would they have been able to afford the plane itself?
Same question about Ford and other early automobile-makers... We've surrendered important liberties in exchange for illusory relief from, mostly, imaginary problem.
Yeah, yeah, the same old Libertarian ramblings...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Different kind of drone I guess.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?