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...
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.
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
Why blame Obama? This is the FAA, an independent authority. He pushed them as far as I thing a President should go in interfering with what should not be part of his personal fief. Then Congress ordered them to pass regulations, which they have grumpily done.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
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".
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.
To play devil's advocate, it *is* really advantageous for technology developers to have easy physical access and low linguistic barriers with early adopters. So it would unquestionably help the early development of the drone industry if drones were completely unregulated. That doesn't mean they should be unregulated. It just means that regulation has, along with its intended consequences, some undesirable ones as well.
But that's always true. The US food supply is highly regulated when compared to some place like China, which is notorious for food adulteration. It would no doubt be a great benefit to the US food industry if food safety regulations were removed. People will have to eat even if they can't be sure that their food isn't tainted, so if government's sole responsibility is fostering US industry, then Congress should repeal all food safety laws.
So it's quite possible that regulating drones might harm the US drone industry, but that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't regulate it. We almost certainly should. What doesn't help anyone in the US is taking longer than strictly necessary to come up with a reasonable set of regulations.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Why blame Obama? This is the FAA, an independent authority.
Because that agency's directory is part of his political appointee group, and answer directly to him. They (the FAA) were tasked by law, in congress, to act on this a long time ago, and they (the FAA, as directed by Obama's appointee Huerta) have been deliberately and thoroughly dragging their feet. They're just getting around to looking for comments on part of a body of regulations in this area that the law required them to already have in place, done, finished and usable by commercial operators this year. Considering Obama's willingness to "use his pen and his phone" to issue executive orders that directly contradict the law and the constitution, he should have no problem calling up the guys who reports to him in DoT and FAA and saying, "Obey the law and wrap up these new regulations on time" - because untold billions of dollars and thousands of new jobs and businesses are being held back.
Then Congress ordered them to pass regulations, which they have grumpily done.
No, they have NOT done it. They have been piddling around it, and have just started one aspect of it, very late. Meanwhile companies with billions to invest aren't allowed to even hover a quadcopter in their parking lot to test out a new camera or agricultural sensor system because there are no federal permits to be had, only nearly impossible to get waivers that include such nice features as all of the engineers who want to put a 10-pound multirotor 10 feet in the air having to each have actual pilots licenses. That sort of FAA insanity, allowed to fester by the agency's director, who sets policy priorities and who reports to Obama, is a completely self-inflicted wound on the US economy. Inexcusable. Meanwhile, a kid who wants to fly a DJI Phantom for fun to look at the roof of his house can do so because it's a "model," but if he steps 50 feet to the right and does it at his neighbor's request to check their roof gutters for $20, he faces a nice $10,000 fine from the FAA. The Nanny State paradise hard at work making everyone's lives better.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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...."
The only thing regulation will do is ensure that the bad guys import foreign drones, or build their own.
I've already seen reviews on the web from drone owners pissed off that theirs now demands to be connected to the Internet on a regular basis to download a list of places it's not going to fly in future. Do you think they'll be buying a US drone next time?
Well, you have a point if a law needs to prevent bad things from happing, but by that standard murder laws don't work.
Outlawing flight over certain places won't stop some people from doing it, but prosecuting the ones you catch will discourage some of them.
And it's not like this is 1995; periodically connecting to the Internet to download a dataset isn't exactly a hardship.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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?
Well, you have a point if a law needs to prevent bad things from happing, but by that standard murder laws don't work.
The whole point of a law is to prevent bad things from happening, or at least discourage them. The bad things people seem to think they can prevent by regulating drones are, say, people flying bombs into your house, or flying drones into airliners. Laws won't stop that, when anyone can make a drone with a 3D printer, a few common electrical and electronic items, and some open source software.
Outlawing flight over certain places won't stop some people from doing it, but prosecuting the ones you catch will discourage some of them.
OK. A drone is flying over your house. You shoot it out of the sky. Now what? How are you going to catch whoever was flying it?
And it's not like this is 1995; periodically connecting to the Internet to download a dataset isn't exactly a hardship.
Who's going to buy a DRM-ed drone when they can buy or build a non-DRMed drone instead?
I don't think you know what "DRM" means.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.