Game of Drones: As US Dithers, Rivals Get a Head Start 85
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.
"Good News" is Relative (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the issue is there are too many people in the American Market that takes Science Fiction not as a worst case scenario, meant to allow for conflict in a book to become a prophetic warning about any use of such technology.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a firm believer in technology. But I am also a firm believer that just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
Just because I have a high power zoom lens on my camera doesn't mean I should be able to take pictures of my hot neighbor in the shower.
Re:"Good News" is Relative (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed.
It's one thing to have some neat-o technology, but another to rush out and shove it into mass production just because OMG Europe and Asia is doing it, guys! Hurry the fsck up!!!11!!
Seriously; drones already create inter-neighbor privacy concerns, a potential hazard as they occasionally crash into stuff, and seriously, there's a potential that it can provide one more step towards a surveillance society that is entirely unwelcome.
Oh, a small tangent: I live in a very rural area expressly for the peace and quiet. Unless I'm running it, a drone buzzing over my property, snooping around and making noise, only means one thing: target practice. Not because of any tinfoil factor, but because it's an annoyance and a trespass. I am very certain that I'm not alone in this. You want drones buzzing about your area, fine... just don't intrude on those of us who have no use or desire for the things.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not too much of a worry. In most locations its tresspassing just to enter anothers property without permission. In most casez, you lose the ability to seek redress for harm thst came to you during the violation of a crime (thanks to rediculous lawsuits in the past).
It will depend on where you are but it does not worry me where i am at.
Re: (Score:2)
It should also be noted that you do NOT waive your ability to seek redress from harm when committing a crime, at least not automatically. If you, as a property owner, destroy someone's else's property, they generally can
Re: (Score:2)
Property rights do extend to the airspace immediately above the land. For example, hovering a helicopter ten feet above somebody else's house would still constitute trespass. If the GP was complaining about a buzzing drone, this test would also be relevant:
Re: (Score:2)
They should not have flown their drone into my buckshot that definately have a right to have in the airspace ovee my property.
And yes, im my area, you do kose your ability for redress when commiting a crime.
And if ir is shot down on my property or ends up on it any other way, its mine just like the golf balls, frizbees, baseballs and anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, a dumbass that figured how to register with slashdot compare to what are you who cannot figure out how to log in.. interesting.
I do believe i prefaced my comments had you bothered reading them or hold the comprehension abilities to understand them with " in my area" which makes anyone not in.my area meamingless to my comment. I guess in a way you are correct, i ignored everyone ese on earth with my comment, but that is also why i limited it to my area.
So tell me, are you upset that if you fly your dron
Re: (Score:2)
Buckshot?
#5 bird will do the job much better. Also safer downrange.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably but i usually keep the guns loaded with either #000 or #0000 buck for other uses. There wouln't be too much to worry about downrange at my place but i understand the concern.
We are not to the point i need to keep a drone gun handy yet. Cyotes and adicts trying to steal my nitrogen and anything else not nailed down are my main concerns.
Re: (Score:3)
You have the right idea. I would hope you would shoot down a drone flying low over your property.
The problem is the FAA is claiming I can't fly a drone over your property at your request in order to provide some service (crop inspection, land survey, etc.) because they are claiming (incorrectly IMO) that they own all the airspace over your land.
I would rather private property air-rights were increased to 1200 feet (right now they are arguably somewhere between 83 and 500 feet, except for those idiots in Or
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of crazy 10 gauge tight choked goose gun can effectively shoot up to 500ft?
At 500 ft I'd go for electronic methods. Lets see what the old spark gap generator does.
Re: (Score:2)
Mightn't you rather say "Just because I'm able to take pictures of my hot neighbor in the shower doesn't mean I should be taking pictures of my hot neighbor in the shower." Or, are you suggesting that your camera should recognize the zoom, camera location and direction and make it so you're not able to take those photos? Or, were you trying to say "doesn't mean I should be permitted to take pictures of my hot neighbor in the shower."
Re: (Score:2)
If she is showering in open view, then I'm all for taking pictures.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we do get a lot of this.... I have had even fairly smart people say things like "Well just look at rapture, that proves laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work".
I mean, its not like there aren't plenty of criticizms for all sorts of ideas, philosophical and otherwise, but, a fictional story doesn't prove anything....a story is often written backwards from problem to plausible cause, they are written based on the biases of their authors, they prove nothing except, what the author thought.
Certainly it p
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly but, its still fiction. In fact, when you really get down to it stories, even factual ones, only talk about possible outcomes. Drawing back on my poker experience, I liken these anecdotes to what we call "rabbit hunting" when a hand is over, someone has folded, but the guy who folded wants to see what the next card would have been.
In truth, its a pointless thing to do. Run the same situation over and over and the result will approach the average situation sure, but any one can only tell you what h
Re: (Score:2)
Let me write a story for 100 years in the future...
Religious intolerance is still there.
Some grand experiment in a non-capitalistic economic system failed and became a dictatorship.
A clash in gender differences.
A food that we think is healthy is found to be harmful.
Whites become a minority in america.
If they try to make a fiction believable, they will play with the tensions of the time, and try to magnify it.
Slavery - a good amount of debate for a while.
Chinese racism - yea the typical european descended pe
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That is brilliant! What other industries do you think we could dominate by outlawing mistakes?
Good news or bad news? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not even sure what the author is arguing for here. Is he saying there should be NO regulation of drones (because other countries don't do it)? Well sure, that's fine for now. But do you want a future where millions of those goddamn things are flying around everywhere with NO SAFETY REGULATIONS at all?
Look if China and other countries want to put some minor business advantage ahead of public safety, then more power to them. But I much prefer living in a country where companies can't just do whatever the
Re: (Score:2)
Is he saying there should be NO regulation of drones (because other countries don't do it)?
Other countries do have regulations. They just have sensible regulations, based on the size, weight, and capabilities of the drone. In the US the regulations are based primarily on whether it is "commercial" or "non-commercial". So the FAA is not concerned about safety, or privacy. They are primarily concerned about drones competing with piloted aircraft. This is an example of regulatory capture. The FAA is running a protection racket for pilots.
Re: (Score:2)
And how is "sensible" defined?
Energy/damage potential equivalent to a bird strike. Something which aircraft certification already has to deal with. Operating ceilings can be estblished based on the minimums allowed for GA planes and helicopters. Keep drones below these operating minimums.
Re: (Score:2)
Birds are hollow inside? WTF? Have you ever actually opened up a bird? It's full of meat and stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Other countries generally have more restricted aviation indust
Re: (Score:2)
if you're trying to use a DJI Phantom to take photos, I'm sure the local police and others have plenty to get you on
I'd want the rules to be similar to taking pictures with a hand held camera - i.e. if taking the picture isn't breaking some law, then "taking the picture with a drone" probably shouldn't be illegal either, barring saftey issues...
Honestly, the stuff like the DJI Phantom seems like it ought to be preferred vs the radio helicopters you can buy from the mall because it seems to be able to help y
Re: (Score:2)
if drones are unregulated enough in your country for you to start your business, what difference does it make what the US does?
Because your business might be more profitable if it does not have to compete with imports from the United States than if it does.
So what's the current situtation? Is it unregulated, or is commercial drone flying blanket banned?
Commercial flight without a license is banned, and licenses are unavailable without regulation.
Re: (Score:1)
Looks like the current situation is they are classified as model aircraft - so limits to where they can operate, must have human operator and line of site.
Personally I think this cautious approach is a good way forward. Done right drones have a lot of potential, done badly it could really hold back the industry. Entrepreneurs need to be aware that it's not just about having a good idea, its about selling it to everyone else, including the wider society in which the idea survives. Otherwise you end up with G
Re: (Score:2)
So what's the current situtation? Is it unregulated, or is commercial drone flying blanket banned?
The FAA would say that commercial drone flying is blanket banned.
The only court ruling to date on the matter says otherwise, but I believe it is being appealed.
The issue is that the FAA didn't go through the rulemaking processes with any of this stuff. They're not actually allowed to just issue press releases and call them regulations.
So we want to be like ... (Score:2)
... maybe China?
The US has already learned valuable lessons about early adoptions.
To avoid muddle don't meddle in the middle (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"China" meddles heavily with the middle class anyway, given the problems with corruption and pretty much anyone with enough money can use state power to deal with rivals, pesky workers, or land owners who have stuff they want.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, to be fair, the US doesn't get involved in Tibet nearly as much as China does.
And they do have a Muslim terrorist problem, they just handle it differently. Google "Uyghur Muslim" for more information.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair, the US doesn't get involved in Tibet nearly as much as China does.
And they do have a Muslim terrorist problem, they just handle it differently. Google "Uyghur Muslim" for more information.
With Guantanamo inmates being sent to Kazakhstan we can almost see the ground being laid for the scenario which plays out in Diamond Age; radicalisation of the 'Stans, reaction against Chinas heavy handedness toward their Muslim population etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because 100 people can do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because 100 people can do that.
100 people can rouse 100 more and they another 100 more and so on until you have an army that can overthrow an empire.
At this time the 'Stans are not very radical, heck Kazakhs will do a vodka toast and prayers right after! And Kazakh women don't seem to have any problem marrying infidel men. They are very chill about their Islam. But that could change if the right seeds are sewn. I hope not but I could see it unfolding. I have heard that many young people in the 'Stans are turning against their parents and
Re: (Score:2)
No, we think we have learned. We have not.
Requiring the population to get on bended knee for permission to do things slows the rate of technological advancement, leading to more deaths in the long run as tech lags more and more, like compound interest building up.
It's a mathematical triviality to show the FDA and other business-unfriendly practices lead to magnitudes more deaths than these save by preventing some snake oil from getting to market too fast. All savings of lives so far pale to what would be
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, I recognize the unfortnuate political impossibility of doing this. One dead person in front of a camera for politicians to cry over is worth more than 100,000 lives saved because some heart medicine was not delayed by a few years.
his is a world of idiots, by idiots, and for the idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck you.
I was born and raised on the Gulf Coast of Southeast Texas and I grew up with shitty polluted streams, bayous and rivers and lakes.
It took a hundred years for us to get to the place that the North Dakota Bakken fields have yet to reach because money is driving those people crazy.
The same thing happened with Big Tobacco. Remember that prolonged fight?
It's time to grow up BEFORE we leap.
wrong. article incorrectly assigning blame... (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Dithering? I don't think so (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
People tend to forget that the FAA has some pretty heavy tasks on its regulatory plate with a lot of lives (not to mention property) on the line. While drones represent fun and profit, if clear rules for use of airspace are not spelled out a lot of people could (and will) get hurt as usage rises.... and the 'victim pays' mentality of deregulation tends to not go very well.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the UAS community is complaining about the existence of regulations, or even the need for regulations, per se. The main complaint to the FAA is that they are ready for regulations, ANY regulations, just get on with promulgating them. I'm not a drone guy, but even I recognize that the potential of UAVs is huge for fundamental changes in many fields, but the FAA has been (intentionally?) dragging its feet for _so long_ that the technical initiative is bleeding out of the US into other countrie
regulations prohibit, they don't prescribe (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Glancing over the current rules, commercial enterprises are currently barred for using drones to move persons or cargo for compensati
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like the FAA already has regulation in place for what you can and can not do with drones. Popping over to their site, while they do not have huge amounts of it, they do seem to have some pretty clear rules already in place.
As far as I'm aware, the FAA does not have a single regulation in place for what you can and can not do with drones.
They have lots of webpages full of things they claim are rules, however they are not regulations.
I'd certainly be interested in anything to the contrary. I'm sure you can find a citation in the Federal Register, where all legally-binding regulations are published.
The FAA has only taken one company to court over this stuff, and the court actually ruled against them for this reason.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.faa.gov/uas/
3 links at the bottom of the page going over regulation for government, non-government, and hobby usage, including relevent references to existing law.
Re: (Score:2)
Here you go.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/ [faa.gov]
3 links at the bottom of the page going over regulation for government, non-government, and hobby usage, including relevent references to existing law.
And none of those laws pertain to drones. At most they give the FAA authority to regulate them. That means the FAA can create regulations. It doesn't mean that they can put up a webpage and tell people what to do.
By all means cite a law or regulation you believe says otherwise. However, I want a citation of a specific passage of law, not an FAA website.
Hint, you can find it all at one of these two sites:
http://uscode.house.gov/ [house.gov]
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/EC... [ecfr.gov]
Every enforceable law has a basis in one of
Mandate from the Editor's desk... (Score:1)
Too much of a good thing. (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 pla
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you know what "DRM" means.
Sorry but I shed no tears.. (Score:1)
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' t
A new life awaits you in the off-world colonies! (Score:2)
Different kind of drone I guess.
Consider Ford and Wright brothers (Score:2)
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...