5 ms·
FCC moves to ban Lidar-equipped foreign drones from US
- cr125rider 2mo agoAnother move to remove competition for Don Jr.?
- ACCount37 2mo agoThat, or to avoid surrendering yet another technology relevant to the future to China. As if them manufacturing the bulk of world's solar panels, wind turbines and heading for EVs isn't bad enough.
- 05 2mo agoUS companies don't even sell consumer drones, so are they going to stay competitive by forcing consumers to buy $4000 enterprise models for their kids to play with?
- ACCount37 2mo agoHobbyist drones also don't ship with lidar in stock. The concern isn't China dominating the area of $20 toys. The concern is platforms relevant to industry and military. Whether that, in turn, can be disentangled from "the area of $20 toys" in case of drones is unclear to me.
- 0x457 2mo agoThat is false. DJI Air 3S, Mini 5 Pro, Mavic 4 Pro, and even the Neo 2 are consumer drones that ship with forward-facing LiDAR for obstacle avoidance. FCC proposal doesn’t distinguish that safety sensor from mapping-grade or military LiDAR - it covers any drone that “contains or integrates” LiDAR. If Air and Mini ain't hobbyist grade idk what is.
- 05 2mo ago> Hobbyist drones also don't ship with lidar in stock. Is Neo a $20 toy? LIDARs are getting cheap quick, at some point when ToF sensors add $10 to BoM they will be in all drones.. I guess except US only SKUs? Not like you can't get pretty much the same data using just a single camera, GPS+IMU fusion and structure-from-motion..
- Danox 2mo agoThat ship has sailed all of the countries that can get into space know every square inch of every piece of territory in every country of the world, there isn’t any place to hide, the local American drone makers in America for example don’t want to make civilian drones. They want guaranteed contracts from the American government selling high priced military equipment civilians be damned.
- PunchyHamster 2mo agoThat isn't stopping them from developing LIDAR in any way Moreover they also have 2 market leaders in that techs
- anigbrowl 2mo agoI mean, the rest of the world still exists and is generally happy to buy reasonably priced Chinese tech. American isolationists get rather carried away by geography to the point of assuming the rest of world is in a state of cinematic collapse with a few super enemies stalking the ruins. Trump's comments the other day suggesting he's capable of destroying the Swiss economy overnight demonstrate a sort of socioeconomic myopia predicated on the idea that the US is the only consumer market that matters.
- t-writescode 2mo agoIf we cared enough to be effective, we would be subsidizing / encouraging local manufacture of all of those at a competitive, non-luxury price.
- dgellow 2mo agoThat would need to start with building the manufacturing infrastructure. But that requires to work on long term goals, something the west hasn’t been doing that well over the last 30+ years
- bigbadfeline 2mo agoMarket bubbles make way more money than making things. That's why making things gets no money, only bans.
- t-writescode 2mo agoNo argument here.
- dgellow 2mo agoChina has been leading in drones since a very long time. It’s not something they took from the US
- Joel_Mckay 2mo agoSure, China started manufacturing the $8 motors at a steep discount which drove amateur $27.50 competition out of business, than initially sold $60 LiPol batteries for $7 to starve other manufacturers out of business for years. Finally, purchased rare earth mines across the planet to secure their economic position long into the future. China party policy was successful, and just a bit better at state-backed monopolistic control of supply & demand than many folks including the US. Gaslighting policy losers of outsourcing by insisting it never happened just angers people. That is how it happened, and most open-hardware community projects are still sold on China websites within a few weeks. It is just a cultural opinion on IP ownership that differs. =3
- Danox 2mo agoThe upper class management shipped everything overseas, and still claim they can’t do anything on shore in America. If they can’t send it to China they’ll send it to Vietnam, India or Indonesia the excuses will never end.
- Joel_Mckay 2mo agoNot if the magnets cost more than the retail price of the product. China policy was made by teams of Engineers within The Party, and operate very differently than disconnected US trust-fund kids. =3
- nl 2mo ago> $8 motors at a steep discount What does this even mean? There are tens (hundreds?) of cheap electric motor manufactures in China. You can go and order some custom motor yourself and get a quote, and yes you get a discount if you order more. That is what free enterprise is! It seems odd that China seems to need to teach (presumably) US people this? > than initially sold $60 LiPol batteries for $7 to starve other manufacturers out of business for years You make it sounds like this was somehow strange or dodgy or something. Yes, other manufactures couldn't produce them as cheaply. There was no magic Chinese government subsidy or something outside the normal tax reductions the local governments give for setting up factories in their district (the same as in the US!)
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- georgemcbay 2mo agoStopping US import of any of these technologies doesn't suddenly make them disappear. They still exist. You can't "ignore them and they'll go away", this is real life. And as an American citizen I am always hearing how bad it is for China to have a leg up on us in X, Y or Z, and yet our government is the one that is regularly saber rattling (and starting wars over!) the shifting economic realities of the US clearly being an empire in decline. These days we also regularly saber rattle our own "allies" for fuck's sake. Long past time to ask yourself if maybe we're the baddies.
- llm_nerd 2mo agoThe US is a tiny part of the world, however self-absorbed and exceptional it imagines itself. And everyone else is going to continue buying the best options while the US drives it lifted rolls-coal pickups and tells about the olden days.
- gyanchawdhary 2mo agowrong.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- tzs 2mo agoMaybe if half of the US government wasn't trying to discourage solar power, wind power, and EVs there might be more interest in making them domestically.
- option 2mo agoThat seems to be the whole point of USA these days
- tamimio 2mo agoHow’s a Lidar is a national risk?! (It’s easy to build a lidar based drones in a weekend project) Also, knowing plenty of US based drone manufacturers, most of their stuff are dependent on Chinese parts, the radio communication is on top of that list. If I were DJI, I would make Lidar and similar components modular, so they can still sell these drones while consumers can buy these modules later or DIY it, like literally most of the drones, which will be great for other consumers in the world for the easy repairability.
- ranger_danger 2mo ago> How’s a Lidar is a national risk?! The anti-flock community believes it's because they can destroy image sensors from a distance. And banning the foreign ones means they can order domestic-made drones to have firmware that prevents them from operating in certain ways or in certain (government) areas, among other things. The finance community thinks they just don't want competition that might rival or sell better than domestic ones, similar to the ban on Chinese EVs. The privacy community thinks they only want surveillance to be possible from within, likening it to previous bans on DJI drones and Chinese routers. And the administration is currently working on trying to ban other kinds of networking gear as well as cellular modems from China (which is basically every phone in the country). Would love to hear other theories. Perspectives are fun.
- 05 2mo ago> And banning the foreign ones means they can order domestic-made drones to have firmware that prevents them from operating in certain (government) areas, among other things. Yeah because DJI drones are well known for their easy to hack firmware and lacking support for no fly zones..right? And they would openly flaunt any US law making any drones sold or flown the US to obey the NFZs? But wait, that's exactly what DJI drones used to do even without a law on the books, before FCC banned them.
- ranger_danger 2mo agoNFZ was just one example, there's no limit to what they could force other countries' software to do in their domestic versions. That was really the point I was trying to make.
- ChrisArchitect 2mo agoRelated: National Security Determination Threat Posed by Foreign-Produced Robotic Devices [pdf] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49095714 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49095714
- CSMastermind 2mo agoWe're quickly reaching the point where Lidar isn't needed, pure vision workflows are getting much better.
- PunchyHamster 2mo agoWell, Elon thought that too and we still haven't seen any robotaxi
- blitzar 2mo agoHearing its definitely going to happen by the end of the year
- dgellow 2mo agoMaybe when he’s back from his visit on Mars?
- ethin 2mo agoI heard he'd have it done by the end of the month
- Danox 2mo agoYou’re both wrong it’s gonna be next week…
- ranger_danger 2mo agoAlready happened since last month. They are on the road in Texas and Florida now.
- ranger_danger 2mo agoSince last month they are operational in multiple states now. https://preview.redd.it/475jdxno8xfh1.jpg?width=2252&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=02a1d0d588b9d54f44d117ec2c1dcc2400b566f1 https://preview.redd.it/475jdxno8xfh1.jpg?width=2252&format=...
- 2mo ago
- amanaplanacanal 2mo agoAmerican consumers are stuck with crappier and much more expensive tech. Thanks Mr President! I'm sure that's what your voters were asking for!
- Joel_Mckay 2mo agoKeep in mind people knowingly voted for a Kleptocracy, this market is what everyone expected. As investment markets overheat on a perfectly legal 1.6Tn debt-bubble created by the magnificent 7 driven index funds, it is not our job to "fix" policy issues... but merely profit by the situation. It is naive to blame a single geriatric man for the situation, as royal courts have created kings since the dawn of civilization. =3
- noahhhh 2mo ago[dead]
- ethin 2mo agoAaaaand this "ban" will be just as incompetently executed as the ban that happened like, what, a couple weeks ago about drones? Literally all the manufacturers did was create some shell companies, change the branding a bit, and boom. So much for banning things, amiright? Not to mention the shear amount of customer confusion because now they have to figure out what differentiates all these new brands nobody has ever heard of.
- frogperson 2mo agoWhen the entire system is created with loopholes for the rich, this is what happens. lawlessness, disguised as lawfullness.
- gyanchawdhary 2mo agoFCC's move is fair .. an adjacent view to this is best summed up by Palmer Lucky in this interview (https://www.hoover.org/research/palmer-luckey-wants-america-win https://www.hoover.org/research/palmer-luckey-wants-america-...?) ... “Imagine if there had been a novel … like a Tom Clancy novel” where, during the Cold War, the Pentagon’s most secure electronics would be made by the Soviet Union under Kremlin supervision .. Imagine running an aerial LiDAR/SLAM over gov sites .. mil bases .. ports .. airports .. power plants ... eeven if the system is completely benign .. ur talking about a technology whose output can be an extremely detailed representation of the physical environmen.
- edaemon 2mo agoPalmer Luckey owns a drone company. He can't have an objective opinion on his competitors being banned.
- tamimio 2mo agoThat’s the crux part, all these local companies are fear mongering the public and gaslighting the dinosaurs in the gov so they can kill competitors and get rewarded millions dollars contracts. These “concerns” are laughable for anyone who knows a bit about drones, you can build diy drones and strap an iPhone on it and you get outcome than any dji drone out there.
- gyanchawdhary 2mo agoyou can build diy drones and strap an iPhone on it and you get outcome than any dji drone out there. < true. Serious question, which drone makers would you say are superior over those that are fear mongering to get million dollar contracts ?
- Danox 2mo agoHe won’t be so lucky because no one outside the United States is gonna buy his stuff, but he doesn’t really want to sell it to anyone but the American military anyway at a inflated price.
- buran77 2mo agoWhat about Lidar-equipped (and why not, even cameras) foreign cars that scan every one of the country's roads and everything around them? Cars are increasingly packing this kind of tech and telemetry.
- gyanchawdhary 2mo agoi think its mostly to do with reach .. road only telemtry is much narrower in scope compared to a drones reach and also purpose built for mapping buildings, topography etc
- buran77 2mo agoThere's a quality to the number, ubiquity, and unassuming nature of cars. They're everywhere all the time, and reach places where a drone would be at least highly suspicious. This ban makes sense if they suspect the enemy is covertly scanning using unsuspecting users' drones. But if they suspect foreign actors are using the drones to scan, well they won't be stopped or slowed down by the ban. Whoever is interested in targeted mapping of buildings and specific areas won't be put off by Lidar drones not being commercially available. Independently Lidars and drones still are, and combining the two for malicious purposes is a no-brainer.
- gorgoiler 2mo agoVolvo EX90 has a lovely lil bump above the windshield collecting LIDAR stats for some future purpose … Volvo … Li … Geely … PRC … feeling sleepy … can’t stay focused … everything is fine.
- larpingscholar 2mo agoForeign lidar cars are already effectively banned under the same 7 year old (renewed yearly) "emergency powers" Executive Order that led to this drone ban. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/17/2019-10538/securing-the-information-and-communications-technology-and-services-supply-chain https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/17/2019-10... And more properly there is an introduced bipartisan bill - SAFE LiDAR Act.
- fitblipper 2mo agoStop manipulating our markets under the guize of national security or protecting Americans. If we need to be protected from bad behavior we need to be protected by all bad behavior regardless of it's origin. Has back doors? Ban it. Has awful security around sensitive data? Ban it. Makes technology available to the masses that is a national security risk? Ban it(if you most). Why give US companies a pass on this? It's because the US government wants in on using the products with bad behavior while still trying to stop other governments the same power.
- cyanydeez 2mo agoUnfortunately, they're half in the bag of running the country like a business. People, the rich ones, the ones who manage this site and who buy things like twitter, CBS, CNN, etc etc, want this. This isn't anything more than grift for grift sake.
- echelon 2mo agoThe idea is to provide protection for incubating a local industry in what's deemed a key strategic sector. But that's not the best way to do it. See what the Jones Act did to US shipbuilding. We should make foreign companies manufacture here, just like China did. It also works as a jobs program and builds up and industrial base and skill, as we've seen with the Japanese automotive sector.
- OutOfHere 2mo agoThe idea is more nefarious than it. Domestic firms install tracking and backdoors usable by the US government, whereas foreign firms won't.
- duxup 2mo agoIt's not even about security. Likely just a maneuver for a bribe. Like TikTok and so on...
- kotaKat 2mo ago> Conversely, the notice also details the billions that domestic drone makers like Skydio, which has committed $3.5 billion to US manufacturing, have raised since the original ban I'm so fucking tired of Adam Bry's fucking bullshit. Show me the consumer drone I can buy from Skydio.
- snypher 2mo agoYet another move to benefit those who hold Elise Stefanik's leash .
- Animats 2mo agoWhat's the FCC's statutory authority for this? This adds mobile LIDAR units to the FCC's "Covered List". The CFR entry for the Covered List [1] claims this is under the Secure and Trusted Communications Act of 2019, [2] or the FCC's authority to regulate RF emitters. RF is generally considered to end at 3 terahertz, per the ITU. Whether the FCC has jurisdiction over non-communication uses of lasers is not at all clear. Lasers are usually regulated in the US by the Food and Drug Administration. Expect lawsuits. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subpart-DD/section-1.50000 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A... [2] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-116publ124/pdf/PLAW-116publ124.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-116publ124/pdf/PLAW...
- fc417fc802 2mo agoOkay that's a good question, but before we even get to the issue of authority what is even the point of this? In what way is this specific piece of regulation as written not a massive own goal?
- runlevel1 2mo agoThe government's response to the security threat of drones has been illogical and negligent at every turn. For example, the Big Beautiful Bill only appropriated $800M for counter-UAV systems. That's insanely low given the broad threat exposure and the fact that they've literally changed what ground combat looks like. For perspective, we spent $400M on the Qatari 747 retrofit and appropriated $400M on the hope that "naval shipbuilding autonomy and AI" might be a thing.
- Danox 2mo agoAnother dumb move how do you expect to keep up to the rest of the world, which will just move on, another thing that’s bad is that most of the local US drone companies are not exactly moving all that fast to make drones for civilian use within America, they all want to cater/make military drones to sell at a high price to the American government at the expense of the American taxpayer.
- fc417fc802 2mo agoIs that really any surprise? Consumers are cost sensitive and have you seen the morass of obtuse and pointless regulations surrounding drones in the US? Meanwhile the military can do whatever it likes and has much deeper pockets. The cherry on top is how utterly unenforceable (in a practical non-proliferation sense) the bulk of the regulations are. Strap a microcontroller dev board to anything sufficiently lightweight and it can become a drone. The most expensive part of a DIY heavy lift build that breaks ~all the rules is probably the props.
- red-iron-pine 2mo ago> Strap a microcontroller dev board to anything sufficiently lightweight and it can become a drone. The most expensive part of a DIY heavy lift build that breaks ~all the rules is probably the props. the only thing keeping most of the DJT crowd alive is, basically, because no one has tried to do a ukranian drone assault on the administration. there are no serious large scale countermeasures that can't be worked around with things like basic HAM radio skills and fiber optic cable. ban them now and make them hard to get, otherwise it's gonna start looking like that youtube video "Slaughterbots" really, really quick
- fc417fc802 2mo ago> there are no serious large scale countermeasures For slow moving objects and an entrenched position there actually are but I have no idea how expensive it is to operate them nor what the practical constraints of deploying them might be. > ban them now and make them hard to get, otherwise it's gonna start looking like that youtube video "Slaughterbots" really, really quick I think you're forgetting the part where committing the crime is easy(ish) but covering your trail is nearly impossible. Most people aren't willing to martyr themselves for some abstract team red vs team blue extremist political nonsense that isn't severely impacting their day to day lives or the well being of their families. It's vaguely similar to the reason that no one sabotages power stations. It's comparatively easy to do but carries severe downsides if caught and approximately no upside for the perpetrator regardless.