[6/20 update: Senator Tester (MT-D) is proposing a CCCPDA type bill today in the Senate. We’ll have more information available as soon as we can. Story from the Daily Montanan. As of 6/21, this bill has not been introduced.]
_________________________________________________________
All updates will be above this paragraph. That way you do not have to re-read the entire article to get the latest information.
_________________________________________________________
I’ve been wanting to write this article for the last few days, because with the fluidity and volatile nature of this subject, I didn’t know how long it would be accurate. I still don’t. However, with the amount of misinformation being shared, and the sheer number of questions being asked, I thought I should go ahead and write it now. But check back often, and I’ll do my best to make this the go-to place for the most up-to-date information.
Also, this article will sidestep the more political and controversial aspects of the reasons behind the “ban”, and concentrate instead on the black and white issues as they stand right now. There are enough conversations about that already. And “right now” is 12:30PM MT on 16 June, 2024. As mentioned, this is very fluid. And this article may be outdated as quickly as just a couple of hours after I publish it. So do check back often.
This article pertains to the wording of the Countering CCP Drones Act (CCCPDA), and it’s inclusion in the House version, and possible inclusion into the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
A quick summary of H.R. 2864, and the language it contains. The CCCPDA mandates Congress to have DJI “or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof” added to the Secure and Trusted Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 1601). That would then prevent the FCC from granting any more FCC licenses to DJI or any “subsidiary or affiliate thereof“. This would effectively ban DJI from importing any new models requiring new FCC licenses. That would include mics and gimbals, as well as drones.
So let’s get to the meat of the matter first, there is NO outright and immediate ban for either DJI or any of the myriad of other Chinese drones. So if someone posts that, please send them a link to this article.
And feel free to share it in your local drone groups as a method of dispelling any inaccuracies popping up recently.
Fallacy #1: DJI drones will be banned.
Truth #1: The odds of an outright ban are extremely small. Not impossible, but remote as best.
The current language of the CCCPDA would require the FCC to deny all future FCC license requests for DJI. That includes drones, mics, and gimbals. That would only affect future DJI FCC applications. Nothing in the language of the bill would require the FCC to revoke any current DJI licenses. And I was assured this was the case when I spent over an hour on the phone with Congresswoman Stefanik’s staffer that works on this issue.
Being the eternal optimist that I am, I had no reason to doubt her. Some things that have happened since that phone call have made me reconsider some things she told me, but so far the promise to not revoke current licenses is not on that list.
So, could it happen? Maybe. Will it happen? Incredibly unlikely.
_______________________________________________
Fallacy #2: Our DJI drones will be bricked.
Truth #2: DJI drones will NOT be bricked if the CCCPDA becomes law.
Even if the long shot of the FCC revoking current DJI licenses were to happen, that doesn’t mean your drone will be bricked. Worse case scenario, we would be flying under an FCC violation. Which would still be illegal, not to mention cause issues with insurance, but nothing would brick the drones. The only way to do that would be for DJI to send a command to your drone to brick it. And why would they?
And let’s take a huge leap of faith and say that the FCC revokes the licenses, and DJI sends a brick command to all of their drones. Your drone would still need to be connected to the internet to receive that command.
So put that fear out of your minds.
_______________________________________________
Fallacy #3: The. House passed their version of the NDAA, and since it contains the CCCPDA language, it’s now law.
Truth#3: That’s not how D.C. works.
Yes. The House passed their version of the NDAA on Friday, 6/14/24 by a vote of 217 Ayes, and 199 Noes. And yes, it contains the CCCPDA language on page 716 to be exact.
But we still need to wait and see if the CCCPDA language is included in the Senate version of the NDAA. To date, we haven’t seen the final language, and we aren’t sure when we will. It can take anywhere from a couple of days to see final bills, to a month or more. Odds are, given the importance of the NDAA (especially in an election year), it will likely be days, not weeks. But time will tell.
No matter whether the CCCPDA language is in the Senate NDAA or not, both versions will be given to a Congressional conference committee to hammer out the differences. From there, it would go to the White House for a Presidential signature. Once that happens, it would then need to go to the FCC for them to implement the denial language into their procedures. And I have no idea how long that would take. If you know, please comment below.
For those of you who grew up on Saturday morning Schoolhouse Rock segments, this will bring back a memory or two. If you didn’t, enjoy this little ditty from 1975, “I’m Just a Bill”. It helps explain the system. Sorry for the ear worm. Someone posted that in my Facebook group , and I just had to share.
_______________________________________________
Fallacy #4: This only affect DJI drones.
Truth #4: Not necessarily.
While the CCCPDA language is most definitely geared towards DJI, H.R. 8070, Section 1721 (b)(5)(A) also includes the language “(or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof)” when describing who it affects. So what exactly does that mean? Depending on how “subsidiary or affiliate” is defined, that may include such drones as Anzu or Specta.
I have no doubt that if the FCC decides either of these are a DJI “subsidiary or affiliate”, there will be a court case to follow. Who knows how that would turn out?
_______________________________________________
Fallacy #5: This bill will increase tariffs.
Truth #5: The CCCPDA language has no provisions for any tariffs.
We’re seeing this more and more frequently. That is not the case at all. Some people are confusing the language in the H.R. 8416, Drones for First Responders Act (DFR) with the NDAA language. H.R. 8416 is another bill offered up by Congresswoman Stefanik. This one is the one that would increase tariffs up to 50% (+$100) by 2029, with a full outright ban of ALL Chinese drones on 1 January, 2030.
We already pay a 25% tariff on Chinese drones. This would double it over the next 5 years. But as of today (6/16/24), there isn’t even any text listed on the Congressional site that shows all of the current bills.
For now, just put that one on the back burner. We’ll work on burning that one down to the ground if and when it’s actually introduced.
_______________________________________________
Fallacy #6: Security is an issue.
Truth #6: If that was truly the case, why wait for the ban?
The battle cry in D.C. is all about security. And since this has been an ongoing issue allegedly since late 2018, why is it just now coming to a head? If there was a true security issue, then we need an immediate ban. Now!
The fact that no one seems overly concerned about the lack of immediacy on the security issue, would seemingly indicate it’s not as bad as those claiming make it out to be. Why wait if this was truly an issue? This is a very good point that Greg Reverdiau from Pilot Institute continues to hammer.
Also, with the June 7th announcement that DJI will no longer upload flight logs from anywhere in the U.S., why are they still pushing this?
_______________________________________________
Fallacy #7: Fill in the blank.
I have no doubt there are other falsehoods roaming the Inner Webs that I haven’t addressed here. If you see one and want to know if it’s true to not, please reach and let me know. Email me and I’ll add it to this article. You can easily reach me at vic@dspalliance.org.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, and please help spread the truth about this very important subject when it comes to our industry and hobby. Misinformation can cause great damage to both. Whether it’s intentional, or being spread by well intended (but uniformed) folks, the truth needs to be shared.
And as mentioned at the beginning, the facts stated above can change at any moment this week. So if do check back often. And feel free to reach out to the above email if you have any other questions
Very interesting article and my personal opinion it’s very hard to ban dji. As pilot using dji brand it’s the only drone that take care about the security. The geofencing takes me time to understand but right now it’s easy to fly. But I see a little problem. Regarding the drone zone right now the increased number of pilot using the drone zone system confront delays in their permits to clear to fly . Loosing opportunities to make revenues. This is a mayor concern to all of us .
We’re hoping that we can get Congress to understand the implications for all sorts of folks who use DJI drones. Thanks for the comment!
You lost me a bit with this comment:
“And let’s take a huge leap of faith and say that the FCC revokes the licenses, and DJI sends a brick command to all of their drones. Your drone would still need to be connected to the internet to receive that command. So put that fear out of your minds.”
Using a DJI drone is indeed possible without an internet connection, but full functionality requires it at least from time to tine and when switching controllers.
And again with this one:
“The battle cry in D.C. is all about security. And since this has been an ongoing issue allegedly since late 2018, why is it just now coming to a head? If there was a true security issue, then we need an immediate ban. Now!
The fact that no one seems overly concerned about the lack of immediacy on the security issue, it would seemingly indicate it’s not as bad as those claiming make it out to be. Why wait if this was truly an issue?”
There are a myriad of truly urgent things that crawl through the process in DC. Suggesting that something isn’t really a concern because DC hasn’t moved quickly is just silly.
About not being connected to the internet: yes, you can use the drone w/o being connected to the internet. None of mine are connected when I fly. What I’m saying is that if DJI (or any drone manufacturer) wanted to update firmware w/o the user’s knowledge, the drone would have to be connected to the internet in some way. They could hide code as well if you update offline using SD Cards. But that would be unlikely at that point in the game.
If “security” was truly at the root of this issue, and it was as bad as they say, why has it taken almost 6 years to get to this point? D.C. would have done something about this much earlier than now if this was anything other than a political ploy by those wanting brownie points in D.C. and U.S. manufacturers using politics to hurt companies that can’t compete against. No, I have a very hard time believing it’s about security due to the lack of expediency.
Thanks for your comment Robert!
The fact that the language within the bill does not state ONLY NEW products does indeed seem to make you an eternal optimist. I appreciate the fact that you called Congresswoman Stefanik’s staffer and had a long conversation. However, the language within HR-8070 speaks for itself. There is no room for interpretation as there is no grey area in the language. Until the languages changes or is better defined, the bill that passed the House of Representatives sure seems to include ALL DJI products and not just new/future products.
I do not doubt what the staffer told you. However, I do not trust heresy and will go with what is clearly written within the bill itself. IF the final bill (which is a ways off yet) that goes before the president for a signature includes the language we see in HR-8070, there is no reason to believe it will not encompass all DJI products. You readily admit other things the staffer told you are not panning out to be 100% accurate, why be so optimistic about which products could be banned from using FCC controlled frequencies?
From your article:
“Being the eternal optimist that I am, I had no reason to doubt her. Some things that have happened since that phone call have made me reconsider some things she told me, but so far the promise to not revoke current licenses is not on that list.”
The language of the CCCPDA doesn’t mention that, but the act it refers to mentions FCC licenses. As mentioned in the article, the possibility exists, but it’s remote.
We will see in the end, so we’ll have to keep our fingers crossed. But I truly believe even Congress isn’t so cumulatively stupid as to kill a multi-billion dollar industry.
I truly appreciate the comment!
Since Congress sees this as a “national security concern”, it makes no sense that Congress would continue to allow existing products to use the FCC controlled airwaves. I truly pray for the day I can return to say “you were right and I was wrong”. Better yet, hopefully the language is stripped out of the final (FY 2025) NDAA! Thank you for all that you do and your continued contribution to the industry.
Okay Vic. If the FCC revokes DJI’s and OTHER CHINESE DRONES (Fimi, Autel, EXO. HolyStone, etc) license / channel- how will any DJI or other drone communicate between the remote controller and drone – since that IS the part of 2.4 /5 GHz communications protocol to communicate between the 2.
So, in the NDAA, there in no “drop dead” date like in the 1st Responders’ Bill that seems to almost be null and void at this point – like the previous bills Stefanik tried to push thru. I’ve seen / heard anywhere from 2028 to 2030 (like in the Responders Bill).
Why is Greg at Pilot Institute posting in his video blogs are different information or is that simply based on the Responders Bill? All you big guys in the industry are creating a lot of the misinformation that continues to bounce around. Can “you” not all get together and post the SAME MESSAGE, so much of the new confusion is far less. The like of DroneDJ’s stupid posts – mainly political based – are ridiculous. Many take this morons word a gospel. I do trust you and Greg (P.I.) – but again – your messages do not jive, which they should since you 2 seem to work together A LOT.
I know more trust our government than I do DroneDJ or other blog clowns. Even if Congress does not pass the drone part of the NDAA – the FCC can take action on its own – can the not. Should people like Stefanik and others who have co-sponsored the asinine bills (seemingly being in SkyDio’s pockets along with one of the drone groups that said it was good to ban DJI / Chinese drones) to side pressure the FCC to revoke the licenses. Anything is possible with this gaggle of idiots in DC. We see it every day. As for Stefanik’s staffer – is that like Bidens Press Secretary – KJP – who has NO CLUE?
I’m not trying to be negative, but I know my government and it’s massive overreach in many areas and drones are the new frontier for them. I truly hope all this nonsense goes away, but will it. Stefanik and Co seem intent on getting “CHINESE” drones banned as an interest for all these nowhere to be found US built drones.
I truly wish they’d leave us alone, esp since DJI has dropped the syncing of flight records which I turned off long ago within the FlyApp. With DJI’s move – this has in itself created issues with pilots who want to upload to American companies like AirData / etc.
Sadly – the 1st Responder Groups got into the fray late in the game and they should have been front and center when Stefanik & Co proposed this garbage. Their input may have been a big point and more important than the rest of us – not that we are not important – but with what 1sr Responders do – they should have more input and clout.
Hi Terry. All great questions.
It is unlikely the FCC will arbitrarily revoke already granted licenses. And as of now, only DJI is targeted by the legislation.
Greg and I are saying pretty much the same thing. My article is a little more up to date, but that’s simply because I can edit this article as info becomes available. I’m not sure what differences there are in my article and Greg’s video though. There is some interpretation, but for the DFN, it’s pretty black and white. But we don’t have full language yet, so we have to go off of what Stefanik has put out. But if there are differences in our two stories, I have no doubt they’re minor. We do see quite a bit of very bad info out there. I watched a video today that said “don’t buy anymore DJI, you won’t be able to use them soon.” That’s utter nonsense. I left a comment on her video, hopefully she’ll reach out.
I’m not a fan of DroneDJ for a couple of reasons. But mainly at this point it because their UAA writer isn’t that well informed and listens to some who shouldn’t be giving information out. DroneXL is a much better source.
And as far as the name of the staffer, I’m not going to share that. I do not want to put her in a bad position. That’s not my style. I have no reason to believe that she was honest to the best of her ability as the time of our phone call. But no, it’s not the current Press Secretary.
At this point in the game, all we can do is sit and watch. We can continue to reach out via Drone Advocacy Alliance (https://droneadvocacyalliance.com/) and our Take Action page. I will to my best to make this article the one to check for the latest information. I’m using my contacts in D.C. and other industry partners to try and stay as close to real-time as I can. I do have an actual real job (I don’t get paid for any of this work), so I can’t always have my finger on the pulse. But I’ll do my best.
I wish I had all the answers. I know I’d sleep better if I did. And I have no doubt others would too. But we all just have to sit by and be patience. As the saying goes, “Never pray for patience. Because instead of God granting you patience, He will put you in a position to learn it”. That’s where we at now.
I appreciate the awesome questions. Again, I just wish I had all the answers. Hopefully I answered the ones I could to your satisfaction.
Question: Any truth to online comments that US based drone manufacturers are behind the DJI ban? If so, did they start/push it? Or do they simply support it? If so is there any recourse? “Donations” to campaigns and the usual follow the money stuff.
Protectionist acts rarely work as intended and almost always have unintended consequences. For example did you ever wonder why all large cruise ships are foreign flagged? A protectionist act enacted 138 years ago called Passenger Vessel Services Act which simply means a foreign ship cannot transport passengers directly between two U.S. ports. The Jones Act does the same for cargo vessels. The result, the US builds no large passenger or cargo ships anymore. Except for the Navy of course.
Yes, Skydio is not only behind it at the monetary level (they signed a $15,000 per month contract earlier this year with a NY State lobbying firm), they are also VERY active on The Hill in D.C. Adam Vry is testifying at a House China Committee (yes, that does exist) next Wednesday about the influence of Chinese drones.
Skydio, BRINC, Teal, and AUVSI are all behind this.
Mr. Moss, in one of your replies above you state “The FCC cannot arbitrarily revoke already granted licenses.” What about FCC-22-84A1.pdf. Based on what is said their, it sure seems that the FCC can revoke previous authorizations. I continue to hope that they won’t, but again, they seem to state that they have the authority to do so. Here is the direct quote from within their publication (section 114):
“We also conclude that the Commission has the requisite authority under the
Communications Act to review any existing equipment authorization that would, under the rules that we
adopt in this Report and Order, be “covered” equipment, and to determine the necessity for revoking such
authorization, and that the Commission can undertake such revocation pursuant to current rules. We
reach this determination based on our reading of the Commission’s existing authorities. Pursuant to the
same authorities discussed above with respect to the equipment authorization program, the Commission
has long relied on its authority (modelled along the lines of section 312 with respect to spectrum
licensees277) to revoke equipment authorizations under section 2.939(a)(4) “[b]ecause of conditions
coming to the attention of the Commission which would warrant it in refusing to grant an original
application.”278 We conclude that it is well within the Commission’s responsibilities and mandate, as
IPVM has suggested,279 to revoke an existing equipment authorization under section 2.939(a)(4).”
I should have been more clear. Yes, it is possible, but unlikely. I will edit that part to make it more clear. Thanks for pointing that out.
~V~
Vic, what’s your take on the “sunset” provision of the proposed bill? Perhaps they feel that five years is long enough to create the necessary changes and a permanent ban isn’t needed?
I also didn’t read the FCC licensing process in the draft bill. I’m going to review it again but hope you can point me in the right direction. Thanks for your time and contribution!
I haven’t read a sunset provision in the CCCPDA. The DFR has a 5 year ban, but we don’t have the actual text of the bill yet. Stefanik hasn’t published it in Congress.gov yet (https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8416/text?s=2&r=1).
As far as necessary changes, DJI addressed this (assuming it’s an actual security issue and not a political ploy) last week when they turned off flight record upload for any of their drones flown in the U.S.