Loading summary
Transcript76 lines
- [00:00]
Host
But so what exactly is in the water at the fcc? Over the past year, the FCC has dramatically reshaped the US Import market for drones and robots, not to mention routers and undersea cables. Adam Chan of the FCC joins us to discuss what has gone into these regs, what their aims are, and how they may evolve in the future. Akab Zakaria of Chinatalk co hosts today. Adam, welcome to Chinatalk.
- [00:29]
Adam Chan
Yeah, no, thank you. Thank you both so much for having me. Glad to be here.
- [00:35]
Host
So the FCC and national security people don't appreciate this, but this dates back to the founding mandate of you guys. We got a big resurgence, a renaissance perhaps.
- [00:49]
Adam Chan
Communications act of 1934, Section 1 establishes the FCC, one of two purposes is for the purpose of national defense. And so right there, you know, from the beginning there was kind of a national security focus in the FCC's mandate. That mandate is still there. And I think, you know, you've seen actually just over the last decade, like a sort of growing role for the FCC and national security. Chairman Carr, obviously, national security has been his priority for years. And so I think he's brought that focus to the chairmanship for the first time. You know, he brought me on as sort of a kind of unique person within the Chairman's office to just sort of focus on and coordinate on the national security side of things. We've set up this new sort of Council on National Security within the FCC to kind of coordinate a lot of the national security work that the commission is doing across multiple different bureaus and offices sort of within the FCC itself.
- [01:56]
Host
Yeah, it's cool, like, because in the 1930s it was very much a forward looking thing to see like, oh yeah, radios are the future of warfare. And of course World War II comes, you get the battle of the beams, you have like radio that enables this sort of like, you know, battlefield operations at a wide scale which weren't necessarily possible over the course of World War I. And here we are in 2026 with the FCC on the bleeding edge of technology, talking to us about robots and drones. Let's start with robots. Since this was the latest thing you guys do, maybe walk through the timeline a little bit of like how something like this gets on the FCC's radar as a topic that may need some more aggressive regulation and sort of how, how something like this evolves before we talk through the specific of what's actually in the regulation.
- [02:53]
Adam Chan
Yeah, so I guess I'll wind the clock back probably further than you want me to wind the clock back to.
- [03:00]
Host
I just Brought us back to World War I. Okay, you can go as far as you want, Adam.
- [03:05]
Adam Chan
Right. Okay.
- [03:06]
Akab Zakaria
There you go.
- [03:06]
Adam Chan
So, you know, 2020 and 2021, actually, I think two sort of important years. Congress actually passed two standalone pieces of legislation. Right? I think, you know, the sort of good governance folks out there who are constantly saying, you know, Congress has to do more. Why isn't Congress doing its job? Actually, you know, sort of FCC authorities represents an example where Congress, in like overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion, I think, with just a handful of no votes in the House, pass Secure and Secure and Trusted Communications NETWORKS act in 2020 and then the Secure Equipment act in 2021, that sort of estab new regulatory framework known as the FCC's covered list. The way that works is we have a covered list of equipment and services that is established under the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act. In that mechanism, it's actually the fcc, we can't actually update our own covered list. So this is different than say OFAC sanctions list or BIS and their entity list or the 1260H list of military companies at the Department of War. Instead, we require another national security agency or interagency body to actually make a determination that is sort of the legal predicate by which the FCC then updates the covered list and enforces the rules. One of the primary implications of a device or devices being on the covered list means they can't get authorized for import or sale in the United States. I think a lot of people don't know. A lot of people know the FTC for its regulation of spectrum, or maybe broadcast media, but also virtually all electronic devices. So any device that emits radio frequency, which is pretty much all electronic devices, need to get FCC authorization before being imported, marketed or sold in the United States. You've probably seen a little FCC logo on a lot of your devices. But as part of that, that also gives us the tool to shut off new models of devices from coming into the country. So that's sort of broad overview of the FCC's covered list and what the tools are. I think obviously you've seen the covered list used a lot over the last few years. Most recent action just last week was on advanced robotic devices, sort of think kind of mobile robots generally and power inverters. I would say, on the mobile robots determination in particular. I think this is an interesting scenario where this is a pretty nascent industry. And so I think there's a pretty good justification that we're actually sort of getting ahead of where things might be, say, five years down the line. I know the covered list kind of arose again back in 2019, 2020, where the FCC was confronting a problem in domestic telecom networks where we were almost entirely reliant on Huawei or ZTE equipment in the sort of radio access network telecom equipment and had to do this big rip and replace to replace untrusted with trusted vendors in our telecom networks. And so I think there is a lot of thinking in the US government about, you know, how can we avoid that sort of situation playing out in, you know, critical industries like robotics that, I mean, again, you guys know better than I do, but, but I think a lot of people think will be a pretty major industry in the coming years and decade.
- [07:04]
Host
Look, we've done stuff on undersea cables, established very big deal telecom, obviously something that is like a known big quantity for a while. Drones also like something which has a clear kind of demonstrated industry and impact the type of robotics you guys are targeting. People think it's the future, but you know, it's much more of a kind of forward looking speculative bet that the FCTC has taken relative to the ones that you, that you ran through over the past six years. So yeah, what drove the impetus to try to restrict the, the sort of robots that the US is going to be able to import in the coming years?
- [07:51]
Adam Chan
Right. So I, I guess I'd say first, you know, kind of as mentioned, like ultimately we implemented a determination that was made by kind of broader executive branch. So the fcc, we did not sort of ultimately write the national security determination were not the ones who, you know, as a legal matter chose this. But I can say, I think this represents an example where if you look at the determination, there are kind of two national security risks that are highlighted. One kind of relates to remote access, cybersecurity surveillance, and other sort of ability to kind of remotely manipulate a device such that it poses threats, you guys probably seen, you know, videos of, of robots behaving badly. But, but, but more seriously, I think the national security threats here are kind of obvious as well as this is something where the US has a nascent industry but is overwhelmingly reliant on foreign imports of devices. And so there's a real risk of a supply chain dependence that as these devices become, you know, critical to the industries of the future, there is a concern that we could end up in a situation where we are very dependent on foreign sources, where, you know, maybe these devices are critical to military applications, maybe to manufacturing and other industrial sectors, in which case it is very important for the US to have its own Supply, I will say covered list, you know, sort of automatically it means we, we ban kind of new models getting approved for importer sale. So I think covered list also kind of works best in fast evolving industries where probably the robot of today is not really going to be on the market in five years. And so there's pretty fast obsolescence cycle relative to many other industries just because the cutting edge is evolving so quickly.
- [09:59]
Host
You mentioned the kind of national security risk of someone you don't like taking control of the robot and I don't know, using it to whack people or power plants. What's up with the 2 kilogram exception? I've seen some really scary demos of little DARPA insect robots. Why should we not be worried about those coming in from China?
- [10:22]
Adam Chan
Right, Yeah, I mean, no comment on the specific, you know, DARPA insect robots. I think, you know, looking at kind of what, what is, you know, kind of the main market segments, what posed the sort of most acute national security risks. I think also I would note a good thing about the covered list is I think people often complain, hey, this is a blunt instrument. There wasn't sort of a long comment cycle period or that kind of. There are more nuanced ways to go about things. I think there's actually a strong argument in this case and other examples of sort of FCC policy, of the sort of simple and stupid policy actually being the best policy whereby it allows for fast action. We avoid the sort of whack a mole problem of naming specific entities or coming up with complex sort of definitions and long transition periods. And we send a very strong market signal that we get the attention of industry to hopefully crowd in capital and investment. And to your point on, you know, okay, maybe, maybe there's some, you know, DARPA like insect robots become a big thing in, you know, at some point in the future. It's actually possible to quickly evolve what's on the covered list through new determinations. There is a conditional approval process built into the robot determination so Department of War can review applications from robotics companies, say, hey, my robot is produced abroad, but doesn't pose national security risks. I'm planning to bring production to the United States. So, so, so there's that. But, but it's also possible that, you know, further exceptions or expansions can be built in later. I know we're going to talk more about drones later, but for example, on drones, there was a drone's determination, pretty broad definition of what a drone was. Later there was a new determination that basically exempted toy drones, which Was, you know, sort of certain definition based on, you know, especially small drones that can't really fly very far. Basically, you know, designed to fly around in a home, you know, like a wooden drone that, you know, a kid plays with. And so that was actually able to be action pretty quickly in. And so I think, you know, this potentially could evolve in future if there are sort of new national security threats or we realize, oh, there's actually a segment of the market that was not intended to be included. But I think here, you know, the executive branch, which thought about the definition a lot and engaged with industry and other experts in the field, this seemed to be a definition that would be kind of well understood by industry while addressing the sort of most acute problem.
- [13:19]
Akab Zakaria
I think that's an interesting point about the blunt instrument. We've seen bis deal with this whack a mole situation, especially with chips. And I wonder how the FCC is handling it in terms of who actually decides, oh, this one's okay, that one's not okay. And is there a staffing problem that we've usually seen in the agencies where it's just, you know, there's so much to handle, there's not enough people to actually go through it and the policy works. It's just, it's hard to actually implement in practice.
- [13:45]
Adam Chan
So far at least, we took sort of similar action. Again, the sort of broad based ban on new models getting authorized for import or sale for both, you know, drones and drone components as well as routers. And those have been ongoing for several months now. As of now, Department of War has been taking the lead in kind of reviewing applications for conditional approval. There is a guidance document there. I think right now they have a pretty well honed process where conditional approvals come out, you know, in just a few weeks. You know, so it's much, much faster than many other kind of national security reviews in the interagency process. They have, to my knowledge, hired some people, they have a budget to handle this. And so so far it seems to be, it seems to be going quite well on that front. Obviously we assume we'll get a bunch more applications based on last week's Apple or last week's action. Sorry. But I think optimistic things will continue to move smoothly.
- [14:53]
Host
That, you know, you mentioned things like market signal and which and sort of concerns about building a domestic ecosystem to replace these imports. What is the balance of motivation here between we're worried about a foreign actor kind of turning on my robot to blow something up versus like this is an industrial policy of just an industry in the future. We want to have a foothold in,
- [15:24]
Adam Chan
I think really see it as sort of a false dichotomy there. So I think that it's not necessarily the case that there's a bucket of national security concerns and then a bucket of industrial policy concerns. I think industrial policy really is critical to national security that obviously there are real national security concerns on, on the, as you say, the sort of remote control of a robot or, or other sort of cybersecurity data collection type issues that are sort of traditional national security concerns. But also I think it seems pretty obvious that in critical industries, especially industries of the future, the US Needs to be able to produce them domestically and have a strong domestic industry to take, you know, drones, which is kind of most obvious and has been sort of ongoing the longest of the recent FCC covered list actions. We have actually seen a lot of investment into drones, you know, I think over $5 billion since we've done it, you know, you know, over a million dollars over, sorry, over a million square feet of manufacturing capacity, thousands of jobs. But I think there it's, it seems very obvious to me watching sort of current dynamics in ongoing military conflicts, in the growing use of drones in the commercial economy, that if we want to be able to be secure as a national security matter, we need to be able to produce drones and not be entirely dependent on foreign countries, often, you know, highly concentrated in, in one or several foreign countries that to, for all of our drone capacity.
- [17:09]
Host
So you know, on, on, on robots and drones, right? Like Ukraine has not been able to create an industry that is isolated from, from Chinese parts and they have had, you know, as much incentive as a nation could possibly have to do so. There are similar questions in the U.S. with, you know, maybe you can make them, but not particularly at scale. And we've, we've done plenty of coverage on China talk over the past few years about all of these, you know, rare earth dependencies and magnet dependent, you know, magnet dependencies in particular parts in the robot ecosystem, which basically like are 99% from China and they already have a giant scaled business. So as you guys are making a call like this, I mean, there are worlds in which the choice is not between where it turns out the choice is not between imported Chinese robots and domestic US robots, but like imported Chinese robots and basically not having a functional or competitive domestic robot ecosystem. So how are you guys kind of weighing the availability and supply compared to what the risks are on the other side, both from national security as well as industrial policy perspective?
- [18:32]
Adam Chan
I would Answer that in two ways. One is the least expensive and easiest time to address a supply chain dependency is right now. It's only going to get harder as these industries grow and as all the sort of basic commercial incentives are to continue to entrench the dependency. I think we've seen with the covered list and one reason the covered list is a good tool is because while we recently passed regulations to allow us to ban the important sale of certain already authorized models on the covered list, as a general rule it only affects new models. Which means there is this transition period where it's not a sudden shutoff, but rather a transition period over several years that allows industry to adapt. I think we've actually seen lessons that industry is pretty adaptable. We've seen you know, oil prices haven't spiked to you know, $500 a barrel because of the straight of Hormuz. Markets tend to clear. I've been talking with, you know, any number of interesting startups in the drone space that are actually building out capacity to produce brushless motors, batteries, magnets at at scale that again didn't come online one month after we took the action, but two, three years after we took the action. I think the US parts industry, like a lot of these electronic parts that are critical to things like drones, things like robots will actually, you know, really come alive. We've seen something like routers. Actually there were zero entities that produce routers in America. But as of now there are dozens of companies that have committed to actually expanding production of routers in this country. I think some are going to break ground even later this year on new factories there. So, so I do think this is something that industry can adapt to when the market signal is there. And right now, you know, there is obviously demand for robots. And so I think we're optimistic industry will be able to meet the demand and that US industrial supply lines will be more secure afterwards.
- [20:54]
Host
Yeah, my only take on this is that like the political economy is such that you hear a lot more from the Boston Dynamics of the world who you know, released a positive press release saying yeah, of course we don't want Chinese competition. And like the small VC startups who are trying to VC backed startups who are trying to make a thing as opposed to the like, you know, long tail consumer class. And anyways, maybe it'll change but.
- [21:22]
Poet/Performer
Right.
- [21:23]
Adam Chan
I mean although I will say on that, you know, again, let's say you're a company that uses foreign imported robots or drones. Would you rather a sort of gradual transition period where maybe you Know, your drones or robots cost a little bit more and in exchange you get secure supply chains going forward. Or would you rather always have that risk of potential total shut off which could cripple your business? Especially as you become more and more dependent on things like drones and robots for, for the business model.
- [22:01]
Host
Yeah. And I guess there's like a collective action problem where like no one's going to do it unless everyone curious about
- [22:08]
Akab Zakaria
the industrial policy calculus, especially for the robot rule. My understanding that there's some level of like carve out for researchers there where, you know, research. Unfortunately like the best robots right now for research are cheap unit tree ones and maybe you can still buy those under the current rule, but then how do you wean off later? Like there's some needle that you have to thread there where you're trying to get American domestic, American robot industry off the ground, but also not crippling robotics research while we're in that transitional.
- [22:39]
Adam Chan
Yeah. So it is the case under FCC rules, there are some built in exceptions to the general ban on kind of import or authorization for import or sale. Like one, it does not affect imports or sales to the US for use by the US government, which I think, you know, makes, makes a lot of sense. But to your point, there's also a measure for say imports for product development. So if you're importing in small quantities to develop your product, that is something you can continue to do. So if there's a foreign robot that maybe is not going to be able to be authorized for widespread commercial sale, if you are a US robot company looking to train some AI model or build your own robot, you can continue to do that. So I know, you know, we were in a situation with drones even we interestingly clarified there were some US counter UAS or counter drone companies that were importing foreign drones to practice on. And even something like that is still permissible. Again, if it complies with other FCC regulations and doesn't exceed the sort of quantity limit.
- [23:57]
Akab Zakaria
So.
- [23:58]
Host
So you got it. So Adam, you got an email saying, hey Adam, can we import some Chinese drones as long as we promise to blow them up.
- [24:06]
Adam Chan
Right, Right. Well listen, if, if a defense contractor wants to import any product in order to develop their systems, they, they are permitted to do so in, in small quantities. We have not, not affected that.
- [24:24]
Host
On the, on the industrial policy question, there was another line somewhere deep in these regs saying like we're more likely to give you an exemption if you promise to build a plant in America. Can you talk a little bit about the thought process behind that, where, how that. What, what, what that equation is.
- [24:43]
Adam Chan
Yeah. So, I mean, this goes to the conditional approval process. I think there has been, we have put out guidance documents that have been compiled by, by the executive branch on for each of the sort of drones, routers, robots and power inverters that have been added to the covered list as part of the conditional approval process. In that guidance document, there is a requirement to submit an onshoring plan, which is, I think what you're referring to that where you kind of describe, all right, how are we going to actually onshore production? And again there, I think everyone sort of recognizes the realism here that we're not looking for 100% of production for every company to be onshore tomorrow. And so we have allowed for, you know, a sort of phase transition period. But I think my understanding is the executive branch is not interested in just granting broad exemptions to companies to just continue to produce abroad, even if the company itself, from a, you know, ownership or cybersecurity standpoint, doesn't pose any major national security risks.
- [25:53]
Host
Is there any hashtag allied scale in there?
- [25:58]
Adam Chan
But I think, you know, we are. The emphasis so far of these actions has. Yeah, not, you know, certainly there's no prohibition on country neutral companies in allied countries applying for condition. I would also note, you know, for example, on the robots one or drones, if there's a. If you meet the domestic end product definition, which is basically assembled in the U.S. 65% components by value produced in the U.S. that's sufficient. Which also obviously leaves some components that can continue to be imported. I would note on the drone side, there's also an exemption for any drone or drone component that has been cleared on the Department of War's blue UAS list. This is their sort of list of drones that are cleared for sale to the military. And many of those are actually produced abroad or in allied countries, such as from, you know, Ukraine, for example, that have been signed off. Many of those.
- [27:08]
Akab Zakaria
Do allied companies or like allied countries get this impression when the FCC releases the rule that, oh, this rule is really not for us, like, we're definitely going to get an exemption, or is there this sense of, I don't know. I think sometimes there's regulation. There's a mild panic from allies where we're not sure how this rule is going to apply to us. How is, how does that process become clear to allies and companies operating in those jurisdictions?
- [27:33]
Adam Chan
State Department to brief other countries on these measures. I think our message generally to foreign governments and foreign countries Coordinating with the State Department, again across the board is apply for conditional approvals. There's not really a downside to doing so, you know, at least start the conversation. And again, I think we're interested approvals. What'd you say? Right, right there. There are no fees, other fees.
- [28:06]
Host
Is this a revenue game? What are the fees here?
- [28:13]
Adam Chan
So it's a pretty easy, easy process there. Any, any company from any country can apply to be considered.
- [28:25]
Host
Well, what, what does cost money? Is DJI suing you guys? Robots has only been out a week. We haven't had any lawsuits yet. I mean, the one I could see coming would be from like a roborock who is saying, adam, give me a break. Your, you know, robot vacuum cleaner is not going to kill you. Uh, and this is also like where the sort of consumer harms, I think start to become a little more apparent. Like I have not bought one of these yet, not because they are Chinese made, but because they're just still kind of dumb. But like, hopefully in the next year or two they will no longer be. But I'm going to need Adam or some friend in the Pentagon to like approve the new model so that I can still get them. What was the thought process on the robot vacuums versus. Versus the humanoids are more like broadly capable robots.
- [29:25]
Adam Chan
You know, there was recently a story and I may get the exact details wrong, so forgive me, but someone was actually playing with their DJI drone and somehow managed to, you know, gain access to like a whole suite of robot vacuums. And so once again there, I mean, there is, you know, this question of somehow manage cybersecurity data surveillance access. You know, obviously you get a ton of data from inside people's homes. And so there are, I imagine, you know, concerns with, you know, remote access there. But that kind of thing I, I think was at the, at the core of sort of what went into the determination extending to something like robot vacuums that I think once again, by sort of oddly scoping in mobile robots generally, again, sort of avoids kind of the whack a mole problem, especially for such a nascent scoping in mobile robots generally, again, sort of avoids kind of the whack a mole problem, especially for such a nascent industry.
- [30:36]
Host
So you, so you guys had thought about unitree just like selling every unitary with like a dustpan and a broom, saying, like, come on, we're a robot vacuum. Like, why are you, why are you regulating us?
- [30:50]
Poet/Performer
Right?
- [30:51]
Adam Chan
I guess, I guess no comment on that. On that specific hypothetical.
- [30:56]
Akab Zakaria
I think one interesting sort of assumption Latent into like this early rule is the idea that this is gonna be highly relevant for obviously like consumer security, but also national security, industrial policy. I think when we think of these things it's like oh, humanoid robots, these are going to blow up because of AI, right? These are going to become like a major national security issue, major industrial policy issue. But I would still say that's not a really mainstream way of thinking about it. So I guess how AGI pilled do you have to be to believe in this rule? Or is there a version of believing this rule is really important? You're not AGI pilled.
- [31:33]
Adam Chan
Most people should uncertain how AGI killed. They should be right? So you know, maybe something like humanoid robots is a total dud and no one ever you know gets a humanoid robot after 2027. In which case, okay, then this sort of doesn't matter one way or the other. Maybe we all should be super AGI pilled and you know, these robots are, are going to be critical in the near term in which case this is all the more important the other. No, there are some things, I mean obviously you talked about the robot vacuums but even some of the sort of mobile robots in say like warehouse or some of the sort of public safety type quadruped mobile dog robots that are, you know, you don't need to be have the sort of AI models that we can only dream of to you know, have those play sort of significant role in in the economy and again potential concerns with being we can only reliant on potentially dangerous foreign source sort of significant mobile robots as well economy and again potential concerns with being reliant on potentially dangerous foreign source mobile robots there as well.
- [32:48]
Host
The Chinese Ministry of Commerce said that the FCC measures fly the banner of non discrimination but in substance discriminate and suppress Chinese enterprises and products. Protectionism does not make the US more competitive and will only hurt the interests of US companies and consumers
- [33:08]
Adam Chan
in action. I think it is like sort of obviously country neutral. Like you mentioned, you know, unitry. If Unitary wants to set up a factory in the United States and produce robots, I think it is nothing is nothing is stopping him under the fcc, you know, unit action. So you know, would not say, I don't think that it is fair to suggest that this action is you know, targeting the specific countries action. So you know, would not say I don't think that it is fair to suggest that this action is you know, targeted at specific countries.
- [33:44]
Host
I want to come back to the kind of simple dumb rule as opposed to like the super lawyered out, carve out version that this could have been. Is there something about the FCC authorities that make it easier to do option A as opposed to option B or what else kind of like drove you guys down that path?
- [34:09]
Adam Chan
And you have seen us do some of the more nuanced rulemaking, for example, with regards to like a recent action on submarine cables, which is not, not actually a covered list action, but other SEC authorities. So I think there is some, sometimes a place for some of the more nuanced rules, which is not, I think not here. And in this case, and especially when you're talking about broad national security threats that aren't easily and threat C and as well as the kind of need to send this strong market signal, I think it's all the more important to have the sort of like blunt sort of, you know, maybe dumb, like simple but dumb kind of policy rather than this sort of, you know, big brain nuance maybe takes years to implement and then years more to amend rather than that, you know, maybe at the end of it you could say, well, maybe more directly address precisely the problem we were interested in, but in the meantime have lost, maybe lost ears and maybe have just confused like an industry as to kind of what we want to do and what we're thinking that I think it makes like oftentimes makes a lot more sense to go public and industry as to kind of what we want to do and what we're thinking that I think it makes like oftentimes makes a lot more sense to go the former route.
- [35:42]
Akab Zakaria
We were talking earlier about, you know, like if unitry opened up a factor in the US It'd be totally kosher under this rule. Do you have any sort of preference in terms of how domestic capacity is created in this space? Like, does the SEC care? Do you care if it's, you know, a homegrown company funded by domestic capital that rises to compete in humanoid robotics versus if it's like a foreign jv like unit tree robots, but they're just made in America. Do you see those equally as a
- [36:12]
Host
win
- [36:14]
Adam Chan
foreign company invest? I think, you know, potentially other kind of national security concerns with inbound investment what we have cfius and other tools for. And so there's some inbound investment that potentially, you know, does raise some concerns. Then you know, there are other existing tools to be able to do that. I think we see at least in the near term, given the need to have 65 or more components by value produced in the United States, it's going be hard for certain foreign Companies to just all of a sudden overnight onshore all production to the United States. So we suspect most foreign companies interested in, you know, getting new approvals to go through the conditional approval process and in order to sort of, you know, build up over time. So I, I think that's sort of how at least the FCC is approval process and in order to sort of, you know, build up over time. So I think that's sort of how at least the FCC is thinking about.
- [37:19]
Host
Can you tell us what's next? What's. I don't know. Are you guys, are you guys going to stay busy or are you just waiting for giant new markets to unlock what's on the release calendar for the FCC?
- [37:35]
Adam Chan
You know, a few things the FCC's been doing. We also have, you know, open dockets for rulemakings and a whole wide range of other issues, whether it's submarine cable security or we have this proceeding that we've done bad labs about the test labs actually test equipment for the fcc. So I think we definitely foresee staying busy on the sort of rulemaking side would not if there are further updates for the covered list, you know, big or small to come, as well as on the enforcement side.
- [38:12]
Akab Zakaria
Right.
- [38:12]
Adam Chan
So the FCC has implemented a bunch of rules. They're also, you know, we're increasingly looking at enforcing them even on the issues we're talking about. For example, on, on drones. I mean, we just discovered, you know, there's one company that lied or apparently lied on its application form saying it was producing in the United States where turned out it was not, and the manufacturer or confirm they had never, or the manufacturer listed in the application form confirmed they'd never heard of the company. And so we are, we are looking at potentially taking action there. I know we've listed taken action, you know, related to certain, you know, drone companies that are not complying with FCC investigations that maybe are sort of white labeling covered equipment, you know, to try to get around restrictions. And so, so we're looking at all of that and so expect, you know, sort of enforcement and rulemaking to both remain, you know, kind of busy going forward. But obviously there are a lot of national security threats out there. So we're gonna, we're keep, keep moving to protect American communications going forward. But obviously there are a lot of national security threats out there. So we're gonna, we're gonna keep, keep moving to protect American communities right now.
- [39:33]
Akab Zakaria
I mean, is it just like a list where you're like, okay, we got the drone now to the robots, we got the Robots now to the next thing,
- [39:43]
Adam Chan
you know, drone still on this. And so I think a lot, lot more follow ups there. But on the to do list, my to do list is definitely very long separate. I will, I will say that actions go in still on, on this and so I think a lot, lot more follow ups there. But on the to do list, my to do list is definitely very long. I will, I will say that.
- [40:04]
Host
How does the response function from academia and industry feedback to you guys if something is too tight or too loose, like what, what is that information stream that flows into this policy making process?
- [40:19]
Adam Chan
Look, you know, for at least a covered list, actions, you know, points of contact. At the fcc we have an FAQ page. I think we've been updating the FAQs as we get more cues from those on the outside. I think also a lot of what the FCC does as we get more for example, on the rulemaking side, we do get public comments. Those are often very helpful especially because we're often dealing with very technical areas where there's not a lot written on and often it's, you know, actual stakeholders or companies within an industry that have a lot of the best information. And so those comments are very helpful. We have an open docket now since we're talking about drones again we're automatically sort of new models, foreign made drones are prohibited. But we have an open docket where we're seeking comment for 30 whether we should ban the import and sale of certain categories of already authorized drones that we've done like military grade drones. So think things like Swedish warming drones or big aerosol spray drones or thermal imaging lidar type drones. And so, so again, you know, that's an opportunity where public, any member of the public from you know, sort of individual hobbyists to thermal imaging big name drone companies. So again that's an opportunity, you know, do public comment and give us feedback and that kind of thing and sort of individual in this case, I mean I think we actually have pretty, pretty good dialogue with outside parties in addition to people within other agencies or the White House within the government to get, get a lot of input. Pretty good dialogue with from all side parties, you know, in addition to people within other agencies or the White House within the government to get, get a lot of input from, from all sides.
- [42:21]
Host
Do you think you're the national security lawyer having the most fun in the
- [42:26]
Adam Chan
executive branch Currently issues every day have an impact. So you know, shot of fun. If you're listening, FCC is hiring, you know, get to work. We welcome, we welcome applications Feel free to reach out. So, you know, it's a ton of fun. If you're listening, FCC is hiring. So we welcome, we welcome applications. Feel free to reach out.
- [42:51]
Akab Zakaria
Yeah. Do you want to make the pitch for the fcc? I think, I don't know. I think your average guy who wants to go to D.C. is just like, the FCC is usually not the top of their list. It's like not on people's radar.
- [43:02]
Adam Chan
There are a lot of opportunities to get stuff done there. I think the FCC is at the cutting edge of a whole range of issues, you know, whether it's sort of spectrum allocations and the sort of interesting developments in 6G and sort of new uses for 6G space. We license all commercial satellites, we do all sort of connected devices. Obviously I've talked a lot about the national security side and only scratched the surface there. I think also, just institutionally the FCC is interesting, right? We're very small. I think we have like 1200 total employees and have like a 400 million dollar budget which compared to other, you know, big names, you know, like Department of War, Department of Justice, Commerce, treasury are all much, which makes us nimbler and kind of fun. And then I know another thing, you know, for folks that, you know, FCC actually is sort of interesting. They haven't talked about, but you know, for all my time here, we've had one or two Democratic commissioners in addition to the Republican chair. And so all the national security rules and you know, enforcement action, penalties, fine type things that we brought have all been bipartisan, unanimous. And so like a lot of the work we do is going to endure beyond just this administration. And so that's, you know, potentially another reason the FCC is interesting and also makes our sort of national security work beyond just this administration. And so that's, you know, potentially another reason the FCC is interesting and, and also makes our sort of national security work impactful.
- [44:50]
Host
Give us the anthropology, like what, what's the, what's the energy, the vibe about the FCC relative to other agencies or the Hill that you've spent time at before?
- [45:02]
Adam Chan
Small people has like a pretty, I think high percentage of sort of lawyers or engineers, like people with advanced degrees, but like, and so high percentage once again, because it's sort of, it's small. We have a lot of expertise or like expertise is at least highly concentrated at the fcc. A lot of, a lot of nerds at the fcc. Just given the sort of technical nature of what the FCC does at the fcc. Yeah, sort of, sort of general, a lot of general idea. The fcc just given the sort of technical nature of what the FCC does. Not, not that I know of. I can check in the archives, but yeah.
- [45:50]
Host
Have you been to the FCBA chairman's dinner?
- [45:54]
Adam Chan
And so it was, it's a good time. Chairman Carr gave very, very funny speech last December. I think, you know, he's preparing another good one for this upcoming December. So, yeah, I think that's for those who don't know it's sort of like all the, you know, telecom lawyers he's preparing it's like a charity dinner coming December. So, yeah, I think that that's for those who don't know is sort of like all the, you know, telecom lawyers come. It's like best one liner. I mean, I think a lot of the. I have an offer to go to
- [46:33]
Akab Zakaria
law school next year and I really like doing National Security policy. Should I go? Like, what's, what's the, what is, what's the landscape for a lawyer doing this sort of work and should people enter that field versus just going straight to D.C. directly?
- [46:50]
Adam Chan
Yeah, also it is very helpful just because ultimately, you know, a lot of this stuff, I think if you're a nerd, you know, is legal, right. I mean, we're relying on laws Congress or issuing new rules or doing some sort of enforcement adjudication or dealing with weird questions of the Administrative Procedure Act. And so for all those reasons, I think law school is very helpful. I would also note that even if you don't want to directly practice law and be general counsel's office, I do think there's just tremendous value even for policymakers in having the legal degree and so can actually understand, all right, what, what actually is within scope, what can they do legally? What are some creative legal options? What's the litigation risk? And, you know, too often I think it's a problem in Washington when, you know, there's just a sort of complete dichotomy between the policymakers. And then the lawyers and the policymakers say, we really want to do this. And then the lawyers say, no, you can't. And like, there's not really a sort of communication between them. And so I think, you know, from my perspective, the policy being a lawyer, but, you know, right now, like, not sort of going into court every day and being able to shape policy, like allows, allows us to, you know, do things without having to sort of without having the sort of breakdown of communication between the policy and the like allows, allows us to, you know, do things without having to sort of, without having this sort of breakdown of communication I mean, listen, I'm sure, I'm sure.
- [48:30]
Host
Adam, I'm trying to keep Akiv here. This is not helpful.
- [48:35]
Adam Chan
I mean, listen, I'm sure, I'm sure you can continue doing great work on Chinatalk.
- [48:39]
Akab Zakaria
We'll see. We'll see.
- [48:41]
Host
We will call it here. Adam, thank you so much for being a part of Chinatalk.
- [48:51]
Poet/Performer
Don't want to rule with a hundred pages don't want to wait around for ages don't want to scalpel don't want to scholar Just want a lever and a lawyer to pull her simple and dumb simple and dumb blonde instrument here it comes don't name a name don't split a hair Mobile robotic device everywhere simple and dumb White label it, rebrand it new shell, same machine call it anything you want to the definition eats it claim simple and dumb simple and dumb blind instrument here it comes hand it up room give it a new name the COVID let's don't play that game simple and dumb $5 billion into drones million square feet breaking ground wasn't crack Got em building it's a door Comes to slammin down the smart rules in a conference room the smart rules on draft 94 more years to write it up 4 more years to redefine the smart rule Ships in 2030 and
- [49:59]
Adam Chan
the robots off the line
- [50:04]
Poet/Performer
Dumb rule ship last week simple and dumb simple and dumb Dumb Blind is a man Here it comes simple and dumb simple and go Blind is a man Here it comes simple and dumb simple and dumb Pass the house bipartisan not a damn thing punk about it Dockets open got a word My inbox is always open.