BIM – Is ‘the next level’ the disruptive innovation you spoke of earlier?
Michael – More industries will be enhanced, rather than eliminated by drones as a disruptive innovation. Some dangerous, though well-paying jobs may be lost, in favor of drone pilots and eventually by automated drones with pre-programmed flight plans. It very well may take 10 – 30 years before the actual impact of drones and the Fourth Industrial Revolution on our present value networks can be measured.
The rise in popularity of drones does seem to mimic the increased popularity of the automobile 100 years ago. There are so many business applications for drones and the data they collect. Just as the infrastructure had to be developed for the car on our roads, the infrastructure has barely begun to be developed to support the drone industry in our airspace. As more automobiles made their way onto the roads, traffic congestion, traffic accidents, and fatalities became an issue. This resulted in the government creating licensing and safety regulations. Governments around the world are currently trying to understand how to license drones and create effective safety regulations before an avoidable disaster takes place.
BIM – Along with any disruption or change, there will always be those opposed to innovation. Not everyone is thrilled about the proliferation of drones, especially in their ‘backyard.’ The use of drones amongst the general public and businesses has raised concerns about the ethics behind the use of drones and just how safe they are.
Michael – The FAA is still trying to assert its jurisdiction over the National Airspace. That has not stopped state and local governments from passing laws and ordinances to curb or control local drone use. Local authorities contend that they have jurisdiction over land use, zoning, privacy, and law enforcement operations on the ground that is typically not subject to federal regulations.
In other words, local authorities are seeking control over where and when a drone can take-off and land because of their constituents’ concerns over privacy, safety, and potentially criminal activities. This would create a severe limitation for the advancement of the drone industry. This fight may have to be resolved by the Supreme Court at some point.
I imagine similar arguments were taking place 100 years ago when automobiles started ruling the roads. Change or innovation is, by definition, disruptive. Concerns about privacy, public safety, and criminal intent are all valid, but the demonstrated benefits of drone technology must also be considered.
Today, lawmakers need only look to the automobile for an example of how to incorporate and regulate a disruptive innovation into our evolving society. A model or template already exists. It may not be perfect, but it’s as good a place to start as any.
