FCC Denies Dahua and Hikvision False Claim, FCC Can Still Revoke

By Conor Healy, Published Nov 16, 2021, 11:35am EST

Dahua and Hikvision have falsely claimed the new US law that bans further Dahua and Hikvision FCC authorizations ensures that existing authorizations cannot be revoked. Watch the 2-minute video:

However, FCC Commissioner Carr told IPVM that:

The legislation in no way eliminates the FCC's existing authority to modify or revoke any equipment authorization.

Additionally, Senator Marco Rubio, who sponsored the bill in the Senate, confirmed to IPVM:

The Secure Equipment Act prohibits companies on the Covered Equipment or Services List from gaining new contracts. Period. To the extent those bad actors remain in the network, the FCC is not prohibited from carrying out further review or revocation. [emphasis added]

Indeed, 7 months ago, the US FCC added Dahua and Hikvision to a list of equipment and services that have been "deemed to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons".

***********, ***** ******* **** its ********* **** "*** law ***** ****** **** our ******** ******** ** the ****** **** ****** their *************. *** ***** distributors *** ********* **** be **** ** **** upon *** ******** ************** that ***** ******** ******* have ** *****."

********, ********* ******* **** its ********* **** "*** legislation ***** ***** **** the *** *** *** review ** ****** *** equipment ************* ******* ****** the **** ** ***** such ***** *** *******."

*******,*** *** ***** ******** ********: "******* ** this ******* *** ** construed ** ******** *** Commission ... **** ********* the ********* ** ****** or ********** ** *** equipment ************* ** *** basis ** *** ********* being ** *** **** described ** ********* ******** rules ********* *** *** such ****** ** **********"

*** *** **** ********* the ****** ** ********** from *** ******* "****** of ******** **********" *** allows ** ** ** done ***** ******** *** rulemaking.

*** ** *** ************ Carr ********** ** **** the *** *** **** revocation *********, "************ ** cases ***** *** *** determines **** ********* ***** an ******** ************* ********* our *******'* ******** ********," which *** *** ******* did * ****** ***.

***,****** ** ** ***** businesses*** ** **** ** buying ******** **** *** US *** *** **** revoke ************** ***, ******* directed ** ***** *** Hikvision.

Explaining ********* ** ***** *** ********* *******

**** ***** *** ********* dealers **** ********** *** clause "*** ********** *** not ******* *** ****** or ********** ** *** equipment ************* *******". *******, this ** ***** *** of *******. *** *** applies **** *********** **** to "*** ***** ******* under ********* (*)", ********* to *** ******** *** proposal ** *** ****** authorizations. ** ***** *****, this **** ******* ** a ****** ****** *** does *** ******** *** FCC's ********* ** ****** or ********* ******** **************.

IPVM Image

Outlook ** *** ******** **************

******* ****** ************** ** now ********** ********** ** statute, ****** **** * virtually ******* *******. ***** the *** ******* *** go ******* *** ****** authorizations ** ***** *** Hikvision ********, ******* **** do ** ******* ** be ****. **** ** the ******* *** *** would ******** *******:

  • *********** ** ******** ** the ******* *********
  • ******* ** ****** *** authorizations ** **** ****
  • **** ******* ** ******** products **** ******* **************

*** **** ***** ******, ***** ***** 12, ****, ***** *** Hikvision**** **** ** * list ** ********* "****** to **** ** ************ risk ** *** ******** security ** *** ****** States ** *** ******** and ****** ** ****** States *******." ** ****, existing ***** ***** *** using **** ******** ******* exist *** *** ** furthered ** ******** *** action.

Comments (10)

So why is that language about “the Commission may not provide for review or revocation of any equipment authorization granted…” even in there if it is effectively meaningless?

Is that what Hikuawei got for all their lobbying $$$?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

One way to think about it is as limiting the scope of what Congress is ordering the FCC to do, rather than limiting what the FCC can do.

Is that what Hikuawei got for all their lobbying $$$?

Haha possibly. I don't know if that clause has anything to do with lobbying efforts. All it does is create extra steps for the FCC if they want to revoke authorizations, which is a slight benefit to Hikuawei but not exactly a win either.

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

#1, we don't know how that language was inserted but it is fair to say that some of the covered companies pushed for that.

To be clear, though, it is not 'meaningless'. By blocking revokation from the current processs, it most likely gets them more time, even worse case scenario. More time means more sales and the possibility of changes favorable to them (e.g., Hunter Biden becomes President and makes Dahua the national surveillance product of America, obviously joking but given Hikua dealer's conspiracy theories, it's not totally a joke).

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny: 3

I think a better question is why this bill is enacted in the first place, as it is already in FCC's administrative right (without this bill) not to give future authorization to anybody and even revoke existing authorization with the "National Security" reason and they have already started something against them.

I believe the bill is solely enacted to eliminate the drawback of the administrative action against Hikuawei. Administrative actions are easy to take to court and cases would take very long time. not to mention Hikuawei would take every FCC action to the court at every authorization dispute. On the other hand, legislations are hard to take the court. it would save FCC from a lot of headaches.

Obviously, the language does not eliminate the right of FCC to revoke any existing authorization, but they have to take the long way. it is a slight win for Hikuawei, probably a discouragement for FCC. But I don't think it has anything to do with their lobbying efforts. I believe the government did not want to upset many American buyers and businesses.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

As an admitted hikau hater (feel free to insert a stronger term) I feel the sooner the FCC bans all import & install of these products the better.

Agree: 2
Disagree: 1
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

As an admitted hikau hater (feel free to insert a stronger term)…

axvigilon ally?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Not really, apart from a deep & abiding loathing of these 2 I am fairly ambivalent re brand name.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

And then there is this from KK

KEN KIRSCHENBAUM, ESQ

ALARM - SECURITY INDUSTRY LEGAL EMAIL NEWSLETTER / THE ALARM EXCHANGEYou can read all of our articles on our website. Having trouble getting our emails? Change your spam controls and white list ken@kirschenbaumesq.com

*******************More on Chinese manufactured cameras November 18, 2021

******************************More on Chinese manufactured cameras from article on November 8, 2021*******************************Ken Thought you may be interested in this as its a hot topic both in the industry, and on your blogYoursAlan Itchkow*****************************Dear Valued Partner: As anticipated in our latest communication, President Biden has now signed the Secure Equipment Act into law. Below we offer a recap of what we believe this means for the marketplace. As you know, earlier this year the FCC began a process to consider a rule which would preclude the granting of authorizations for applications submitted by companies that are on the Covered List, including Dahua. The law essentially directs the FCC to enact part but not all of the ideas considered in the proposed rule-making process. Specifically, the law directs the FCC to adopt a rule that would prevent companies on the Covered List from securing authorizations for future applications. But the law also dictates that the FCC may not revoke authorizations that had previously been issued, which was an idea the FCC was considering in its rule-making process. In our view, the following points are relevant and important: The law ensures that our existing products on the market will retain their authorization. All Dahua distributors and customers will be able to rely upon the existing authorizations that their products already have in place. The FCC has one year from the date the bill is signed to adopt final rules on future authorizations. It is possible that the FCC may, in the interim, issue a public notice seeking comments on how the bill impacts its proposed rule-making process (as it has done on occasion in the past), which could delay the timeline. At any point in that process, the law would be subject to legal challenge. Notably, Dahua’s comments to the FCC as well as other comments raise substantive questions about the constitutionality of denying a business the right to secure an FCC authorization without any due process or evidentiary proceeding. Should such a challenge take place, it could be additional months or years before the issue is resolved by the courts. Congress appears to be intent on holding the FCC to a timeline for action, while at the same time signaling concern about indiscriminate and over-broad use of the authorization process. We believe the FCC may thus narrow the scope of its actions and consider a much more targeted approach, which is consistent with what many of the comments received during the prior comment period have pointed to. We understand that these various regulatory and legislative processes are complex and even disconcerting. We are grateful to all of our distributors and other business partners who have remained focused on serving customers and contributing to safer, more secure communities. We will continue to update you as events warrant and would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Dahua Technology USA Inc.******************

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Morgan thanks. I already responded to KK with quotes from this report.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

The video ends too soon. The last sentence says that "companies are at risk of buying products that the FCC may soon revoke authorizations for." Fine, then what? What will happen to companies that have these cameras in stock? What will happen to end users who have recently installed these cameras? Does this mean that the cameras will magically just stop working on the day that they are revoked? (obviously not). Does this mean that the FCC Police Division will arrive at an end user's location and force the removal of the cameras? (I don't think there is such a division) In short, John, please expand this very good reporting to include the likely real world effects that this may have on installers, dealers, and end users. Please try to give a realistic time line indicating when these effects may be felt. Please attempt to explain how the government may enforce these possible actions. Obviously, they could stop all future imports of the cameras, but what about the stock that is already here, both labeled and OEM?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 7,330 reports and 971 tests and is only available to subscribers. To get a one-time preview of our work, enter your work email to access the full article.

Already a subscriber? Login here | Join now
Loading Related Reports