Antenna range extender/ the FAA.
The intended use is to achieve a better signal in an rf-noisy environment, rather than fly the thing beyond VLOS. Pretty much every electrical device needs to pass a FCC certification test to make sure it is within the limits of spurious emissions and will not interfere with other technology that is in the same frequency range or any harmonic of that frequency. I think even my new toaster has a FCC certified label on it. I doubt that "Larry, Curly, and Moe's range modification" posses these certificates that being said, I dont think you will ever get into trouble using amplification can increase range, but more importantly it can make for a MUCH more stable connection at short range in a RF noisy environment. The regulation states that the replacement antenna, must exhibit the same in-band and out of band ERP and must be permanently connected or utilize a proprietary connector. If the FCC was actively pursuing "pirates", they would be monitoring buyers of household range extending antennas that attach to wifi routers, with standard connectors for external antennas.
The FAA BVLOS. The ability to fly drones Beyond the Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) represents the next big opportunity for commercial drone operators. Most commercial drone applications would benefits from BVLOS to operate more efficiently and cost-effectively, and some applications would remain impossible to execute without BVLOS. At the moment, no one is allowed to fly BVLOS in U.S. airspace without obtaining a special waiver from the FAA. My clients such as Lennar, INOVA, Mortenson, PG&E are able to get such waiver, but for the BVLOS to be effective the PIC has to have a VO for the operation to successful and if not... There are consequences. Clauses in the waiver are tailored to the needs of the client(s) and in my case, my drones are limited to 3k LAT and follow the FAA ALT. under the safety code and if flying 3 miles away from an airport, I have to check NOTAMS and communicate with tower...... and again the PIC "MUST" have a VO.
What is interesting about
@John Hennessy modification is that it is a mere relocation and my simple mod. is that is legal if met/pass the safety foreman's inspection noted in a clause of my waiver, and my simple mode passed the inspection and has provided a report, even for this simple mod.