24 ms·

FCC considering a proposal to lock down devices with a “modular wireless radio”

211 points by thejosh 11y ago

jdiez17 11y ago
The link doesn't load (connection timed out), so I'm only going by the headline - do they also want to "lock down" software defined radios, like the HackRF?
- minthd 11y ago
  Cached link: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0C9h0waN5nUJ:https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Save_WiFi/Individual_Comments&hl=en&gl=il&strip=1&vwsrc=0 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0C9h0wa...
- thejosh 11y ago
  Reddit hug of death right now. Direct link is https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-18402/equipment-authorization-and-electronic-labeling-for-wireless-devices https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-184...
  - jdiez17 11y ago
    >For a device to be certified as an SDR, in addition to demonstrating that the device complies with the applicable technical requirements, the applicant must also demonstrate that the device contains security features to prevent the loading of software that would allow the radio to operate in violation of the Commission's rules. So... yeah. Well, that sucks.
    - w8rbt 11y ago
      What sucks more is interference ;) Much of the radio spectrum is shared. As an overly-simplified explanation, that means only one transmitter may be in operation at a time, or the frequency in question in that area will be useless. Spectrum is also segmented and some segments require a license to use. The FCC (and all the other foreign national bodies that regulate radio) do so for the good of everyone. If they did not, we could not turn our lights on and use a cell phone or watch TV at the same time ;) Also, the rules have been around for a long time. This is an old problem. https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/rules-regulations-title-47 https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/rules-regulations-title-47
      - guard-of-terra 11y ago
        You can't do that, you can't shift monumental costs on the other party in order to also shift blame for an imaginary problem. Here we have imaginary problem (wi-fi "interference"), we have FCC who wants to shift blame for it to somebody else, so they try to force measures on users which, if properly enforced, will cost them tens of billions USD in collateral damage. Because mind you, 99,9% users reinstall their OS a) not to mess with wi-fi, and b) to derive some personal gain from it. Where they got the right to sabotage millions of people?
        gopowerranger 11y ago
        Years ago, when CB radio was all the craze, manufacturers would publish manuals with amplifiers tell you NOT to move a certain wire to a certain place because it would change the frequency or boost the power beyond the legal limits of CB operation. This caused all kinds of havoc on those airwaves until the FCC clamped down on them. So, yes they can do that.
        Sanddancer 11y ago
        Yep. Linear amplifiers are absolutely terrible at spewing noise all over the RF range. Growing up, I lived about a quarter mile from the freeway, and there were times where certain TV channels were absolutely unwatchable due to interference from these rather illegal setups.
        jrockway 11y ago
        CB users also like modifying their equipment to use the amateur bands. Sometimes the 10m band is essentially unusable because of interference from CB users. The end result is very similar to the WiFi situation, they ruined it for everyone. Now it's difficult for licensed amateur radio operators to buy amplifiers for use with low-power transceivers. The FCC has rules about what the minimum power input to amplifiers can be, and require manufacturers to go to great lengths to prevent the amplifier from working on CB frequencies. This reduces performance and reliability, and increases expense, all to prevent something no licensed amateur would do. That said, the FCC has only a minimal enforcement budget, so there are plenty of illegal CB amplifiers readily available on eBay. The rules only hurt legitimate American companies and users of licensed radio services.
duhast 11y ago
Will this affect Google Ara project?
- deelowe 11y ago
  No. Google will pay for the requisite licenses.
ck2 11y ago
Yeah, whatever industry lobbyists are hitting them with tons of money need to just find their conscience - or prison, whatever works. I guess I am going to be a criminal the day they tell me I cannot run openwrt.
- Spooky23 11y ago
  My guess is they are getting lots of complaints from folks running into dopes doing stupid things with SDR that interfere with others. Looking at the noxious behavior of drone owners sets a few examples of the type of thing I'm referring to.
  - ck2 11y ago
    The quadcopter problem is easy to solve, jail time for repeat offenders. But they are now making laws to ensure the bulk of the population commits a few felonies each day, changing your phone software from stock, changing your router software from stock = prison? How exactly does that harm/help society?
    - gopowerranger 11y ago
      If you want to jail offenders then there has to be a law or regulation for that. This is that regulation. How does this harm society? Imagine your wifi router becoming useless cause your neighbor decides to modify his and boost his output which overpowers yours. Plus adding additional frequencies that render your wireless phone useless.
      - kazinator 11y ago
        Imagine (and be terrified of) your neighbor sneaking over at night and smothering you with a pillow. Let's ban pillows! Bonus: the ban will stop those vicious pillow fights.
        gopowerranger 11y ago
        You are pretending such things I mention don't happen but they happened all the time before the FCC came into being and happened often during the CB craze. In fact, I still occasionally hear of such things. Imagine there were no regulations. Such things would be rampant as they were in the past.
guard-of-terra 11y ago
Why would it affect your PC? Should not they just lock down wi-fi module if they want? I fail to see much difference between installing alternative OS on your PC and installing third-party software.
- mcbridematt 11y ago
  Most radio modules would have an embedded firmware that in addition to the radio handling, should enforce regulatory constraints (i.e preventing the use of 5GHz DFS channels if radar use is detected). Building these firmware images is something you are (usually) only equipped to do under NDAs from the silicon manufacturer (or only done by request from the manufacturer). My understanding (and what I have gathered from previous threads on the subject) is the FCC is going after the embedded radio firmwares, and mistakenly (or due to extreme lack of knowledge) named OpenWRT,DD-WRT as offenders. Otherwise, the effect of this would be to outlaw PCIe and USB WiFi, Bluetooth etc. cards/adaptors unless sold inside a computer with a locked bootloader.
  - jdiez17 11y ago
    It would only take a motherboard with a PCIe slot and an unlocked bootloader to circumvent that strategy. You would use it to flash the firmware in whatever device you want to unlock and then use it on the computer with the locked bootloader.
  - the_ancient 11y ago
    >Otherwise, the effect of this would be to outlaw PCIe and USB WiFi, Bluetooth etc. cards/adaptors unless sold inside a computer with a locked bootloader. Lenovo already does this for laptops, you have to use a Whitelist Wifi card, they claim it is to comply with existing regulations from the FCC, which this will expand.
- ignisf 11y ago
  Laptops for example have an FCC label (take a look at the bottom of yours) as they have radio equipment on them in the form of a Bluetooth adapter/Wi-Fi adapter/3g modem.
ignisf 11y ago
Mirror: https://archive.is/tGCkU https://archive.is/tGCkU
- pvdebbe 11y ago
  hmm... > 451 Unavailable > This content is not available in your country.
SCHiM 11y ago
I'm not too worried, like all prohibited substances and devices (except maybe weapons of mass destruction) there will always be ways to get what you want if you want. Especially since from the headlines it appears that they're considering a software based approach.
- nsajko 11y ago
  Umm, no. Such laws legitimize prohibition (by definition) and represent and form public opinion and can thus be harmful even if they are loosely enforced.
  - SCHiM 11y ago
    > Umm, no Exactly what are you disagreeing with? Going by your comment you seem to think that I said that a ban would have no effect at all. I did no such thing, and I would suggest that you read more carefully next time. So, umm, no I can't actually get access to a XTC in my country where it is prohibited? Of course I can. Even if/while such laws effect more than only a ban on the substance in question.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  This is a forum with a strong focus on startups -- startups will not want to have to use contraband radio equipment to develop their next IoT module.
  - Sanddancer 11y ago
    And they won't. Access points will just go back to the slightly more expensive method of using a wifi chipset with an asic and/or preinstalled non-upgradable baseband, and life will go on. The ath9k family, which is what's recommended for things like libreboot-based systems show that these exist. If they're spinning their own circuitry, they're going to have to get fcc approval anyways, and will have to make sure that their access point isn't terribly designed and spewing RF all over the spectrum because they don't understand what happens when you overdrive transistors.
gopowerranger 11y ago
People aren't paying attention to what this is for. It's to prevent people from modifying RF devices, transmitters, from operating at power levels and frequencies, or other technical things, from interfering with other devices and outside the bounds of their intention. It's to protect devices from interference that was prevalent in the days when radio was first invented, and for decades afterwards. This is a good thing.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  That's not right. Look at this: https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=1UiSJRK869RsyQddPi5hpw%3D%3D&desc=594280%20D02%20U-NII%20Device%20Security%20v01r02&tracking_number=39498 https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=1UiSJRK869Rsy... One of the requirements for hardware vendors is "Describe in detail how the device is protected from 'flashing' and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT." They are explicitly trying to illegalize custom router firmware, even though all the things that need to be prevented could be handled by separate hardware lockouts that wouldn't affect the legitimate uses of DD-WRT.
  - Sanddancer 11y ago
    That page states that it's a set of general guidelines, not hard, definite rules. All of the examples, like flashing dd-wrt, are essentially asking, have you thought about x, y, and z? Tell how so. It's almost certainly perfectly acceptable to state, "we use a discrete chip for our wifi system without any way to upgrade the firmware, so if a user does flash their system, the wifi chip cannot be made to drive outside of legal parameters." A hardware lockout is definitely one way to comply with the guidelines.
- kuschku 11y ago
  And at the same time it locks down devices where radio and processor are connected – you won’t be able to modify the software on some Android devices at all anymore. This is NOT acceptable. Punishing people for sending on illegal frequencies: Okay. Restricting what people can do with devices they paid for: NOT OKAY.
Chirael 11y ago
Sounds like another battle in the "coming war on general purpose computing" http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html
- task_queue 11y ago
  Stallman was right.
  - thinkpenguin 11y ago
    Yep. I think it's much worse than stallman's ever envisioned it though. He is under the impression we can fix it. The reality is likely otherwise which is why we need to drum up massive support for this. The rules in some part have already taken effect which means not only will we all need to send comments in on this but there will need to be further campaigns to undo rules already in effect.
- tedunangst 11y ago
  Only if the manufacturer insists on connecting the radio directly to the "general purpose" part of the computer, instead of using a more fixed/limited radio. If the radio is isolated, there's no need to lock down the rest of the device. But developing a fixed function radio will probably add a penny to the cost of each unit. So whether you can run openwrt will come down to whether linksys cares more about their pennies or your freedom.
  - yuhong 11y ago
    I think one problem with this idea is that different countries can have different spectrum ranges or rules.
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      For example, Japan. Afaik, the fcc permits the sale of such devices, as long as they are not in "jp" mode. Would the proposed regs prevent setting a laptops locale to jp?
guelo 11y ago
FCC should be working to massively expand the unlicensed ranges instead of clamping it down more. The amount of innovation and economic activty in the unlicensed bands is massive. They should be working on taking back the TV HD and SD frequencies and leave the tinkerers alone.
- Houshalter 11y ago
  They are. There is a big thing in my town about the FCC trying to buy the local PBS station from the university. They already made everyone switch to digital a few years back which saved a lot of bandwidth (and made most channels unwatchable without a giant antennae.)
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  They are doing that, but the tinkerers are interfering with more important frequencies like RADAR used by weather providers and ATC... Locking down the frequencies so they can't possibly interfere isn't at all at odds with opening up new ranges for better service. I know a few people over at Mimosa (GBPS wireless backhaul providers) so I've seen a lot of progress in advocacy for new spectrum. http://mimosa.co/news/36/75/Mimosa-Advocates-Expansion-of-23-GHz-Spectrum-to-the-FCC-Enabling-10-Gbps-Backhaul/d,flat-blog-detail.html http://mimosa.co/news/36/75/Mimosa-Advocates-Expansion-of-23...
- rayiner 11y ago
  Expanding the unlicensed bands isn't incompatible with clamping down on how devices can operate on those bands. A key insight we've gained since part 15 was promulgated is that the technologies for sharing and using spectrum without central allocation work a lot better when devices can assume everyone on the band will follow certain rules. The model for the future that maximizes capacity of the spectrum isn't just more unlicensed spectrum, but imposing basic rules on unlicensed spectrum like we do on roads. One thing people forget is that road rules aren't just about safety, they're about keeping traffic moving smoothly. Exactly the same principles apply to cognitive radios.
thinkpenguin 11y ago
From the down link: Take Action Now! The FCC is asking for comments on this proposal. The most important thing you can do is comment on the FCC's proposal and tell them you want to be able to control your computing devices. Will you do this? Comment deadline extended to October 9. Instructions: 1. Go to the Federal Register and press "Submit a formal comment" (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-18402/equipment-authorization-and-electronic-labeling-for-wireless-devices https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-184...) 2. Start your comment by respectfully asking the FCC to not implement rules that take away the ability of users to install the software of their choosing on their computing devices. Additional points of emphasis you should consider adding: - Wireless networking research depends on the ability of researchers to investigate and modify their devices. - Americans need the ability to fix security holes in their devices when the manufacturer chooses to not do so. - Users have in the past fixed serious bugs in their wifi drivers, which would be banned under the NPRM. - Billions of dollars of commerce, such as secure wifi vendors, retail hotspot vendors, depends on the ability of users and companies to install the software of their choosing. 3. Enter your name and address. This is a public comment and your personal information provided will be publicly available. Once you've submitted your comment, make sure to encourage others to submit comments opposing these restrictions on computing devices. Use the #SaveWifi hashtag on Twitter or your favorite microblogging services. Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Save_WiFi/Individual_Comments&client=ubuntu&hs=Clj&channel=fs&strip=1&vwsrc=0 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  The rules do nothing of the sort. The guidelines state that the hardware manufacturer must make certain that reasonable efforts have been made to keep the device from trampling over radar systems, etc. The guidelines state that one route to do so is to have the firmware locked down in its entirety, but there are other ways to do so. Atheros chips, for example, do not expose the functionality that would require the chips to be locked down. Wireless researchers will almost certainly have the licensing in place to do investigation and modification. Device makers choosing not to update their devices should honestly be handled through tort; a few lawsuits against companies making defective routers will get makers to shape up. Buggy devices can and should be handled similarly. Finally, with your point regarding secure wifi vendors and the like, those would be the manufacturers and would by definition have access to all of those settings. This campaign reminds a lot of the bad old days of Microsoft and spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. This is not an evil policy that has nefarious purposes, it's about making sure people don't intentionally use their devices that will cause damage to the neighbors on the bandwidth spectrum. Also, keep in mind that the unlicensed regions were not created for communications, but rather so that medical and industrial heating devices have some range of frequencies to operate magnetrons, etc, without disrupting sensitive communications. Wifi uses them mostly because they do go unused the majority of the time.
thinkpenguin 11y ago
From the down link: Take Action Now! The FCC is asking for comments on this proposal. The most important thing you can do is comment on the FCC's proposal and tell them you want to be able to control your computing devices. Will you do this? Comment deadline extended to October 9. Instructions: 1. Go to the Federal Register and press "Submit a formal comment" (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-18402/equipment-authorization-and-electronic-labeling-for-wireless-devices https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-184...) 2. Start your comment by respectfully asking the FCC to not implement rules that take away the ability of users to install the software of their choosing on their computing devices. Additional points of emphasis you should consider adding: - Wireless networking research depends on the ability of researchers to investigate and modify their devices. - Americans need the ability to fix security holes in their devices when the manufacturer chooses to not do so. - Users have in the past fixed serious bugs in their wifi drivers, which would be banned under the NPRM. - Billions of dollars of commerce, such as secure wifi vendors, retail hotspot vendors, depends on the ability of users and companies to install the software of their choosing. 3. Enter your name and address. This is a public comment and your personal information provided will be publicly available. Once you've submitted your comment, make sure to encourage others to submit comments opposing these restrictions on computing devices. Use the #SaveWifi hashtag on Twitter or your favorite microblogging services. Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Save_WiFi/Individual_Comments&client=ubuntu&hs=Clj&channel=fs&strip=1&vwsrc=0 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...

211 points by thejosh 11y ago

The link doesn't load (connection timed out), so I'm only going by the headline - do they also want to "lock down" software defined radios, like the HackRF?

minthd 11y ago
Cached link: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0C9h0waN5nUJ:https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Save_WiFi/Individual_Comments&hl=en&gl=il&strip=1&vwsrc=0 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0C9h0wa...
thejosh 11y ago
Reddit hug of death right now. Direct link is https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-18402/equipment-authorization-and-electronic-labeling-for-wireless-devices https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-184...
- jdiez17 11y ago
  >For a device to be certified as an SDR, in addition to demonstrating that the device complies with the applicable technical requirements, the applicant must also demonstrate that the device contains security features to prevent the loading of software that would allow the radio to operate in violation of the Commission's rules. So... yeah. Well, that sucks.
  - w8rbt 11y ago
    What sucks more is interference ;) Much of the radio spectrum is shared. As an overly-simplified explanation, that means only one transmitter may be in operation at a time, or the frequency in question in that area will be useless. Spectrum is also segmented and some segments require a license to use. The FCC (and all the other foreign national bodies that regulate radio) do so for the good of everyone. If they did not, we could not turn our lights on and use a cell phone or watch TV at the same time ;) Also, the rules have been around for a long time. This is an old problem. https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/rules-regulations-title-47 https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/rules-regulations-title-47
    - guard-of-terra 11y ago
      You can't do that, you can't shift monumental costs on the other party in order to also shift blame for an imaginary problem. Here we have imaginary problem (wi-fi "interference"), we have FCC who wants to shift blame for it to somebody else, so they try to force measures on users which, if properly enforced, will cost them tens of billions USD in collateral damage. Because mind you, 99,9% users reinstall their OS a) not to mess with wi-fi, and b) to derive some personal gain from it. Where they got the right to sabotage millions of people?
      - gopowerranger 11y ago
        Years ago, when CB radio was all the craze, manufacturers would publish manuals with amplifiers tell you NOT to move a certain wire to a certain place because it would change the frequency or boost the power beyond the legal limits of CB operation. This caused all kinds of havoc on those airwaves until the FCC clamped down on them. So, yes they can do that.
        Sanddancer 11y ago
        Yep. Linear amplifiers are absolutely terrible at spewing noise all over the RF range. Growing up, I lived about a quarter mile from the freeway, and there were times where certain TV channels were absolutely unwatchable due to interference from these rather illegal setups.
        jrockway 11y ago
        CB users also like modifying their equipment to use the amateur bands. Sometimes the 10m band is essentially unusable because of interference from CB users. The end result is very similar to the WiFi situation, they ruined it for everyone. Now it's difficult for licensed amateur radio operators to buy amplifiers for use with low-power transceivers. The FCC has rules about what the minimum power input to amplifiers can be, and require manufacturers to go to great lengths to prevent the amplifier from working on CB frequencies. This reduces performance and reliability, and increases expense, all to prevent something no licensed amateur would do. That said, the FCC has only a minimal enforcement budget, so there are plenty of illegal CB amplifiers readily available on eBay. The rules only hurt legitimate American companies and users of licensed radio services.

duhast 11y ago

Will this affect Google Ara project?

deelowe 11y ago
No. Google will pay for the requisite licenses.

ck2 11y ago

Yeah, whatever industry lobbyists are hitting them with tons of money need to just find their conscience - or prison, whatever works. I guess I am going to be a criminal the day they tell me I cannot run openwrt.

Spooky23 11y ago
My guess is they are getting lots of complaints from folks running into dopes doing stupid things with SDR that interfere with others. Looking at the noxious behavior of drone owners sets a few examples of the type of thing I'm referring to.
- ck2 11y ago
  The quadcopter problem is easy to solve, jail time for repeat offenders. But they are now making laws to ensure the bulk of the population commits a few felonies each day, changing your phone software from stock, changing your router software from stock = prison? How exactly does that harm/help society?
  - gopowerranger 11y ago
    If you want to jail offenders then there has to be a law or regulation for that. This is that regulation. How does this harm society? Imagine your wifi router becoming useless cause your neighbor decides to modify his and boost his output which overpowers yours. Plus adding additional frequencies that render your wireless phone useless.
    - kazinator 11y ago
      Imagine (and be terrified of) your neighbor sneaking over at night and smothering you with a pillow. Let's ban pillows! Bonus: the ban will stop those vicious pillow fights.
      - gopowerranger 11y ago
        You are pretending such things I mention don't happen but they happened all the time before the FCC came into being and happened often during the CB craze. In fact, I still occasionally hear of such things. Imagine there were no regulations. Such things would be rampant as they were in the past.

guard-of-terra 11y ago

Why would it affect your PC? Should not they just lock down wi-fi module if they want? I fail to see much difference between installing alternative OS on your PC and installing third-party software.

mcbridematt 11y ago
Most radio modules would have an embedded firmware that in addition to the radio handling, should enforce regulatory constraints (i.e preventing the use of 5GHz DFS channels if radar use is detected). Building these firmware images is something you are (usually) only equipped to do under NDAs from the silicon manufacturer (or only done by request from the manufacturer). My understanding (and what I have gathered from previous threads on the subject) is the FCC is going after the embedded radio firmwares, and mistakenly (or due to extreme lack of knowledge) named OpenWRT,DD-WRT as offenders. Otherwise, the effect of this would be to outlaw PCIe and USB WiFi, Bluetooth etc. cards/adaptors unless sold inside a computer with a locked bootloader.
- jdiez17 11y ago
  It would only take a motherboard with a PCIe slot and an unlocked bootloader to circumvent that strategy. You would use it to flash the firmware in whatever device you want to unlock and then use it on the computer with the locked bootloader.
- the_ancient 11y ago
  >Otherwise, the effect of this would be to outlaw PCIe and USB WiFi, Bluetooth etc. cards/adaptors unless sold inside a computer with a locked bootloader. Lenovo already does this for laptops, you have to use a Whitelist Wifi card, they claim it is to comply with existing regulations from the FCC, which this will expand.
ignisf 11y ago
Laptops for example have an FCC label (take a look at the bottom of yours) as they have radio equipment on them in the form of a Bluetooth adapter/Wi-Fi adapter/3g modem.

ignisf 11y ago

Mirror: https://archive.is/tGCkU https://archive.is/tGCkU

pvdebbe 11y ago
hmm... > 451 Unavailable > This content is not available in your country.

SCHiM 11y ago

I'm not too worried, like all prohibited substances and devices (except maybe weapons of mass destruction) there will always be ways to get what you want if you want. Especially since from the headlines it appears that they're considering a software based approach.

nsajko 11y ago
Umm, no. Such laws legitimize prohibition (by definition) and represent and form public opinion and can thus be harmful even if they are loosely enforced.
- SCHiM 11y ago
  > Umm, no Exactly what are you disagreeing with? Going by your comment you seem to think that I said that a ban would have no effect at all. I did no such thing, and I would suggest that you read more carefully next time. So, umm, no I can't actually get access to a XTC in my country where it is prohibited? Of course I can. Even if/while such laws effect more than only a ban on the substance in question.
nitrogen 11y ago
This is a forum with a strong focus on startups -- startups will not want to have to use contraband radio equipment to develop their next IoT module.
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  And they won't. Access points will just go back to the slightly more expensive method of using a wifi chipset with an asic and/or preinstalled non-upgradable baseband, and life will go on. The ath9k family, which is what's recommended for things like libreboot-based systems show that these exist. If they're spinning their own circuitry, they're going to have to get fcc approval anyways, and will have to make sure that their access point isn't terribly designed and spewing RF all over the spectrum because they don't understand what happens when you overdrive transistors.

gopowerranger 11y ago

People aren't paying attention to what this is for. It's to prevent people from modifying RF devices, transmitters, from operating at power levels and frequencies, or other technical things, from interfering with other devices and outside the bounds of their intention. It's to protect devices from interference that was prevalent in the days when radio was first invented, and for decades afterwards. This is a good thing.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago
That's not right. Look at this: https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=1UiSJRK869RsyQddPi5hpw%3D%3D&desc=594280%20D02%20U-NII%20Device%20Security%20v01r02&tracking_number=39498 https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=1UiSJRK869Rsy... One of the requirements for hardware vendors is "Describe in detail how the device is protected from 'flashing' and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT." They are explicitly trying to illegalize custom router firmware, even though all the things that need to be prevented could be handled by separate hardware lockouts that wouldn't affect the legitimate uses of DD-WRT.
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  That page states that it's a set of general guidelines, not hard, definite rules. All of the examples, like flashing dd-wrt, are essentially asking, have you thought about x, y, and z? Tell how so. It's almost certainly perfectly acceptable to state, "we use a discrete chip for our wifi system without any way to upgrade the firmware, so if a user does flash their system, the wifi chip cannot be made to drive outside of legal parameters." A hardware lockout is definitely one way to comply with the guidelines.
kuschku 11y ago
And at the same time it locks down devices where radio and processor are connected – you won’t be able to modify the software on some Android devices at all anymore. This is NOT acceptable. Punishing people for sending on illegal frequencies: Okay. Restricting what people can do with devices they paid for: NOT OKAY.

Chirael 11y ago

Sounds like another battle in the "coming war on general purpose computing" http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html

task_queue 11y ago
Stallman was right.
- thinkpenguin 11y ago
  Yep. I think it's much worse than stallman's ever envisioned it though. He is under the impression we can fix it. The reality is likely otherwise which is why we need to drum up massive support for this. The rules in some part have already taken effect which means not only will we all need to send comments in on this but there will need to be further campaigns to undo rules already in effect.
tedunangst 11y ago
Only if the manufacturer insists on connecting the radio directly to the "general purpose" part of the computer, instead of using a more fixed/limited radio. If the radio is isolated, there's no need to lock down the rest of the device. But developing a fixed function radio will probably add a penny to the cost of each unit. So whether you can run openwrt will come down to whether linksys cares more about their pennies or your freedom.
- yuhong 11y ago
  I think one problem with this idea is that different countries can have different spectrum ranges or rules.
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    For example, Japan. Afaik, the fcc permits the sale of such devices, as long as they are not in "jp" mode. Would the proposed regs prevent setting a laptops locale to jp?

guelo 11y ago

FCC should be working to massively expand the unlicensed ranges instead of clamping it down more. The amount of innovation and economic activty in the unlicensed bands is massive. They should be working on taking back the TV HD and SD frequencies and leave the tinkerers alone.

Houshalter 11y ago
They are. There is a big thing in my town about the FCC trying to buy the local PBS station from the university. They already made everyone switch to digital a few years back which saved a lot of bandwidth (and made most channels unwatchable without a giant antennae.)
mikeyouse 11y ago
They are doing that, but the tinkerers are interfering with more important frequencies like RADAR used by weather providers and ATC... Locking down the frequencies so they can't possibly interfere isn't at all at odds with opening up new ranges for better service. I know a few people over at Mimosa (GBPS wireless backhaul providers) so I've seen a lot of progress in advocacy for new spectrum. http://mimosa.co/news/36/75/Mimosa-Advocates-Expansion-of-23-GHz-Spectrum-to-the-FCC-Enabling-10-Gbps-Backhaul/d,flat-blog-detail.html http://mimosa.co/news/36/75/Mimosa-Advocates-Expansion-of-23...
rayiner 11y ago
Expanding the unlicensed bands isn't incompatible with clamping down on how devices can operate on those bands. A key insight we've gained since part 15 was promulgated is that the technologies for sharing and using spectrum without central allocation work a lot better when devices can assume everyone on the band will follow certain rules. The model for the future that maximizes capacity of the spectrum isn't just more unlicensed spectrum, but imposing basic rules on unlicensed spectrum like we do on roads. One thing people forget is that road rules aren't just about safety, they're about keeping traffic moving smoothly. Exactly the same principles apply to cognitive radios.

thinkpenguin 11y ago

From the down link: Take Action Now! The FCC is asking for comments on this proposal. The most important thing you can do is comment on the FCC's proposal and tell them you want to be able to control your computing devices. Will you do this? Comment deadline extended to October 9. Instructions: 1. Go to the Federal Register and press "Submit a formal comment" (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-18402/equipment-authorization-and-electronic-labeling-for-wireless-devices https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-184...) 2. Start your comment by respectfully asking the FCC to not implement rules that take away the ability of users to install the software of their choosing on their computing devices. Additional points of emphasis you should consider adding: - Wireless networking research depends on the ability of researchers to investigate and modify their devices. - Americans need the ability to fix security holes in their devices when the manufacturer chooses to not do so. - Users have in the past fixed serious bugs in their wifi drivers, which would be banned under the NPRM. - Billions of dollars of commerce, such as secure wifi vendors, retail hotspot vendors, depends on the ability of users and companies to install the software of their choosing. 3. Enter your name and address. This is a public comment and your personal information provided will be publicly available. Once you've submitted your comment, make sure to encourage others to submit comments opposing these restrictions on computing devices. Use the #SaveWifi hashtag on Twitter or your favorite microblogging services. Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Save_WiFi/Individual_Comments&client=ubuntu&hs=Clj&channel=fs&strip=1&vwsrc=0 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...

Sanddancer 11y ago
The rules do nothing of the sort. The guidelines state that the hardware manufacturer must make certain that reasonable efforts have been made to keep the device from trampling over radar systems, etc. The guidelines state that one route to do so is to have the firmware locked down in its entirety, but there are other ways to do so. Atheros chips, for example, do not expose the functionality that would require the chips to be locked down. Wireless researchers will almost certainly have the licensing in place to do investigation and modification. Device makers choosing not to update their devices should honestly be handled through tort; a few lawsuits against companies making defective routers will get makers to shape up. Buggy devices can and should be handled similarly. Finally, with your point regarding secure wifi vendors and the like, those would be the manufacturers and would by definition have access to all of those settings. This campaign reminds a lot of the bad old days of Microsoft and spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. This is not an evil policy that has nefarious purposes, it's about making sure people don't intentionally use their devices that will cause damage to the neighbors on the bandwidth spectrum. Also, keep in mind that the unlicensed regions were not created for communications, but rather so that medical and industrial heating devices have some range of frequencies to operate magnetrons, etc, without disrupting sensitive communications. Wifi uses them mostly because they do go unused the majority of the time.

thinkpenguin 11y ago