5 ms·

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?

by jdiez17 11y ago

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.

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?

by 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.