5 ms·

>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 al

by 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.
  - wpietri 11y ago
    How is wi-fi interference an "imaginary" problem? Note, for example, the many stories people tell about microwave ovens interfering with wifi: https://www.google.com/search?q=wifi+interference+microwave https://www.google.com/search?q=wifi+interference+microwave And when open up a spectrum analyzer and look at how much power is on the wifi bands around me, it sure looks like interference is an actual thing. So it seems to me that interference is a real problem, which is why we have the FCC regulating this stuff in the first place. The right they have, by the way, is that we the people created the FCC to solve the problem of radio interference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Radio_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Radio_Commission Now it could be that there are better ways to solve the problem. But given the people totally losing their shit in classic "ehrmegerd guvmint steelin my freedums" style, I am wondering if this issue belongs in my bucket labeled "antivax, fiat money, 911 truth, etc".
    - Perdition 11y ago
      The reason there is so much interference on WiFi channels is because there is little regulation within the assigned frequencies. People playing around with unlocked SDRs is not even a rounding error when it comes to causes of interference.
    - elsjaako 11y ago
      2.4 Ghz was chosen because it has interference from microwaves: http://www.wired.com/2010/09/wireless-explainer/ http://www.wired.com/2010/09/wireless-explainer/ The "imaginary problem" (I don't know how imaginary it is) is people modifying software so that their devices interfere with other, licensed frequencies. Personally, I don't think there are many people that will buy an SDR and amplify the signal outside of legal ranges. I also think that any people that will do that are also capable and willing to that without the convenience of SDR. I can imagine this theoretically being a problem with wifi routers: "Download this custom build of OpenWRT and this custom wifi driver, and you can get wifi without interference from your neighbors".
    - teddyh 11y ago
      The myth of interference – Internet architect David Reed explains how bad science created the broadcast industry. http://www.salon.com/2003/03/12/spectrum/ http://www.salon.com/2003/03/12/spectrum/
  - jrockway 11y ago
    I don't think the FCC cares if WiFi routers interfere with WiFi. I think they're concerned about modifying the router to work outside of the ISM band, which has other users. For example, WiFi routers used to be able to operate on the same frequencies as TDWR weather radars. They were supposed to listen to the frequency for a while, and not use it if it was near enough to a radar installation to cause interference. People modified their routers to skip the listening phase, and introduced interference with the weather radars. Now nobody gets those frequencies. The average hobbyist could apparently not bother to understand the rules or the consequences of their actions. (TDWR is safety-critical, used to compute surface winds near runways at major airports, giving pilots and ATC critical information about whether or not they could safely attempt a landing. If you hit wind shear 100 feet above the ground, you crash. Your quest for slightly faster WiFi speeds has the ability to kill someone.)
    - tokenizerrr 11y ago
      Sounds like those TDWR systems are in dire need of an upgrade if that's enough to cause fatalities.
      - jrockway 11y ago
        It's a radar system, there is not much it can do if people are transmitting on the same frequencies as it's listening on. It sends out a pulse, it listens for the response. It doesn't know that your WiFi traffic isn't a return signal from a raindrop. And it has to be quite sensitive, because raindrops are small and are not exactly purpose-built radio reflectors. The previous approach to monitoring for wind shear conditions was to have a surface station at the airport, and hope that the conditions at the surface station were the same along the entire final approach corridor. Sometimes this was true. Sometimes it wasn't and people died. Aviation is a lot safer these days, even though we fly many more planes in the same airspace. Even an imperfect technology adds to the safety calculus. Giving that safety and capacity up so you can use a shitty low-power low-bandwidth frequency in the 5GHz wifi band is not appealing to me. (There are plenty of full-power, 80MHz-wide frequencies that are WiFi-only. Use those!) The FCC should have never allowed sharing to begin with. It was nice of them to try, though, given that much of the US is not in interference-range of TDWR stations.

by jdiez17 11y ago

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.
- wpietri 11y ago
  How is wi-fi interference an "imaginary" problem? Note, for example, the many stories people tell about microwave ovens interfering with wifi: https://www.google.com/search?q=wifi+interference+microwave https://www.google.com/search?q=wifi+interference+microwave And when open up a spectrum analyzer and look at how much power is on the wifi bands around me, it sure looks like interference is an actual thing. So it seems to me that interference is a real problem, which is why we have the FCC regulating this stuff in the first place. The right they have, by the way, is that we the people created the FCC to solve the problem of radio interference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Radio_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Radio_Commission Now it could be that there are better ways to solve the problem. But given the people totally losing their shit in classic "ehrmegerd guvmint steelin my freedums" style, I am wondering if this issue belongs in my bucket labeled "antivax, fiat money, 911 truth, etc".
  - Perdition 11y ago
    The reason there is so much interference on WiFi channels is because there is little regulation within the assigned frequencies. People playing around with unlocked SDRs is not even a rounding error when it comes to causes of interference.
  - elsjaako 11y ago
    2.4 Ghz was chosen because it has interference from microwaves: http://www.wired.com/2010/09/wireless-explainer/ http://www.wired.com/2010/09/wireless-explainer/ The "imaginary problem" (I don't know how imaginary it is) is people modifying software so that their devices interfere with other, licensed frequencies. Personally, I don't think there are many people that will buy an SDR and amplify the signal outside of legal ranges. I also think that any people that will do that are also capable and willing to that without the convenience of SDR. I can imagine this theoretically being a problem with wifi routers: "Download this custom build of OpenWRT and this custom wifi driver, and you can get wifi without interference from your neighbors".
  - teddyh 11y ago
    The myth of interference – Internet architect David Reed explains how bad science created the broadcast industry. http://www.salon.com/2003/03/12/spectrum/ http://www.salon.com/2003/03/12/spectrum/
- jrockway 11y ago
  I don't think the FCC cares if WiFi routers interfere with WiFi. I think they're concerned about modifying the router to work outside of the ISM band, which has other users. For example, WiFi routers used to be able to operate on the same frequencies as TDWR weather radars. They were supposed to listen to the frequency for a while, and not use it if it was near enough to a radar installation to cause interference. People modified their routers to skip the listening phase, and introduced interference with the weather radars. Now nobody gets those frequencies. The average hobbyist could apparently not bother to understand the rules or the consequences of their actions. (TDWR is safety-critical, used to compute surface winds near runways at major airports, giving pilots and ATC critical information about whether or not they could safely attempt a landing. If you hit wind shear 100 feet above the ground, you crash. Your quest for slightly faster WiFi speeds has the ability to kill someone.)
  - tokenizerrr 11y ago
    Sounds like those TDWR systems are in dire need of an upgrade if that's enough to cause fatalities.
    - jrockway 11y ago
      It's a radar system, there is not much it can do if people are transmitting on the same frequencies as it's listening on. It sends out a pulse, it listens for the response. It doesn't know that your WiFi traffic isn't a return signal from a raindrop. And it has to be quite sensitive, because raindrops are small and are not exactly purpose-built radio reflectors. The previous approach to monitoring for wind shear conditions was to have a surface station at the airport, and hope that the conditions at the surface station were the same along the entire final approach corridor. Sometimes this was true. Sometimes it wasn't and people died. Aviation is a lot safer these days, even though we fly many more planes in the same airspace. Even an imperfect technology adds to the safety calculus. Giving that safety and capacity up so you can use a shitty low-power low-bandwidth frequency in the 5GHz wifi band is not appealing to me. (There are plenty of full-power, 80MHz-wide frequencies that are WiFi-only. Use those!) The FCC should have never allowed sharing to begin with. It was nice of them to try, though, given that much of the US is not in interference-range of TDWR stations.