6 ms·

This title is kind of click-bait - they aren't prohibiting operating systems, they _might_ be prohibiting installation of operating systems that are not approve

This title is kind of click-bait - they aren't prohibiting operating systems, they _might_ be prohibiting installation of operating systems that are not approved on certain types of devices that allow software defined radio - that is, transceivers that can be tweaked easily by software. That is not at all the same thing as banning an operating system. This is already present insofar as hardware requirements in radios - radios cannot be permitted to listen on frequencies reserved for cell phones, and must not be restricted in such way as they can be easily modified to enable it (e.g., a header/jumper). This really just extends this requirement that it is non-trivial to enable illegal broadcasting or reception on software defined radios. Now - insofar as if this should impact open source operating systems, we have a good question. I don't think it does that - my interpretation, potentially wrong of course, just as the article's could be wrong, is that you would have to restrict the actual firmware in question to a blob that communicates with the hardware in a secure way. This would prevent open/free components insofar as the actual driver, but would not permit the operating system itself from being installed. They mention this, but only at the end of the article. I also doubt the impact of this for non software-defined/modular radio systems. I don't see a way this would really impact everyday wifi or non-modular systems in a way most people would care about. That isn't to say it isn't _bad_ but once again, it just seems super misleading and alarmist. Whether or not the FCC should or shouldn't do this is a different question, but the link's title seems intentionally misleading.

archimedespi 11y ago
> This is already present insofar as hardware requirements in radios - radios cannot be permitted to listen on frequencies reserved for cell phones, and must not be restricted in such way as they can be easily modified to enable it (e.g., a header/jumper). This really just extends this requirement that it is non-trivial to enable illegal broadcasting or reception on software defined radios. Cough, cough, HackRF(https://greatscottgadgets.com/hackrf/ https://greatscottgadgets.com/hackrf/) + GNURadio(http://gnuradio.org/ http://gnuradio.org/) don't seem to have these limitations.
- lexicalscope 11y ago
  As I recall, they got around this by not being FCC licensed - in other words, HackRF is classified as a kit/developer component, and is not legal to operate unless you hold an independent license from FCC (e.g.: if you're a Ham you can use it on Ham frequencies you are licensed for). Read the disclaimer at bottom > HackRF One is test equipment for RF systems. It has not been tested for compliance with regulations governing transmission of radio signals. You are responsible for using your HackRF One legally. Realistically you're not going to probably get in trouble, but I _will_ caution you - if you use this kind of equipment illegally, the FCC does have radio direction finding equipment and will send someone out to find you if you piss them off - they've done this for people that were on Ham frequencies without authorization, people doing nasty things on government frequencies, and anything disturbing people who paid for a license. Re: GNURadio The software itself has no requirement - there is no "if you run radio software, it has to do X" and there still is no requirement under proposed rules for that as far as I can tell - it's just if you build hardware, your hardware must enforce that only certain software can be installed :).
  - BHSPitMonkey 11y ago
    I doubt the possibility of detection is very high if you're only receiving.
    - lexicalscope 11y ago
      Agreed - they're more concerned about transmission, which is part of why they have more strict requirements around scanners to try a lot harder to avoid this.
  - Buge 11y ago
    What harm does listening on a frequency cause? If radio waves travel through my house I'm not allowed to listen to them?
    - Sanddancer 11y ago
      That rule was put in place in the early, analog, days of cell phone usage to help build confidence that J Random Somebody wasn't listening to your calls. Cordless phones at the time were well known for being easy to listen to, and the wireless industry didn't want that stigma on cell phones.
kazinator 11y ago
> they aren't prohibiting operating systems, they _might_ be prohibiting installation of operating systems that are not approved on certain types of devices that ... "prohibit installation" means to ban. "operating systems that are not approved on certain types of devices that ..." means specific operating systems. So, the FCC "might ban specific operating systems"; you've paraphrased what the title says.
- lexicalscope 11y ago
  I disagree - saying they might ban operating systems, with no context, leaves out the fact they're only talking about modular radio systems or software defined radio systems. Edit: also to be clear, as another comment pointed out, this doesn't have any impact on test/kit equipment that is not compliant with FCC regulations anyway and requires a separate license to use - this is targeting consumer equipment. So I still think it's pretty misleading. The rest is the fact that I think the article is wrong anyway :)
  - kazinator 11y ago
    The context is more or less obvious from "FCC". We know from those three letters that it's not about, say, banning Ubuntu from your PC.
    - lexicalscope 11y ago
      But the FCC regulates a great deal of equipment, and this is only targeting a very specific subset of that equipment - not all of it. I was initially pretty concerned as I'm a Ham radio operator, but this really does not concern me overly much now that it's clear it's: A) SDR/Modular only B) Consumer only
      - JoshTriplett 11y ago
        Quite a bit of "consumer" equipment is halfway to an SDR already, and a ruling like this would mean you could never write or release FOSS firmware for a wireless card. (Note that wireless cards with FOSS firmware exist today.)
tgflynn 11y ago
radios cannot be permitted to listen on frequencies reserved for cell phones Is this true ? I've never heard of the FCC restricting receivers before. You don't need a license to buy or operate a HAM receiver.
- la_fig_fontaine 11y ago
  > You don't need a license to buy or operate a HAM receiver. Why have you capitalised ham? What are you under the impression it stands for? Are you also one of those people that capitalises JAVA? What goes through the heads of people like you?
  - mtrpcic 11y ago
    It's not crazy to assume that "ham" from "ham radio" would be an acronym for something. You're being needlessly confrontational because of a misunderstanding on the internet.
  - huehehue 11y ago
    Many people capitalize HAM. Probably comes from a number of proposed origins [0]. No need to make a big deal of it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_ham_radio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_ham_radio
  - tgflynn 11y ago
    Honestly I don't know what was "going through my head". I think most letter case decisions are handled by my brain below the threshold of conscious awareness. I don't spend a lot of time agonizing over trivialities in my online comments that are completely irrelevant to my question or point.
    - Chlorus 11y ago
      Perhaps you have Amiga on the brain :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hold-And-Modify https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hold-And-Modify
    - 11y ago
gsnedders 11y ago
> This would prevent open/free components insofar as the actual driver, but would not permit the operating system itself from being installed. If the SDR has a microcontroller, you potentially only need the firmware of the microcontroller to be signed (with the microcontroller checking the signature), and can have a fully free driver around it. You can even release the source of the firmware (and allow reproducible builds!) because it's guaranteed by the signature, not by the availability of the source.
- lexicalscope 11y ago
  Good call - similar to how you load firmware for Wifi using a blob a lot of the time. But for a lot of advocates of this they still might not be okay with this as they don't want any blobs. Which I can get, but even more reason it's kind of alarmist in my view.
voltagex_ 11y ago
If the net result is that I can't install OpenWRT on my router in Australia, then yes, that's really bad.

archimedespi 11y ago

> This is already present insofar as hardware requirements in radios - radios cannot be permitted to listen on frequencies reserved for cell phones, and must not be restricted in such way as they can be easily modified to enable it (e.g., a header/jumper). This really just extends this requirement that it is non-trivial to enable illegal broadcasting or reception on software defined radios. Cough, cough, HackRF(https://greatscottgadgets.com/hackrf/ https://greatscottgadgets.com/hackrf/) + GNURadio(http://gnuradio.org/ http://gnuradio.org/) don't seem to have these limitations.

lexicalscope 11y ago
As I recall, they got around this by not being FCC licensed - in other words, HackRF is classified as a kit/developer component, and is not legal to operate unless you hold an independent license from FCC (e.g.: if you're a Ham you can use it on Ham frequencies you are licensed for). Read the disclaimer at bottom > HackRF One is test equipment for RF systems. It has not been tested for compliance with regulations governing transmission of radio signals. You are responsible for using your HackRF One legally. Realistically you're not going to probably get in trouble, but I _will_ caution you - if you use this kind of equipment illegally, the FCC does have radio direction finding equipment and will send someone out to find you if you piss them off - they've done this for people that were on Ham frequencies without authorization, people doing nasty things on government frequencies, and anything disturbing people who paid for a license. Re: GNURadio The software itself has no requirement - there is no "if you run radio software, it has to do X" and there still is no requirement under proposed rules for that as far as I can tell - it's just if you build hardware, your hardware must enforce that only certain software can be installed :).
- BHSPitMonkey 11y ago
  I doubt the possibility of detection is very high if you're only receiving.
  - lexicalscope 11y ago
    Agreed - they're more concerned about transmission, which is part of why they have more strict requirements around scanners to try a lot harder to avoid this.
- Buge 11y ago
  What harm does listening on a frequency cause? If radio waves travel through my house I'm not allowed to listen to them?
  - Sanddancer 11y ago
    That rule was put in place in the early, analog, days of cell phone usage to help build confidence that J Random Somebody wasn't listening to your calls. Cordless phones at the time were well known for being easy to listen to, and the wireless industry didn't want that stigma on cell phones.

kazinator 11y ago

> they aren't prohibiting operating systems, they _might_ be prohibiting installation of operating systems that are not approved on certain types of devices that ... "prohibit installation" means to ban. "operating systems that are not approved on certain types of devices that ..." means specific operating systems. So, the FCC "might ban specific operating systems"; you've paraphrased what the title says.

lexicalscope 11y ago
I disagree - saying they might ban operating systems, with no context, leaves out the fact they're only talking about modular radio systems or software defined radio systems. Edit: also to be clear, as another comment pointed out, this doesn't have any impact on test/kit equipment that is not compliant with FCC regulations anyway and requires a separate license to use - this is targeting consumer equipment. So I still think it's pretty misleading. The rest is the fact that I think the article is wrong anyway :)
- kazinator 11y ago
  The context is more or less obvious from "FCC". We know from those three letters that it's not about, say, banning Ubuntu from your PC.
  - lexicalscope 11y ago
    But the FCC regulates a great deal of equipment, and this is only targeting a very specific subset of that equipment - not all of it. I was initially pretty concerned as I'm a Ham radio operator, but this really does not concern me overly much now that it's clear it's: A) SDR/Modular only B) Consumer only
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      Quite a bit of "consumer" equipment is halfway to an SDR already, and a ruling like this would mean you could never write or release FOSS firmware for a wireless card. (Note that wireless cards with FOSS firmware exist today.)

tgflynn 11y ago

radios cannot be permitted to listen on frequencies reserved for cell phones Is this true ? I've never heard of the FCC restricting receivers before. You don't need a license to buy or operate a HAM receiver.

la_fig_fontaine 11y ago
> You don't need a license to buy or operate a HAM receiver. Why have you capitalised ham? What are you under the impression it stands for? Are you also one of those people that capitalises JAVA? What goes through the heads of people like you?
- mtrpcic 11y ago
  It's not crazy to assume that "ham" from "ham radio" would be an acronym for something. You're being needlessly confrontational because of a misunderstanding on the internet.
- huehehue 11y ago
  Many people capitalize HAM. Probably comes from a number of proposed origins [0]. No need to make a big deal of it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_ham_radio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_ham_radio
- tgflynn 11y ago
  Honestly I don't know what was "going through my head". I think most letter case decisions are handled by my brain below the threshold of conscious awareness. I don't spend a lot of time agonizing over trivialities in my online comments that are completely irrelevant to my question or point.
  - Chlorus 11y ago
    Perhaps you have Amiga on the brain :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hold-And-Modify https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hold-And-Modify
  - 11y ago

gsnedders 11y ago

> This would prevent open/free components insofar as the actual driver, but would not permit the operating system itself from being installed. If the SDR has a microcontroller, you potentially only need the firmware of the microcontroller to be signed (with the microcontroller checking the signature), and can have a fully free driver around it. You can even release the source of the firmware (and allow reproducible builds!) because it's guaranteed by the signature, not by the availability of the source.

lexicalscope 11y ago
Good call - similar to how you load firmware for Wifi using a blob a lot of the time. But for a lot of advocates of this they still might not be okay with this as they don't want any blobs. Which I can get, but even more reason it's kind of alarmist in my view.

voltagex_ 11y ago

If the net result is that I can't install OpenWRT on my router in Australia, then yes, that's really bad.