5 ms·

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

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.)
    - lexicalscope 11y ago
      Yeah - it sucks and this FCC rules is concerning, but not as concerning as I initially thought it was. Don't get me wrong - I think this is a stupid rule, but I just don't think it's as big a deal as the article, and title in particular, make it out to be.
    - throwaway2048 11y ago
      and you can be certain that companies that make wireless routers and cellphones will take the easy route out and fully lock things down.
ajross 11y ago
It's a title. Of course it's lacking context. If you want context, you read the rest of the essay, which explains everything you're doing much better than you are, and makes a solid case for why the FCC is, indeed, banning certain operating systems.
- lexicalscope 11y ago
  I still think it's kind of alarmist, but I can see your point of view as well. My goal was not to be better than their explanations, but only to summarize why I think they're being alarmist - I agree it's a topic worthy of discussion though :).
pdonis 11y ago
> they're only talking about modular radio systems or software defined radio systems Which, in practice, means any computer/electronic device that has a radio in it. > this is targeting consumer equipment Including "consumer" equipment that is being used for research, software coding, etc.
- csirac2 11y ago
  Which, in practice, means any computer/electronic device that has a radio in it. No. FCC approvals apply to the modular transmitter. Another approval may apply to the overall device.
  - pdonis 11y ago
    > FCC approvals apply to the modular transmitter. Including the software that controls it. Which, in practice, includes the OS of a laptop or the firmware of a router, as discussed in the article. Technically that might not be the "entire device", but it's the part that matters.
    - csirac2 11y ago
      > Which, in practice, includes the OS of a laptop or the firmware of a router, as discussed in the article. The article is continuing to imply that the FCC is explicitly banning alt firmware for 5GHz WiFi devices. That is only the case if the module manufacturer fails to come up with any other way of getting their device approved. I don't see anywhere in the regs where banning alt. firmware is a goal of the regs. Given that this also means a brave new world of region-locked/region-specific 5GHz WiFi devices, and the added compliance burden for integrators ("host device manufacturers") trying to use modular transmitters that rely on host device manufacturer controls to achieve FCC approval, I am hopeful that this will change the way that WiFi manufacturers lock down their radio firmware - and that is exactly what the FCC wants. The situation where a modular transmitter places additional avoidable test/conformance/approval burden on the host device will also be a PITA for manufacturers, not just end-users. Check my other comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10256905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10256905

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.)
  - lexicalscope 11y ago
    Yeah - it sucks and this FCC rules is concerning, but not as concerning as I initially thought it was. Don't get me wrong - I think this is a stupid rule, but I just don't think it's as big a deal as the article, and title in particular, make it out to be.
  - throwaway2048 11y ago
    and you can be certain that companies that make wireless routers and cellphones will take the easy route out and fully lock things down.

ajross 11y ago

It's a title. Of course it's lacking context. If you want context, you read the rest of the essay, which explains everything you're doing much better than you are, and makes a solid case for why the FCC is, indeed, banning certain operating systems.

lexicalscope 11y ago
I still think it's kind of alarmist, but I can see your point of view as well. My goal was not to be better than their explanations, but only to summarize why I think they're being alarmist - I agree it's a topic worthy of discussion though :).

pdonis 11y ago

> they're only talking about modular radio systems or software defined radio systems Which, in practice, means any computer/electronic device that has a radio in it. > this is targeting consumer equipment Including "consumer" equipment that is being used for research, software coding, etc.

csirac2 11y ago
Which, in practice, means any computer/electronic device that has a radio in it. No. FCC approvals apply to the modular transmitter. Another approval may apply to the overall device.
- pdonis 11y ago
  > FCC approvals apply to the modular transmitter. Including the software that controls it. Which, in practice, includes the OS of a laptop or the firmware of a router, as discussed in the article. Technically that might not be the "entire device", but it's the part that matters.
  - csirac2 11y ago
    > Which, in practice, includes the OS of a laptop or the firmware of a router, as discussed in the article. The article is continuing to imply that the FCC is explicitly banning alt firmware for 5GHz WiFi devices. That is only the case if the module manufacturer fails to come up with any other way of getting their device approved. I don't see anywhere in the regs where banning alt. firmware is a goal of the regs. Given that this also means a brave new world of region-locked/region-specific 5GHz WiFi devices, and the added compliance burden for integrators ("host device manufacturers") trying to use modular transmitters that rely on host device manufacturer controls to achieve FCC approval, I am hopeful that this will change the way that WiFi manufacturers lock down their radio firmware - and that is exactly what the FCC wants. The situation where a modular transmitter places additional avoidable test/conformance/approval burden on the host device will also be a PITA for manufacturers, not just end-users. Check my other comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10256905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10256905