7 ms·

It's amazing to me that instead of seeking out and prosecuting the handful of people causing problems near airports, the FCC wants to prevent everyone in the Un

by No1 11y ago

It's amazing to me that instead of seeking out and prosecuting the handful of people causing problems near airports, the FCC wants to prevent everyone in the United States from running open source router firmware.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Regulating the proper use of a shared public resource (RF spectrum) is sort of the FCC's thing. Tragedy of the commons, your rights end where the next person's begin, that sort of jazz. This will probably evolve into the baseband firmware being closed, and the higher abstractions being open (with an API to interface to the baseband). Just like cellphones. Which is acceptable unless you're unrealistic about necessary regulations. EDIT: If you don't believe regulation is required, think about tens or hundreds of thousands of wireless devices in the wild that can cause RF interference with no ability to get them recalled. That time Netgear negligently hardcoded the address of University of Wisconsin's NTP server comes to mind: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~plonka/netgear-sntp/ http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~plonka/netgear-sntp/
- aftbit 11y ago
  It's pretty inconvenient for people who want to experiment with e.g. mesh networks, ham radio, etc as mentioned in the article. Also, it seems a bit silly, as true SDR prices are going to keep going down. You can already buy a HackRF for $300 or a YardStick for $150. I'd be in favor of requiring a significant technical burden to enable access to the wireless hardware. Maybe make people open the case and solder a jumper. But there should always be a path forward for experimentation.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > But there should always be a path forward for experimentation. That's not how regulation of consumer hardware works. Experimentation allowed in spectrum? Sure. Require consumer hardware be able to do so? No.
  - gh02t 11y ago
    > Also, it seems a bit silly, as true SDR prices are going to keep going down. You can already buy a HackRF for $300 or a YardStick for $150. I know YardStick can't do WiFi frequencies and even if it did the throughput is 500 kbps max. Is HackRF actually beefy enough to act as a WiFi radio? Do you know about the state of doing WiFi in SDR in general? I was under the impression that it's not practical with any remotely affordable hardware, but I'd be interested to hear if I'm wrong as I'm not that well informed on the subject.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  > Regulating the proper use of a shared public resource (RF spectrum) is sort of the FCC's thing. Tragedy of the commons, your rights end where the next person's begin, that sort of jazz. Right. So they should go after people who actually misuse the spectrum, and not people who install their own firmware without doing that. Or go after the people who are distributing firmware that misuses the spectrum. > This will probably evolve into the baseband firmware being closed, and the higher abstractions being open (with an API to interface to the baseband). Just like cellphones The problem is including separate hardware to lock only the baseband is more expensive than locking the entire device. Smart phones cost several times what consumer-level routers do, and that's after the phone is subsidized by advertising and app store revenue.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > Right. So they should go after people who actually misuse the spectrum, and not people who install their own firmware without doing that. I don't want the FCC trying to obtain the resources to patrol the RF spectrum across millions of US square miles. Cheaper to simply regulate control over the RF hardware. Ham radio operators have to take tests to operate in certain areas of spectrum. I'd be willing to allow experimentation with RF hardware if RF hackers want to go through the same licensing requirements that already exist. > The problem is including separate hardware to lock only the baseband is more expensive than locking the entire device. Smart phones cost several times what consumer-level routers do, and that's after the phone is subsidized by advertising and app store revenue. The baseband is proprietary in all phones, even those in the $10-30 range. Cost is not the issue. Full Disclosure: I have a technical ham radio license, and own a HackRF device for experimenting with RF (I only receive though when hacking; AIS, ADS-B, and other such traffic)
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      > I don't want the FCC trying to obtain the resources to patrol the RF spectrum across millions of US square miles. Why would they need to? If someone is causing interference then the victims can report it. It's not like there are going to be millions of different people causing interference. The only way it possibly happens on a mass scale is if someone is mass distributing bad firmware, and then you can go after them. > Cheaper to simply regulate control over the RF hardware. Except that it isn't. At all. First, there is software defined radio, then there is hardware from other countries, and then there is the fact that because they're limiting access to the whole device, people are definitely going to figure out how to bypass it for at least some devices, so the regulations can't be effective anyway. > Ham radio operators have to take tests to operate in certain areas of spectrum. I'd be willing to allow experimentation with RF hardware if RF hackers want to go through the same licensing requirements that already exist. It isn't about people experimenting with RF hardware. For that use case what you're talking about is fine. But people who have no interest in RF hardware and just want to install OpenWRT should still be able to do it. On everything. Because otherwise, whatever people can't install it on becomes a security zombie as soon as the manufacturer stops supporting it but the customers keep using it. > The baseband is proprietary in all phones, even those in the $10-30 range. Cost is not the issue. Then how are we discussing this on an article that says a router maker has decided that it's cheaper to lock the whole device than just the baseband?
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
It is the same kinda of idea of banning big scary guns instead of going after the people who use guns to commit crimes (and also ignoring that the people who do commit crimes often aren't even using the big scary guns). Regulators gonna regulate!
- 01Michael10 11y ago
  What country do you live in? In the US, gun violence is a real serious crime and the police will use all their resources to go after criminals yet we are a world leader in gun violence. It's probably something to do with guns being so unregulated, plentiful, and easy to get here...
  - ycmbntrthrwaway 11y ago
    Obviously, country that has no guns also has no gun violence, but such country may have higher violence rate overall. Guns also prevent at least some violence, you need to take it into account.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    I was talking about different forms of gun violence. Namely, bigger, scarier, more powerful weapons are the least likely to be used in a crime but which receive the most regulations. Such as 'assault weapon' laws which ignore all the handguns used in gang violence.
seanp2k2 11y ago
Plus, if we limit that ability, no malicious people will figure out how to buy a single-board computer with some type of open radio platform </s>
mkhpalm 11y ago
Are there any documented cases where people were near airports causing such problems with things like OpenWRT, DD-WRT, etc? Something tells me that cases demonstrating the need for such a ruling are hard to come by.

by No1 11y ago

toomuchtodo 11y ago

Regulating the proper use of a shared public resource (RF spectrum) is sort of the FCC's thing. Tragedy of the commons, your rights end where the next person's begin, that sort of jazz. This will probably evolve into the baseband firmware being closed, and the higher abstractions being open (with an API to interface to the baseband). Just like cellphones. Which is acceptable unless you're unrealistic about necessary regulations. EDIT: If you don't believe regulation is required, think about tens or hundreds of thousands of wireless devices in the wild that can cause RF interference with no ability to get them recalled. That time Netgear negligently hardcoded the address of University of Wisconsin's NTP server comes to mind: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~plonka/netgear-sntp/ http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~plonka/netgear-sntp/

aftbit 11y ago
It's pretty inconvenient for people who want to experiment with e.g. mesh networks, ham radio, etc as mentioned in the article. Also, it seems a bit silly, as true SDR prices are going to keep going down. You can already buy a HackRF for $300 or a YardStick for $150. I'd be in favor of requiring a significant technical burden to enable access to the wireless hardware. Maybe make people open the case and solder a jumper. But there should always be a path forward for experimentation.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > But there should always be a path forward for experimentation. That's not how regulation of consumer hardware works. Experimentation allowed in spectrum? Sure. Require consumer hardware be able to do so? No.
- gh02t 11y ago
  > Also, it seems a bit silly, as true SDR prices are going to keep going down. You can already buy a HackRF for $300 or a YardStick for $150. I know YardStick can't do WiFi frequencies and even if it did the throughput is 500 kbps max. Is HackRF actually beefy enough to act as a WiFi radio? Do you know about the state of doing WiFi in SDR in general? I was under the impression that it's not practical with any remotely affordable hardware, but I'd be interested to hear if I'm wrong as I'm not that well informed on the subject.
AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> Regulating the proper use of a shared public resource (RF spectrum) is sort of the FCC's thing. Tragedy of the commons, your rights end where the next person's begin, that sort of jazz. Right. So they should go after people who actually misuse the spectrum, and not people who install their own firmware without doing that. Or go after the people who are distributing firmware that misuses the spectrum. > This will probably evolve into the baseband firmware being closed, and the higher abstractions being open (with an API to interface to the baseband). Just like cellphones The problem is including separate hardware to lock only the baseband is more expensive than locking the entire device. Smart phones cost several times what consumer-level routers do, and that's after the phone is subsidized by advertising and app store revenue.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > Right. So they should go after people who actually misuse the spectrum, and not people who install their own firmware without doing that. I don't want the FCC trying to obtain the resources to patrol the RF spectrum across millions of US square miles. Cheaper to simply regulate control over the RF hardware. Ham radio operators have to take tests to operate in certain areas of spectrum. I'd be willing to allow experimentation with RF hardware if RF hackers want to go through the same licensing requirements that already exist. > The problem is including separate hardware to lock only the baseband is more expensive than locking the entire device. Smart phones cost several times what consumer-level routers do, and that's after the phone is subsidized by advertising and app store revenue. The baseband is proprietary in all phones, even those in the $10-30 range. Cost is not the issue. Full Disclosure: I have a technical ham radio license, and own a HackRF device for experimenting with RF (I only receive though when hacking; AIS, ADS-B, and other such traffic)
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    > I don't want the FCC trying to obtain the resources to patrol the RF spectrum across millions of US square miles. Why would they need to? If someone is causing interference then the victims can report it. It's not like there are going to be millions of different people causing interference. The only way it possibly happens on a mass scale is if someone is mass distributing bad firmware, and then you can go after them. > Cheaper to simply regulate control over the RF hardware. Except that it isn't. At all. First, there is software defined radio, then there is hardware from other countries, and then there is the fact that because they're limiting access to the whole device, people are definitely going to figure out how to bypass it for at least some devices, so the regulations can't be effective anyway. > Ham radio operators have to take tests to operate in certain areas of spectrum. I'd be willing to allow experimentation with RF hardware if RF hackers want to go through the same licensing requirements that already exist. It isn't about people experimenting with RF hardware. For that use case what you're talking about is fine. But people who have no interest in RF hardware and just want to install OpenWRT should still be able to do it. On everything. Because otherwise, whatever people can't install it on becomes a security zombie as soon as the manufacturer stops supporting it but the customers keep using it. > The baseband is proprietary in all phones, even those in the $10-30 range. Cost is not the issue. Then how are we discussing this on an article that says a router maker has decided that it's cheaper to lock the whole device than just the baseband?

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

It is the same kinda of idea of banning big scary guns instead of going after the people who use guns to commit crimes (and also ignoring that the people who do commit crimes often aren't even using the big scary guns). Regulators gonna regulate!

01Michael10 11y ago
What country do you live in? In the US, gun violence is a real serious crime and the police will use all their resources to go after criminals yet we are a world leader in gun violence. It's probably something to do with guns being so unregulated, plentiful, and easy to get here...
- ycmbntrthrwaway 11y ago
  Obviously, country that has no guns also has no gun violence, but such country may have higher violence rate overall. Guns also prevent at least some violence, you need to take it into account.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  I was talking about different forms of gun violence. Namely, bigger, scarier, more powerful weapons are the least likely to be used in a crime but which receive the most regulations. Such as 'assault weapon' laws which ignore all the handguns used in gang violence.

seanp2k2 11y ago

Plus, if we limit that ability, no malicious people will figure out how to buy a single-board computer with some type of open radio platform </s>

mkhpalm 11y ago

Are there any documented cases where people were near airports causing such problems with things like OpenWRT, DD-WRT, etc? Something tells me that cases demonstrating the need for such a ruling are hard to come by.