4 ms·

I understand why this solution has been proposed, but is there any chance of convincing the FCC that the devices should be left "open" and that it is up to end

by davb 10y ago

I understand why this solution has been proposed, but is there any chance of convincing the FCC that the devices should be left "open" and that it is up to end users/hackers to operate their device within the regulations set forth? I mean, that's how it is with plenty of other devices and types of equipment (cars aren't speed limited to 70mph - you're expected to operate your equipment within the bounds of the law, regardless of capability). I'm not in the US, but I can imagine global firmware versions being locked down just to placate the FCC. Or is it too late and do we have too little sway to convince them?

lfam 10y ago
This is my take on the subject as a person who has worked professionally in FM radio regulatory compliance in the USA. The FCC's approach to regulation of the electromagnetic spectrum is that it is a "common good", i.e. it is rivalrous but non-excludable. In their view, nobody has a right to use the spectrum in the USA. They grant licenses to use it, and they can tell you how to use the spectrum you are licensed to use. Apparently, there were documented problems with WiFi radios being operated outside of their licensed parameters and interfering with safety critical airport radar systems. It's probably too late to persuade them to change their minds. The public response to this topic was voluminous. They received way more comments than they usually do, but they still chose this approach. If you care, you should choose to support hardware vendors that make the effort to separate the WiFi radio from the main system, allowing you to install your own firmware.
- wtallis 10y ago
  > Apparently, there were documented problems with WiFi radios being operated outside of their licensed parameters and interfering with safety critical airport radar systems. I've never seen a report listing more than about 45 instances of WiFi interfering with TDWR, and that's counting repeat offenders. I also haven't seen a clear statement of how many of those instances resulted in impaired operation of the airport's systems, or how many of them could have been prevented with the FCCs preferred solution. Meanwhile, the FCC has shown considerable ignorance of and disregard for the consequences of imposing such strict regulations on WiFi. It shouldn't have been hard for the FCC to make a clear and compelling case for this, with a similarly clear call to action for chipset vendors to produce products that could meet the need for secure regulatory enforcement while remaining open to all the tweaking that is outside the FCC's purview.
- mkhpalm 10y ago
  Can you point me to the documented cases you are referring to?
  - lfam 10y ago
    I used a search engine and found this list of enforcement actions against businesses: https://www.fcc.gov/general/u-nii-and-tdwr-interference-enforcement https://www.fcc.gov/general/u-nii-and-tdwr-interference-enfo... After reading a few of those reports, you should learn enough of the terminology to effectively search further.
dforrestwilson1 10y ago
It is easy to see a speeding car, snag the license plate, and inform the police of flagrant violators. Detecting and tracing wireless interference is much more difficult, requiring specialized equipment and a lot of FCC filings. All of the major carriers tend to bump shoulders in one market or another and the issue is often difficult to resolve due to the need for a lot of evidence. So in short, it's harder to identify and confront violators. Like figuring out who peed in a crowded pool.
- davb 10y ago
  True, but is misuse facilitated by modern firmware really that prevalent? Or is it just as likely that an enthusiast would violate the regulations by building non-compliant radio equipment from components? The only way to really prevent misuse would be to regulate the supply of any electronic components that could be used to build non-compliant equipment. A better solution would be to include warnings with all certified equipment that it must be operated in accordance with regulations, as we do now. I think the threat is being overstated and the proposed solution too bluntly applied.
- wtallis 10y ago
  These regulations are intended to protect airport radars of a type that have a very narrow beam width, which ought to provide a reasonably accurate bearing along which to search for the offender. Offending transmissions can be further tracked using dirt cheap off the shelf WiFi equipment, especially the stuff that has a spectral scan mode: https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/users/drivers/ath9k/spectral_scan https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/users/drivers/ath9k/spec... If the offending transmissions are not intermittent (ie. an access point is operating normally, but with DFS off and a high transmit power for broadcasts), then it's probably feasible to pinpoint at least the correct building by searching on foot for a few hours.
gravypod 10y ago
From my current understanding, that's not how other devices work. If you go and buy a 30$ BaoFung and operate it on bands that the device is not certified to be used under ( CB/MURS/wakie talkie bands) then you can be fined for using it. On the other hand, if you are a HAM then you have full access to do whatever you'd like in that regard. It doesn't even need to be for within your license class. So long as you are legally allowed to transmit on that band, you can do so as a HAM. This was done because lots of us HAMs build our own equipment.

by davb 10y ago

lfam 10y ago

This is my take on the subject as a person who has worked professionally in FM radio regulatory compliance in the USA. The FCC's approach to regulation of the electromagnetic spectrum is that it is a "common good", i.e. it is rivalrous but non-excludable. In their view, nobody has a right to use the spectrum in the USA. They grant licenses to use it, and they can tell you how to use the spectrum you are licensed to use. Apparently, there were documented problems with WiFi radios being operated outside of their licensed parameters and interfering with safety critical airport radar systems. It's probably too late to persuade them to change their minds. The public response to this topic was voluminous. They received way more comments than they usually do, but they still chose this approach. If you care, you should choose to support hardware vendors that make the effort to separate the WiFi radio from the main system, allowing you to install your own firmware.

wtallis 10y ago
> Apparently, there were documented problems with WiFi radios being operated outside of their licensed parameters and interfering with safety critical airport radar systems. I've never seen a report listing more than about 45 instances of WiFi interfering with TDWR, and that's counting repeat offenders. I also haven't seen a clear statement of how many of those instances resulted in impaired operation of the airport's systems, or how many of them could have been prevented with the FCCs preferred solution. Meanwhile, the FCC has shown considerable ignorance of and disregard for the consequences of imposing such strict regulations on WiFi. It shouldn't have been hard for the FCC to make a clear and compelling case for this, with a similarly clear call to action for chipset vendors to produce products that could meet the need for secure regulatory enforcement while remaining open to all the tweaking that is outside the FCC's purview.
mkhpalm 10y ago
Can you point me to the documented cases you are referring to?
- lfam 10y ago
  I used a search engine and found this list of enforcement actions against businesses: https://www.fcc.gov/general/u-nii-and-tdwr-interference-enforcement https://www.fcc.gov/general/u-nii-and-tdwr-interference-enfo... After reading a few of those reports, you should learn enough of the terminology to effectively search further.

dforrestwilson1 10y ago

It is easy to see a speeding car, snag the license plate, and inform the police of flagrant violators. Detecting and tracing wireless interference is much more difficult, requiring specialized equipment and a lot of FCC filings. All of the major carriers tend to bump shoulders in one market or another and the issue is often difficult to resolve due to the need for a lot of evidence. So in short, it's harder to identify and confront violators. Like figuring out who peed in a crowded pool.

davb 10y ago
True, but is misuse facilitated by modern firmware really that prevalent? Or is it just as likely that an enthusiast would violate the regulations by building non-compliant radio equipment from components? The only way to really prevent misuse would be to regulate the supply of any electronic components that could be used to build non-compliant equipment. A better solution would be to include warnings with all certified equipment that it must be operated in accordance with regulations, as we do now. I think the threat is being overstated and the proposed solution too bluntly applied.
wtallis 10y ago
These regulations are intended to protect airport radars of a type that have a very narrow beam width, which ought to provide a reasonably accurate bearing along which to search for the offender. Offending transmissions can be further tracked using dirt cheap off the shelf WiFi equipment, especially the stuff that has a spectral scan mode: https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/users/drivers/ath9k/spectral_scan https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/users/drivers/ath9k/spec... If the offending transmissions are not intermittent (ie. an access point is operating normally, but with DFS off and a high transmit power for broadcasts), then it's probably feasible to pinpoint at least the correct building by searching on foot for a few hours.

gravypod 10y ago

From my current understanding, that's not how other devices work. If you go and buy a 30$ BaoFung and operate it on bands that the device is not certified to be used under ( CB/MURS/wakie talkie bands) then you can be fined for using it. On the other hand, if you are a HAM then you have full access to do whatever you'd like in that regard. It doesn't even need to be for within your license class. So long as you are legally allowed to transmit on that band, you can do so as a HAM. This was done because lots of us HAMs build our own equipment.