8 ms·

What would be the motivator for this kind of clause? I can't imagine radio-device manufacturers would appreciate the additional expense, and at least some of th

What would be the motivator for this kind of clause? I can't imagine radio-device manufacturers would appreciate the additional expense, and at least some of them must benefit from consumers buying those products specifically for customization. Are the national governments pushing for more radio control? Is there some kind of crisis of radio abuse? Or is it an indirect way to give governments more punishment tools, by making radio modification a subversion of manufacturer controls, so you can be slapped with an additional charge if you ever use a custom radio device in a crime?

swinglock 8y ago
Allowed frequencies and transmit power varies in the world, so the cheapest way sell to all markets is to set a few different bits in firmware to make it fit for those regulations. That could be a factor.
- gmueckl 8y ago
  This is what this change is about. It follows similar regulations in the US, btw. Smartphones should be mostly fine if the radios are controlled entirely by the baseband. Then changing the main OS cannot have any effect on the compliance of the device.
ethbro 8y ago
The availability of easily-hackable, low-cost Chinese hardware? I'm not as familiar with EU law, but similar changes in the US were prompted by "Import hardware configured legally, but manufacturer winks / doesn't care about flashes to illegal specifications" scenarios (indeed, it may be a way to boost sales). The correct legislative solution seems to mandate locked RF firmware... while also mandating customer access to tinker with the remainder of functionality. This addresses the tendency for manufacturers to simply lock down everything as the cheapest path to legal compliance. TBH, if you want a right to tinker with RF firmware, a ham (or equivalent) license seems a low (probably too low) but necessary and fair burden.
xondono 8y ago
Basically the EU has discovered SDR (Software Defined Radio) and wants to limit its use. The usual excuses are given, electrical safety, emission on protected bands...
- presscast 8y ago
  Right, but why would they want to regulate SDR?
  - beamatronic 8y ago
    FUD. Fear, uncertainty, doubt
    - presscast 8y ago
      That's how. The question is "what problem do they think they're solving"?
  - throw082 8y ago
    maybe because they can be used for many nefarious purposes?
    - dTal 8y ago
      So can wheels. You shouldn't ban general purpose technology because of particular bad uses.
      - patrickaljord 8y ago
        I agree with you, but for anyone following EU rules and regulations, this ship has sailed a long time ago. Drugs, guns, radio are just part of a huge long list of "general purpose technology" that have been regulated out of existence.
        SZJX 8y ago
tzs 8y ago
I haven't read the EU proposal, but for the corresponding US rule, the motivation was to reduce interference with other radio users. In many of these products, the radio is capable of frequencies, power levels, and modulation modes that are not legal, and the device relies entirely on the firmware not choosing an illegal combination to stay legal. People have used third party firmware to allow choosing illegal radio settings. The regulations were written in the US to be compatible with open source and customization, only requiring that outside software not be able to set the radio to transmit outside the legal limits that applied to that type of device. A router manufacturer does not have to lock down all the firmware to satisfy this. They can make it so that the "set radio parameters" part of the firmware is separate from the rest, with only the former being restricted. This is the approach the FCC encourages, rather than simply locking down the whole thing. In fact, when TP-Link was making routers that could operate outside legal power levels, and the FCC went after them, the consent decree they agreed to required TP-Link to work with OpenWrt and the radio chipset manufacturers to ensure that they could build compliant routers without locking out third party firmware.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tetha 8y ago
Also this feels like an ugly interaction with the right to repair. Old devices will become even harder to update and patch due to legal requirements.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
IndrekR 8y ago
Disclaimer: Automated hardware unit tests and test devices, including RF tests for firmware developers, are bringing bread to my table. Looking at this rule from another angle, I think the objective is to have a single entity to blame if interfering device is found. In this context this may seem rational -- all the firmware released that is mangling with intentional radiators needs to be tested to prove it is compliant. However, the method creates extra complexity for the device manufacturers and as time has shown -- does not really improve the matters in the long term, you will just get a fleet of devices running old firmware with unfixed bugs. Manufacturers often do not like it either, specially in the management. I think it may be a classical example of "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" or Hanlon's razor* * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

swinglock 8y ago

Allowed frequencies and transmit power varies in the world, so the cheapest way sell to all markets is to set a few different bits in firmware to make it fit for those regulations. That could be a factor.

gmueckl 8y ago
This is what this change is about. It follows similar regulations in the US, btw. Smartphones should be mostly fine if the radios are controlled entirely by the baseband. Then changing the main OS cannot have any effect on the compliance of the device.

ethbro 8y ago

The availability of easily-hackable, low-cost Chinese hardware? I'm not as familiar with EU law, but similar changes in the US were prompted by "Import hardware configured legally, but manufacturer winks / doesn't care about flashes to illegal specifications" scenarios (indeed, it may be a way to boost sales). The correct legislative solution seems to mandate locked RF firmware... while also mandating customer access to tinker with the remainder of functionality. This addresses the tendency for manufacturers to simply lock down everything as the cheapest path to legal compliance. TBH, if you want a right to tinker with RF firmware, a ham (or equivalent) license seems a low (probably too low) but necessary and fair burden.

xondono 8y ago

Basically the EU has discovered SDR (Software Defined Radio) and wants to limit its use. The usual excuses are given, electrical safety, emission on protected bands...

presscast 8y ago
Right, but why would they want to regulate SDR?
- beamatronic 8y ago
  FUD. Fear, uncertainty, doubt
  - presscast 8y ago
    That's how. The question is "what problem do they think they're solving"?
- throw082 8y ago
  maybe because they can be used for many nefarious purposes?
  - dTal 8y ago
    So can wheels. You shouldn't ban general purpose technology because of particular bad uses.
    - patrickaljord 8y ago
      I agree with you, but for anyone following EU rules and regulations, this ship has sailed a long time ago. Drugs, guns, radio are just part of a huge long list of "general purpose technology" that have been regulated out of existence.
      - SZJX 8y ago

tzs 8y ago

I haven't read the EU proposal, but for the corresponding US rule, the motivation was to reduce interference with other radio users. In many of these products, the radio is capable of frequencies, power levels, and modulation modes that are not legal, and the device relies entirely on the firmware not choosing an illegal combination to stay legal. People have used third party firmware to allow choosing illegal radio settings. The regulations were written in the US to be compatible with open source and customization, only requiring that outside software not be able to set the radio to transmit outside the legal limits that applied to that type of device. A router manufacturer does not have to lock down all the firmware to satisfy this. They can make it so that the "set radio parameters" part of the firmware is separate from the rest, with only the former being restricted. This is the approach the FCC encourages, rather than simply locking down the whole thing. In fact, when TP-Link was making routers that could operate outside legal power levels, and the FCC went after them, the consent decree they agreed to required TP-Link to work with OpenWrt and the radio chipset manufacturers to ensure that they could build compliant routers without locking out third party firmware.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

tetha 8y ago

Also this feels like an ugly interaction with the right to repair. Old devices will become even harder to update and patch due to legal requirements.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

IndrekR 8y ago

Disclaimer: Automated hardware unit tests and test devices, including RF tests for firmware developers, are bringing bread to my table. Looking at this rule from another angle, I think the objective is to have a single entity to blame if interfering device is found. In this context this may seem rational -- all the firmware released that is mangling with intentional radiators needs to be tested to prove it is compliant. However, the method creates extra complexity for the device manufacturers and as time has shown -- does not really improve the matters in the long term, you will just get a fleet of devices running old firmware with unfixed bugs. Manufacturers often do not like it either, specially in the management. I think it may be a classical example of "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" or Hanlon's razor* * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor