3 ms·

That's not intentional modification, just bad quality control from the manufacturer.

• Silhouette 5y ago
  The point is that exactly the same outcome could be caused by intentional modification. As I said in my reply to bluGill earlier, the goal is not to eliminate all risk of interference, but to reduce the risk as much as reasonably possible by controlling the potential sources where you can. Given that interference potentially causes catastrophic loss of life in this scenario, not to mention inconvenience to huge numbers of people, that seems like a good idea. Put another way, you're not trying to prevent people who know what they're doing and follow robust processes from developing radio transmitters, even though in extreme cases such as my anecdote that might still not be enough to prevent a system failure. Nor can you realistically stop a sufficiently resourceful adversary from using radio interference as a form of attack. What you can do is stop an enthusiastic newbie who read an article about radio once from accidentally causing people to die because their experiment meant emergency responders at an incident down the street couldn't talk to each other except face to face.