4 ms·

Could you explain more?

by veqq 3y ago

charcircuit 3y ago
The FCC doesn't want people modifying their routers such that they use more power than they are allowed to. This results in end users being unable to modify the firmware that controls the radios.
- pierat 3y ago
  It's not "they don't want people'. It's that ISM has power limits, and most radio freqs also has "minimum power to accomplish communication". And the FCC knows in contentious RF environments, loudness wars would inevitably happen, as we saw in CB during the 1970s. And in 5.8GHz, wifi is a secondary priority to radar scanning applications. Again, human operators know this. The FCC is being a good steward in preventing the downward slope of the tragedy of the commons. And, well, that's their mission. We can't trust non-licensed human operators to not take the volume to 11, and TX when they shouldn't. Id rather have hardware blobs that enforce FCC law than locked down devices.
  - nicolaslem 3y ago
    The logical conclusion of this comment can be seen in my laptop: a wifi chip that is locked to the "global" regulatory region (the worst possible frequencies and output available) because I cannot be trusted to tell in which country I am.
  - luma 3y ago
    All true, but the end result is the same. We have crappier firmware because we can’t be trusted.
  - GTP 3y ago
    > We can't trust non-licensed human operators to not take the volume to 11, and TX when they shouldn't. Id rather have hardware blobs that enforce FCC law than locked down devices. But then, wouldn't it be better to have the power limit baked into hardware instead of it being just a software limitation? Sure, this would add a little more burden to hw manufacturers. But not only would it allow for open firmwares, it would also be better at preventing the scenario the FCC is worrying about: with the limit being in software, with some effort someone could still reverse engineer the blob and disable the limit.
    - tzs 3y ago
      Manufactures like to do it in firmware because then they can use the same hardware worldwide. If they find sales are higher than forecast in Europe say, and lower than forecast in the US they can just flash more units at the factory with EU firmware and less with US firmware. A good middle ground would be to have two blobs, one for low level radio control and one for everything else. The low level radio blob can be locked down so that only blobs signed by the manufacturer can be loaded. The everything else blob can be easily replaceable.
  - kkielhofner 3y ago
    > We can't trust non-licensed human operators to not take the volume to 11, and TX when they shouldn't. Id rather have hardware blobs that enforce FCC law than locked down devices. I've observed that people with the bare-minimum knowledge to access the admin interface love going in and just cranking up every single number (that they don't understand) to "11". Bigger is always better, right? This is why you see people doing umm, "questionable" things like configuring 40 MHz 2.4 and cranking the power to the max even in dense urban environments. Needless to say that configuration alone results in a complete mess for everyone in range of these configurations. Unfortunately the vast majority of people don't understand any of these parameters (which is fair) and I, for one, am glad there is some nannying going on. I can only imagine how much worse it would get if more parameters were exposed. You'd very quickly see manufacturers essentially get into an even worse "loudness war", or readily available firmwares with nightmare configurations that make it easier for people who don't know what they're doing to make a complete mess of things for their neighbors (and themselves). We all share this spectrum and people, when given the ability, will often do things that adversely impact all of us. This is why Ham Radio has bare-minimum licensing requirements and some enforcement. That spectrum is shared as well and combined with higher ERP it would turn into a complete mess very quickly. Unfortunately because of the tragedy of the commons those of us who do know what we are doing are hamstrung as a result.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  Why can't the FCC just fine people who break the law? Why do they have to force manufacturers to make it impossible to?

Could you explain more?

by veqq 3y ago

Could you explain more?

The FCC doesn't want people modifying their routers such that they use more power than they are allowed to. This results in end users being unable to modify the firmware that controls the radios.

pierat 3y ago
It's not "they don't want people'. It's that ISM has power limits, and most radio freqs also has "minimum power to accomplish communication". And the FCC knows in contentious RF environments, loudness wars would inevitably happen, as we saw in CB during the 1970s. And in 5.8GHz, wifi is a secondary priority to radar scanning applications. Again, human operators know this. The FCC is being a good steward in preventing the downward slope of the tragedy of the commons. And, well, that's their mission. We can't trust non-licensed human operators to not take the volume to 11, and TX when they shouldn't. Id rather have hardware blobs that enforce FCC law than locked down devices.
- nicolaslem 3y ago
  The logical conclusion of this comment can be seen in my laptop: a wifi chip that is locked to the "global" regulatory region (the worst possible frequencies and output available) because I cannot be trusted to tell in which country I am.
- luma 3y ago
  All true, but the end result is the same. We have crappier firmware because we can’t be trusted.
- GTP 3y ago
  > We can't trust non-licensed human operators to not take the volume to 11, and TX when they shouldn't. Id rather have hardware blobs that enforce FCC law than locked down devices. But then, wouldn't it be better to have the power limit baked into hardware instead of it being just a software limitation? Sure, this would add a little more burden to hw manufacturers. But not only would it allow for open firmwares, it would also be better at preventing the scenario the FCC is worrying about: with the limit being in software, with some effort someone could still reverse engineer the blob and disable the limit.
  - tzs 3y ago
    Manufactures like to do it in firmware because then they can use the same hardware worldwide. If they find sales are higher than forecast in Europe say, and lower than forecast in the US they can just flash more units at the factory with EU firmware and less with US firmware. A good middle ground would be to have two blobs, one for low level radio control and one for everything else. The low level radio blob can be locked down so that only blobs signed by the manufacturer can be loaded. The everything else blob can be easily replaceable.
- kkielhofner 3y ago
  > We can't trust non-licensed human operators to not take the volume to 11, and TX when they shouldn't. Id rather have hardware blobs that enforce FCC law than locked down devices. I've observed that people with the bare-minimum knowledge to access the admin interface love going in and just cranking up every single number (that they don't understand) to "11". Bigger is always better, right? This is why you see people doing umm, "questionable" things like configuring 40 MHz 2.4 and cranking the power to the max even in dense urban environments. Needless to say that configuration alone results in a complete mess for everyone in range of these configurations. Unfortunately the vast majority of people don't understand any of these parameters (which is fair) and I, for one, am glad there is some nannying going on. I can only imagine how much worse it would get if more parameters were exposed. You'd very quickly see manufacturers essentially get into an even worse "loudness war", or readily available firmwares with nightmare configurations that make it easier for people who don't know what they're doing to make a complete mess of things for their neighbors (and themselves). We all share this spectrum and people, when given the ability, will often do things that adversely impact all of us. This is why Ham Radio has bare-minimum licensing requirements and some enforcement. That spectrum is shared as well and combined with higher ERP it would turn into a complete mess very quickly. Unfortunately because of the tragedy of the commons those of us who do know what we are doing are hamstrung as a result.
josephcsible 3y ago
Why can't the FCC just fine people who break the law? Why do they have to force manufacturers to make it impossible to?