4 ms·

What's the legality of devices intentionally violating wifi standards and causing potential issues with other devices? Is this something the FCC could act on?

• linuxlizard 2y ago
  There's no laws about it. It's mostly a "handshake agreement" enforced via the WiFi Alliance. You go through the WFA certification process to get the "WiFi Certified" sticker. https://www.wi-fi.org/certification https://www.wi-fi.org/certification Usually large vendors try to do the right thing.
• sokoloff 2y ago
  Aren't the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands among the unlicensed ISM bands? So long as you're complying with the general rules for the ISM bands, I'd expect the FCC doesn't care about you following the details of a specific protocol.
  • lazide 2y ago
    FCC rules are they you aren’t allowed to ‘intentionally interfere’ with other users of bands. As to what that exactly means, and where the line is drawn is up for debate. I doubt Apple would necessarily lose here, but ‘wifi jammers’ on Amazon would, for example.
    • sandworm101 2y ago
      This might be apple silently poking at the FCC et al, daring them to actualy speak up and thereby better define the rules. It's like how the marvel movies have been using the word "shit" once per movie in an attempt to force the MPAA to better articulate its rules. They dare the MPAA to slap an R rating on the next IronMan as Apple dares the WiFi alliance to disallow the wifi logo on the next iphone.
      • avidiax 2y ago
        This is not in scope for the FCC. Anyone can use the ISM bands however they'd like, with certain power and bandwidth restrictions. It's in-scope for the WiFi alliance, but I don't see this as "poking" them. It's either a bug, or it's a way to get your devices to work a bit better than the competition, but in a way that the WiFi alliance would never notice.
        • Salgat 2y ago
          The question is whether abusing a standard is considered a form of interference, which is covered by the FCC. At this point though, it's just something that hasn't been tested in courts yet. 47 CFR § 15.5(b): “Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.” 47 CFR § 15.5(c): “The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission representative that the device is causing harmful interference. Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful interference has been corrected.” 47 CFR § 2.1: Harmful interference: “Interference which endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunication service operating in accordance with this Chapter.”
          • avidiax 2y ago
            Your devices going faster than (but not excluding) other devices wouldn't count as "harmful interference". If you somehow adjusted the definition so that this would count as harmful interference, then every competing service would also count (microwaves, bluetooth, baby monitors, 2.4Ghz cordless phones, even other WiFi, etc.).
            • lazide 2y ago
              And this is why Apple won’t get in trouble, but someone selling a Wi-Fi jammer on Amazon will.