11–20 of 140 posts
What I don't get it is, why make the software enforce certain frequencies? If the hardware should never be able to broadcast on a certain frequency, why not build the hardware with that limitation?
Perhaps because that's more costly? Sometimes the disallowed frequencies exist within a range of allowed frequencies. A hardware limitation would involve filter stages that would add cost.
Conjunctive mode verb ("might") in the title -> bullshit.
2. Mood, not mode.
3. This isn't subjunctive anyway.
4. But it wouldn't make the article bullshit even if it were. (But funny enough, "were" is subjunctive.)
This title is kind of click-bait - they aren't prohibiting operating systems, they _might_ be prohibiting installation of operating systems that are not approved on certain types of devices that allow software defined radio - that is, transceivers that can be tweaked easily by software. That is not at all the same thing as banning an operating system. This is already present insofar as hardware requirements in radios…
Cough, cough, HackRF(https://greatscottgadgets.com/hackrf/) + GNURadio(http://gnuradio.org/) don't seem to have these limitations.
And then I realized this is exactly the same thing gun enthusiasts thought when they though Obama would limit their guns/bullets, and stocked up on them, and I thought it was silly. I guess we're a lot more similar than I would have thought, made me think a little bit more about it. I'm reminded a bit of that "first they came for me" poem/story.
This title is kind of click-bait - they aren't prohibiting operating systems, they _might_ be prohibiting installation of operating systems that are not approved on certain types of devices that allow software defined radio - that is, transceivers that can be tweaked easily by software. That is not at all the same thing as banning an operating system. This is already present insofar as hardware requirements in radios…
> This is already present insofar as hardware requirements in radios - radios cannot be permitted to listen on frequencies reserved for cell phones, and must not be restricted in such way as they can be easily modified to enable it (e.g., a header/jumper). This really just extends this requirement that it is non-trivial to enable illegal broadcasting or reception on software defined radios. Cough, cough, HackRF( http…
> HackRF One is test equipment for RF systems. It has not been tested for compliance with regulations governing transmission of radio signals. You are responsible for using your HackRF One legally.
Realistically you're not going to probably get in trouble, but I _will_ caution you - if you use this kind of equipment illegally, the FCC does have radio direction finding equipment and will send someone out to find you if you piss them off - they've done this for people that were on Ham frequencies without authorization, people doing nasty things on government frequencies, and anything disturbing people who paid for a license.
Re: GNURadio The software itself has no requirement - there is no "if you run radio software, it has to do X" and there still is no requirement under proposed rules for that as far as I can tell - it's just if you build hardware, your hardware must enforce that only certain software can be installed :).
What I don't get it is, why make the software enforce certain frequencies? If the hardware should never be able to broadcast on a certain frequency, why not build the hardware with that limitation?
This title is kind of click-bait - they aren't prohibiting operating systems, they _might_ be prohibiting installation of operating systems that are not approved on certain types of devices that allow software defined radio - that is, transceivers that can be tweaked easily by software. That is not at all the same thing as banning an operating system. This is already present insofar as hardware requirements in radios…
"prohibit installation" means to ban.
"operating systems that are not approved on certain types of devices that ..." means specific operating systems.
So, the FCC "might ban specific operating systems"; you've paraphrased what the title says.
This title is kind of click-bait - they aren't prohibiting operating systems, they _might_ be prohibiting installation of operating systems that are not approved on certain types of devices that allow software defined radio - that is, transceivers that can be tweaked easily by software. That is not at all the same thing as banning an operating system. This is already present insofar as hardware requirements in radios…
> they aren't prohibiting operating systems, they _might_ be prohibiting installation of operating systems that are not approved on certain types of devices that ... "prohibit installation" means to ban. "operating systems that are not approved on certain types of devices that ..." means specific operating systems. So, the FCC "might ban specific operating systems"; you've paraphrased what the title says.
Edit: also to be clear, as another comment pointed out, this doesn't have any impact on test/kit equipment that is not compliant with FCC regulations anyway and requires a separate license to use - this is targeting consumer equipment. So I still think it's pretty misleading.
The rest is the fact that I think the article is wrong anyway :)