Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

prpl.works

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 140 posts

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#41

Post by mtrpcic »

la_fig_fontaine wrote: post #35
tgflynn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

radios cannot be permitted to listen on frequencies reserved for cell phones Is this true ? I've never heard of the FCC restricting receivers before. You don't need a license to buy or operate a HAM receiver.

> You don't need a license to buy or operate a HAM receiver. Why have you capitalised ham? What are you under the impression it stands for? Are you also one of those people that capitalises JAVA? What goes through the heads of people like you?

It's not crazy to assume that "ham" from "ham radio" would be an acronym for something. You're being needlessly confrontational because of a misunderstanding on the internet.

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#42

Post by lexicalscope »

BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #34
lexicalscope wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I recall, they got around this by not being FCC licensed - in other words, HackRF is classified as a kit/developer component, and is not legal to operate unless you hold an independent license from FCC (e.g.: if you're a Ham you can use it on Ham frequencies you are licensed for). Read the disclaimer at bottom > HackRF One is test equipment for RF systems. It has not been tested for compliance with regulations gov…

I doubt the possibility of detection is very high if you're only receiving.

Agreed - they're more concerned about transmission, which is part of why they have more strict requirements around scanners to try a lot harder to avoid this.

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#43

Post by lexicalscope »

ajross wrote: post #32
lexicalscope wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree - saying they might ban operating systems, with no context, leaves out the fact they're only talking about modular radio systems or software defined radio systems. 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 stil…

It's a title . Of course it's lacking context. If you want context, you read the rest of the essay, which explains everything you're doing much better than you are, and makes a solid case for why the FCC is, indeed, banning certain operating systems.

I still think it's kind of alarmist, but I can see your point of view as well. My goal was not to be better than their explanations, but only to summarize why I think they're being alarmist - I agree it's a topic worthy of discussion though :).

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#44

Post by cbhl »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #36
paulmd wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the past that's exactly what they've tried to do, and this usually ends up clobbering the law-abiding users in the process. Most of these bands are pretty close to each other - the 10M HF band is right next to the CB band, the 2M band is right next to the emergency services bands and pretty close to both the aviation bands and the weather radio bands, and so on. Gear from one will pretty much just work on the near…

> There are radios and amps that use a frequency analyzer to automatically cut out when operated out of their intended bands, they're just very expensive compared to most of the gear that's out there. Why is that expensive? It obviously can't require fancy hardware if it can also be done in software.

Here's a contrived version of this:

Imagine trying to design a calculator that isn't allowed to display the digit '8' on its LCD display.

In software, the implementation sees if the LCD is being set to a value that contains '8' in binary and if so, ignores the input.

In hardware, you have to have a camera that is pointed at the LCD, and a hardware OCR implementation that looks for the 8, and then a circuit that when the OCR implementation sees an 8, turns off the display.

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#45

Post by feld »

aianus wrote: post #33

This is like banning guns cause people sometimes use them illegally to kill other people. Not very American. Just go after people who are causing illegal interference and leave the people who 'might be able to' alone.

Yeah, there is a gun problem in this country and this is a terribly flawed analogy.

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#46

Post by matheweis »

I was slightly surprised about a week ago when I came across the NPRM by accident and realized the comment period was already over.

But, I'm more taken aback though by the reactions here to this guy's (admittedly alarmist) thoughts... From reading the comments here, it sounds like only a couple people scanned past the headlines.

TL/DR, Eric (Who is actively involved in the OpenWrt project), makes a very good case that the FCCs proposed rules will require DRM for software on all devices with radios, thus preventing the use of third party OS like OpenWRT (although he thinks the rules could probably be applied to computers, phones, etc. too).

Sure, the FCC won't "ban" OpenWrt et al, but lets not be pedantic here; if there are no devices left that allow you to legally (or otherwise) install your own firmware, projects like that will die a death by a thousand cuts.

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#48

Post by lexicalscope »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #39
lexicalscope wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is because this is entirely intended for software defined radio and modular radio - around which the entire point is the RF component does not contain as much signal processing logic, and that is done in software. Restricting software defined radios to specific frequencies in hardware would take away the entire point of modular/software defined radio.

Did you miss the conversation about how this fucks over people who want to install custom firmware on their routers for legitimate administration and traffic-shaping? There are plenty of uses for radio software that don't involve going outside approved frequencies.

I agree - but this rules doesn't apply to anything except SDR and modular systems that are also consumer devices - which are not most consumer devices.

That said - I am not condoning the FCC policy at all - I'm actually against it - I just don't really care that much because it impacts nothing I do and so few use cases I care about.

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#49

Post by JoshTriplett »

tgflynn wrote: post #30
lexicalscope wrote: post #9

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…

radios cannot be permitted to listen on frequencies reserved for cell phones Is this true ? I've never heard of the FCC restricting receivers before. You don't need a license to buy or operate a HAM receiver.

This is ancient, dating back to when cell phones didn't use encryption. As opposed to today, when many of them still use fundamentally broken encryption like A5/1 and A5/2, other than the ones doing something vaguely sensible like VoLTE. (Though I haven't heard anything about the ban on such devices being lifted.)

But in general, "you can't listen to this frequency" is completely crazy; "listen all you like but you won't get anything useful" makes more sense (along with "don't broadcast on this frequency above this power without a license").

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#50

Post by ThinkingGuy »

tgflynn wrote: post #30
lexicalscope wrote: post #9

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…

radios cannot be permitted to listen on frequencies reserved for cell phones Is this true ? I've never heard of the FCC restricting receivers before. You don't need a license to buy or operate a HAM receiver.

Listening to the the cell frequencies, selling a device capabable of listening to them, or modifying a device to enable listening to them, has been illegal in the US for years: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title47-vol1/xml/CFR-2...

The law dates back to the days when cell phone tranmissions were analog and could be picked up with a consumer-grade police scanner. As I recall, it was passed soon after an incident where a congressman's conversation with his mistress was picked up and publicized, but I don't have a authoritative source for that.

Even with modern phones being digital and encrypted, the law remains in effect.

Post reply on HN