81–90 of 140 posts
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.
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.
If the author believes it's an important issue, he should be intellectually honest about it, because otherwise he risks having people write him off as a quack. It makes it look appear as if there aren't many valid arguments in his favor, so he has to resort to FUD.
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…
What harm does listening on a frequency cause? If radio waves travel through my house I'm not allowed to listen to them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, I don't think there's a lot of regret among gun enthusiasts who stocked up. They like guns, they like ammo, and they found a reason to buy in bulk. The people I know are happy they did. I can imagine being pretty happy in a year or two having stocked up on SDR gear. :-)
And I bet those people would never concede that their favorite political commentators that whipped up a frenzy without any evidence were 100% completely wrong about what Obama was going to do. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those people think that Obama actually did ban bullets. And they still listen to their favorite loud mouths and take them seriously. The FCC thing is based on actual information, not the fever…
I haven't yet met any of the stereotypical deranged gun owners that I keep hearing about. Although I'm not a gun owner myself, I have visited ranges and gun shops throughout the US and all the "gun people" I've met have been peaceful, helpful, open-minded, and friendly.
And FWIW, you don't need to subscribe to a "deranged anti-Obama conspiracy theory"; the market mostly moved (quite rationally) after the Obama administration announced support for the so-called UN Treaty on Trade in Small Arms. The conference concluded without adoption of a treaty, but US support has made it more likely, and passage may well mean decreased availability of small arms and ammunition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Specifically, SDR kits are usually rated as professional and test equipment, which are not certified by the FCC. The OP is about consumer products and other FCC-certified products.
>SDR kits are usually rated as professional and test equipment The cheap ones aren't even that. They're repurposed/upcycled television DTV receivers.
And, interestingly, many satellite receivers allow users to just enter a frequency in the supported range and they will happily load and display the data on that frequency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Just to fill in the context that's missing here: 1. If you have a single radio unit, you can easily do the "software" implementation where you look at what you're going to be broadcasting and cut it off if it's not legal. The problem comes when you have separate radio and amplifiers - the amplifier has no idea what whether you're feeding it 10M or CB frequncies. It will amplify either just fine, so the FCC really pre…
Why is there significant expense in putting a ROM chip between the radio and the amplifier that cuts out certain frequencies? I can see where that's not as simple as mandating software that is simply incapable of generating bad frequencies in the first place, but it intuitively strikes me as the same sort of embedded programming that goes into, say, a microwave oven--I can see it adding some cost, but not so much that it would be unfeasible in e.g. an home wifi router. What am I not understanding?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Are you being obtuse on purpose? The headline is intentionally worded in such a way to make people believe the FCC is going to ban OSX, Linux, or Windows. If the author believes it's an important issue, he should be intellectually honest about it, because otherwise he risks having people write him off as a quack. It makes it look appear as if there aren't many valid arguments in his favor, so he has to resort to FUD.
Note that the FCC still hasn't stopped manufacturers from using RP-SMA connectors on their routers, despite ruling that they are "commonly available" in 2000.
Can you elaborate on why the FCC would ban a commonly used antenna connector?
The RP-SMA was introduced because it was not commonly used. Since then a large market has formed for RP-SMA antennas, so it should no-longer be allowed, however the FCC has indefinitely stayed requirements for not using them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Does it affect cellphones? From the description I would have assumed it did, but I haven't seen much talk about that.