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

101–110 of 140 posts

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#101

Post by PhasmaFelis »

hacker234 wrote: post #93
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the info, cbhl and paulmd. I'm afraid I still don't quite get it, probably because I don't understand EE and radio as well as I ought to. 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 intu…

Chicken and Egg. If you can modify the radio (hardware/software), you can modify the protection device. Adding a protection device merely shifts the problem (being discussed) from the radio to the protection device. It achieves exactly nothing.

I'm not sure that follows. On the kind of wifi router that the FCC wants to ban, you can install new firmware because it's designed to allow you to to that. You could have accessible firmware whose signals have to pass through a non-accessible ROM.

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#102

Post by pdonis »

anigbrowl wrote: post #24

A driver is not an OS, notwithstanding the legitimate and well-founded objections to driver signing as it affects open source operating systems...but I'm willing to firgive a little hyperbole in the pursuit of attention. On the other hand: I firmly and respectfully disagree. The user always knows their life better than anyone else. Linux exists because users could modify their device. OpenWrt exists because users cou…

> as soon as I begin broadcasting, I'm not just living my life any more, I'm affecting yours, too

Do you have a wifi router? If so, you are already broadcasting. Have your neighbors complained that they can't use their wifi because of your broadcasting?

The huge missing piece in this whole discussion, to me, is: how much of a problem actually exists? How many people actually have problems using wifi because someone else is violating the FCC rules? My sense is that the number is very small.

> Pre-emptive regulation of the sort the FCC engages in is annoying

I think it's much worse than annoying. Perhaps you don't do any hacking on any device that has a wifi radio; if so, it might only be annoying to you. But if even a small number of people who want to innovate (and won't be doing anything that would break the rules anyway) are prevented from doing so because of pre-emptive regulation, that is a big price to pay. Particularly if, as I suggested above, the magnitude of the actual problem is small.

> what other mechanism is proposed to prevent spectrum abuse?

The article suggests two: social norms, and aggressive enforcement against actual offenders--as in the Marriott case.

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#103

Post by pdonis »

lexicalscope wrote: post #48
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #39

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.

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

Um, what? Pretty much every device that does wifi has a SDR in it.

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#104

Post by fapjacks »

lexicalscope wrote: post #16
archimedespi wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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…

There seems to be some incredibly bizarre idea floating around here that it is illegal to MONITOR using the equipment (id est "listen") and that is simply not true, except for listening to cell frequencies. That is in American law, but here's the thing: They will not be able to determine that you're listening on those frequencies without looking at your equipment. You can possess and operate your equipment in monitor mode without a license. One must simply get a license (in most countries) to transmit using the equipment. Now, the other thing I want to mention is that the parent comment is right that the FCC has dogs of war that will chase you down and put you in jail (or levy heavy fines) for operating without a license. And they do chase people down with location equipment. I'm not advocating operating a station without a license, but if you keep the power very low and use it sparsely for testing, you have a very, very small chance of being caught by the FCCs enforcement arm. And in most of these cases of nerds transmitting without a license, they are satisfied with merely confiscating your equipment.

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#105

Post by aianus »

scrollaway wrote: post #69
aianus wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A random American has a 1/10,000 chance of dying to a gun this year. Half of them are suicides. Hardly a 'gun problem' worthy of banning guns. I have a higher chance of crashing my motorcycle and dying that way, do you support banning motorcycles too?

If you're going to lecture someone on numbers, at least get your arguments right. 1. You should separately account for "random Americans" and americans that actually own guns. I, too, would have a higher chance of crashing my motorcycle... if only I owned a one. 2. Vehicular transportation is a worldwide leading cause of death. It is a problem that is defining the beginning of the 21st century, what with self-driving…

> You should separately account for "random Americans" and americans that actually own guns.

Yes, but I'm overstating the risk to parent by choosing random Americans vs. Americans who own guns. This is fine because it helps my argument the least. Consider that someone who is anti-gun like parent can easily choose not to have a gun in his home and further reduce his risk without the need for legislation.

> Vehicular transportation is a worldwide leading cause of death. It is a problem that is defining the beginning of the 21st century, what with self-driving autos and all. You're setting a pattern in bad analogies.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

> Do you enjoy having that extra 1 in 10k?

No, but I find it preferable to gun control (or the regulation in the article or any other kind of pre-emptive legislation against crimes that haven't even happened yet).

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#106

Post by aianus »

Steko wrote: post #79
aianus wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A random American has a 1/10,000 chance of dying to a gun this year. Half of them are suicides. Hardly a 'gun problem' worthy of banning guns. I have a higher chance of crashing my motorcycle and dying that way, do you support banning motorcycles too?

You throw the number (1/10,000 chance) like it's low but I think that's fairly high. You cite crashing motorcycles but the total US deaths by traffic accidents was close to 1/10,000 in the most recent years [1]. You ask if we want to ban motorcycles but motorcyles aren't used to murder people, we ban or heavily regulate lots of things that are more generally harmful (explosives, lead, asbestos, radium, DDT, CFCs, etc…

Firearms are not generally used to murder people, they're generally used to poke holes in suspended pieces of paper or look pretty or make the owner feel safe or hunt animals.

They're very rarely used to murder people relative to their other uses.

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#107

Post by cbhl »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #86
paulmd wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks for the info, cbhl and paulmd. I'm afraid I still don't quite get it, probably because I don't understand EE and radio as well as I ought to. 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 intu…

In hardware, $.15 is "significant expense" because the margins are thin and unit economics.

The list of blocked frequencies changes occasionally (like time zone definitions); if you can't update the "illegal frequency blocking" chip then it becomes illegal to use your otherwise-perfectly-good product once the rules change. Plus, it depends on what country you're in, so ideally if you move (or just go on a vacation) to another countries you don't want to have to throw away your old router/smartphone/smartwatch and buy new ones in the other country.

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#108

Post by csirac2 »

pdonis wrote: post #100
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…

> they're only talking about modular radio systems or software defined radio systems Which, in practice, means any computer/electronic device that has a radio in it. > this is targeting consumer equipment Including "consumer" equipment that is being used for research, software coding, etc.

    Which, in practice, means any computer/electronic device that has a radio in it.
No. FCC approvals apply to the modular transmitter. Another approval may apply to the overall device.

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#109

Post by aianus »

eponeponepon wrote: post #67
aianus wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A random American has a 1/10,000 chance of dying to a gun this year. Half of them are suicides. Hardly a 'gun problem' worthy of banning guns. I have a higher chance of crashing my motorcycle and dying that way, do you support banning motorcycles too?

...and what're the odds globally of a random person dying from a gunshot? I could ask about specific other nations with different firearms laws, but let's start with the general case.

I'm from Canada and it's not illegal or particularly difficult to own firearms yet our rate of gun violence is about 7x less than the US.

Sounds like there is a separate, bigger problem in the US besides the legality of firearms and plenty of progress can be made without going nuts and banning firearm ownership (or open-source radio firmware) outright.

Re: The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems

#110

Post by cbhl »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #101
hacker234 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chicken and Egg. If you can modify the radio (hardware/software), you can modify the protection device. Adding a protection device merely shifts the problem (being discussed) from the radio to the protection device. It achieves exactly nothing.

I'm not sure that follows. On the kind of wifi router that the FCC wants to ban, you can install new firmware because it's designed to allow you to to that. You could have accessible firmware whose signals have to pass through a non-accessible ROM.

You can change the frequency that a thing communicates on by changing the length of the wire in the antenna, and you can change the strength of the signal by changing the shape of the antenna, and the ROM will be none-the-wiser.

An example of the former is "homemade AM radio", where you wrap a lot of wire in a coil, and changing where you complete the the circuit along the coil allows you to "tune into" different frequencies.

An example of the latter is the cantenna, a directional antenna that can be made from a Pringles can.

Post reply on HN