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

FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

arrl.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 119 posts

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#51

Post by Syonyk »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #37
Syonyk wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...and showed up with a surprising lack of stickers related to the contents. Yeah... screw 'em if they're doing that. I've never ordered from them, because I really, really do not like pouch cells (pouch LiCoO2 is terrifying). I've done a lot of work with lithium packs, mostly 18650s, and was the sole supplier of rebuilt BionX ebike battery packs in North America for a few years until some other people got their re…

Not that I advocate it, but I can see why they are trying to skirt the rules. It’s tough now as a consumer to just order LiPos for a reasonable price and trust that they aren’t going to be a risk of catching on fire. HobbyKing is one of the few LiPo vendors right now that have managed to achieve trustworthy B2C LiPo batteries at a reasonable price point. I’m guessing they are really trying to maintain that position.

It sucks more when your unlabeled, poorly packed batteries catch fire and take down cargo planes. It sucks even more when they take down passenger airlines, because a lot of mail is shipped in the bellies of passenger flights - and if it's not labeled as prohibited for air transport, you have no idea how it gets from A to B.

Different carriers have different regulations, and you can legally ship small lithium cells (at least on some carriers) without a lot of restrictions. There are also different restrictions for "batteries in equipment" versus bare packs or cells. But places like Hobby King tend to just shove stuff in a box and hope it doesn't catch fire.

The FAA keeps a list... https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/resources/lithium_batteries/media...

They're really not something to treat as casually as an awful lot of people treat them. :/

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#52

Post by desine »

paranoidrobot wrote: post #45
Robotbeat wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Is SDR gonna be made illegal? Same idea.

I believe most of the SDR community is about receiving, which is by and large, legal. The bits I've seen involving SDR transmission has been very clear that it's only to be done if you're a licensed operator.

Technically, you’re not allowed to “operate” on bands you’re not licensed for, including rx, but enforcement is difficult, of course.

Edit: If your device has any transmit ability, it falls under above. If your device ONLY has rx capability, it does not. Many of the USB SDR dongles DO have the capability to tx, albeit at only ~0.5 watts. This is generally not advertised in the device, but their chip does technically hav an amplifier capable of sending out signals, though usually you would also need an antenna with a shunt. I'm quite certain on this.

Again, in real life, it does not matter.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#53

Post by rthomas6 »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #29
duskwuff wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IIRC these switches were not user accessible. They were definitely user accessible in at least some of the products. Here are a couple of the devices named in the FCC complaint which obviously had exposed DIP switches: https://hobbyking.com/en_us/aomway-700tvl-cmos-hd-camera-nts... https://hobbyking.com/en_us/1-2ghz-mg-500mw-8ch-a-v-wireless... https://hobbyking.com/en_us/x40-l-25mw-tx-cnc-alloy-cas.html There were…

I still don't feel great about this. It should be up to the end user to not break the law.

GPS signals from the satellites are extremely weak, and actually are below the noise floor. GPS uses processing gain tricks in order to see the signals at all. This means that a terrestrial based transmitter doesn't have to put out a ton of power to break GPS in a large area. Like, many square miles. It makes sense to me to outlaw the sale of RF electronics that are made to transmit on that frequency.

Usually I would agree with you, but it's sort of like selling a laser pointer with a user-accessible switch that would make it a powerful directed energy weapon.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#54

Post by desine »

ARRL noted one of the channels was within an Amateur band. So they're reducing the consumer options for ARRL members and other HAMs who would be licensed to use this feature legally and correctly, with the correct channel selection. I don't hold it against them, that they chose to pursue this anyways, to keep the North American spectrum clean and correct, but it's nifty side note.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#56

Post by jimktrains2 »

desine wrote: post #52
paranoidrobot wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe most of the SDR community is about receiving, which is by and large, legal. The bits I've seen involving SDR transmission has been very clear that it's only to be done if you're a licensed operator.

Technically, you’re not allowed to “operate” on bands you’re not licensed for, including rx, but enforcement is difficult, of course. Edit: If your device has any transmit ability, it falls under above. If your device ONLY has rx capability, it does not. Many of the USB SDR dongles DO have the capability to tx, albeit at only ~0.5 watts. This is generally not advertised in the device, but their chip does technically…

In the us you're allowed to receive everything but the cellular phone spectrum without a license. You or the device needs to be licensed to transmit, however.

Note that this isn't the case everywhere. I believe in the uk it's illegal to listen to air traffic, but I would need to look up the specifics to give anymore detail.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#57

Post by rthomas6 »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #8
trafalgarcircle wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux allows individuals to override tx frequencies and power on many devices, but at least that’s done in software. I could understand if the dips were for setting bits on a frequency divider and could allow selecting any frequency, but having them directly correlate to reserved frequencies is beyond the pale.

>but having them directly correlate to reserved frequencies is beyond the pale. The whole point of this cheapo hardware is that it can be used for whatever just by setting switches and therefore achieves massive economies of scale. They sell the same hardware to the drone makers and the radio makers and so on. IIRC these switches were not user accessible. The manufacturer set them in the right position.

It's cheap and easy for a manufacturer to just solder the settings they want and leave the dip switch off.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#58

Post by salawat »

rthomas6 wrote: post #53
R0b0t1 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't feel great about this. It should be up to the end user to not break the law.

GPS signals from the satellites are extremely weak, and actually are below the noise floor. GPS uses processing gain tricks in order to see the signals at all. This means that a terrestrial based transmitter doesn't have to put out a ton of power to break GPS in a large area. Like, many square miles. It makes sense to me to outlaw the sale of RF electronics that are made to transmit on that frequency. Usually I would…

>but it's sort of like selling a laser pointer with a user-accessible switch that would make it a powerful directed energy weapon.

...I see no problem with this. In fact, I'll take 5.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#59

Post by vel0city »

desine wrote: post #52
paranoidrobot wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe most of the SDR community is about receiving, which is by and large, legal. The bits I've seen involving SDR transmission has been very clear that it's only to be done if you're a licensed operator.

Technically, you’re not allowed to “operate” on bands you’re not licensed for, including rx, but enforcement is difficult, of course. Edit: If your device has any transmit ability, it falls under above. If your device ONLY has rx capability, it does not. Many of the USB SDR dongles DO have the capability to tx, albeit at only ~0.5 watts. This is generally not advertised in the device, but their chip does technically…

This is incorrect at least in the US. You are allowed to receive practically everything. There's only really a carve out for analog cellphone frequencies, but that's about it.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#60

Post by betaclass »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #29
duskwuff wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IIRC these switches were not user accessible. They were definitely user accessible in at least some of the products. Here are a couple of the devices named in the FCC complaint which obviously had exposed DIP switches: https://hobbyking.com/en_us/aomway-700tvl-cmos-hd-camera-nts... https://hobbyking.com/en_us/1-2ghz-mg-500mw-8ch-a-v-wireless... https://hobbyking.com/en_us/x40-l-25mw-tx-cnc-alloy-cas.html There were…

I still don't feel great about this. It should be up to the end user to not break the law.

This goes beyond just breaking the law. This endangers others' lives.
Post reply on HN