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

61–70 of 119 posts

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

#61

Post by R0b0t1 »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #56
desine wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Receiving of certain bands is prohibited, from memory the ones used on cordless phones and something else. All devices sold, say frequency analyzers, have to have a bandgap for them to pass FCC validation. It is common to remove these bandgaps and ignore the law because everyone seems to accept they are really dumb and they wreck the sensitivity of the instrument.

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

#62

Post by R0b0t1 »

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…

I'm aware. Have you not seen the occasional news articles where someone with a cell/GPS jammer gets caught and fined for it? Last one I remember was a trucker jamming his company's GPS to prevent speed tracking.

It's reasonable to expect the end user to not break the law because enforcement is possible. Even if enforcement was impossible, prior restraint of natural rights to just do stuff should not be on the table. Should we ban CNCs because you can use CNCs to build things that kill people?

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

#63

Post by tibbetts »

underseacables wrote: post #21
jvanderbot wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lobbyists is exactly what I pay them for. But other than that, a quarter million sounds huge, but that's not huge for a big, heavily-government-involved national non-profit. For my own benefit, they orchestrate the classes and testing that I used to get my license, publish excellent reference materials, etc. I'm no longer in tornado country, but in earthquake country and a bigger city, the many different HAM activiti…

So I started digging into this and I can’t tell what they are doing, I barely passed political science, but I went to the webpage and clicked on legislative issues and there’s nothing there. So I pulled up the report every nonprofit is required to file, and they are paying lobbyists millions of dollars. What are they lobbying for?

They are lobbying to maintain the status quo. I think their big fear is some politician deciding to sell off the amateur spectrum to Verizon or getting convinced by Cisco that ham radio is bad for wifi and needs to be more tightly regulated.

That said, I cannot speak to whether they are efficient at their lobbying or not.

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

#64

Post by DaveExeter »

bombcar wrote: post #36
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…

Oh my it’s the battery guy! Shipping batteries is why I stopped kitbreaking Milwaukee sets from Home Depot. Too complicated.

You can't just ship them ground?

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

#65

Post by asdff »

underseacables wrote: post #43
sciurus wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me the ARRL membership is worth it for the magazines and email newsletters. "Seriously lacking" is a good description of their website overall, though.

I have a secret for you, and it’s an app called Libby, which you use with your public library card you digitally check out the books, magazines, and audiobooks from the library. The ARRL magazine is completely free through the library app. You can read it right now totally free.

Many libraries also give you free subscriptions to local and national newspapers. You can stream movies and TV too.

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

#66

Post by midev »

briandear wrote: post #39
Syonyk wrote: post #2

This appears to be "video streaming" style transmitters, not an ADS-B out sort of location transmitter or anything. And it seems that HobbyKing just... hoped nothing would happen. > As spelled out in ARRL’s 2017 complaint, the ARRL Laboratory had documented that the operating frequencies of these drone TV transmitters near the 1.3 GHz amateur band were dip-switch selectable for frequencies internationally assigned fo…

Wow that could have affected WAAS GPS approaches for aircraft which is rather critical stuff. (WAAS approaches allow for airplanes to descend to much lower altitudes without ground visibility. Basically the GPS equivalent of the Instrument Landing System.) And Mode S has serious implications for TCAS systems (preventing air to air collisions.) Extremely bad to be messing with those frequencies. Potentially catastroph…

> Extremely bad to be messing with those frequencies. Potentially catastrophic.

If someone with a hobby electronics kit can cause that much damage, the system needs to change. Hobby projects like this can help expose the serious flaws in aircraft control, making us all safer.

Security by obscurity is no security at all. Security by hoping people don't do bad things is even worse.

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

#68

Post by behringer »

midev wrote: post #66
briandear wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow that could have affected WAAS GPS approaches for aircraft which is rather critical stuff. (WAAS approaches allow for airplanes to descend to much lower altitudes without ground visibility. Basically the GPS equivalent of the Instrument Landing System.) And Mode S has serious implications for TCAS systems (preventing air to air collisions.) Extremely bad to be messing with those frequencies. Potentially catastroph…

> Extremely bad to be messing with those frequencies. Potentially catastrophic. If someone with a hobby electronics kit can cause that much damage, the system needs to change. Hobby projects like this can help expose the serious flaws in aircraft control, making us all safer. Security by obscurity is no security at all. Security by hoping people don't do bad things is even worse.

Youre expected not to board a plane with a bomb and youre expected to not operate equipment on wrong frequencies that interfere with others.

Just because you can do something does not mean its ok to do.

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

#69

Post by semanticist »

iamtheworstdev wrote: post #67
annoyingnoob wrote: post #27

HobbyKing does not honor the CAN-SPAM Act either. I don't like companies that act like bullies.

They're also defendants in this landmark case - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby

HobbyKing and Hobby Lobby are completely different companies. HobbyKing are based in Hong Kong and don't have retail outlets in the US (or anywhere, I think).

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

#70

Post by FPGAhacker »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #62
rthomas6 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm aware. Have you not seen the occasional news articles where someone with a cell/GPS jammer gets caught and fined for it? Last one I remember was a trucker jamming his company's GPS to prevent speed tracking. It's reasonable to expect the end user to not break the law because enforcement is possible. Even if enforcement was impossible, prior restraint of natural rights to just do stuff should not be on the table.…

I think the obvious difference is design intent.
Post reply on HN