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

91–100 of 119 posts

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

#91

Post by TeMPOraL »

salawat wrote: post #58
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…

>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.

Sure. Can you afford to pay damages after you inadvertently blind yourself, and everyone else in a hundred meter radius around you, with diffuse reflections off whatever you point the laser at?

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

#92

Post by [deleted] »

underwater wrote: post #87
salawat wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

You're proving his point? People will buy this with the intent of misusing it, therefore the government should stop people selling it.

[deleted]

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

#93

Post by paranoidrobot »

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…

My understanding is that operating on a frequency requires that you be transmitting on it, not whether the device is capable of transmitting on it.

For instance, you can own one of those cheap handheld Baofeng radios that is capable of transmitting on all sorts of frequencies, so long as you never transmit (and you don't listen to any forbidden frequencies)

Happy to be corrected, but all the resources I've dug up say that it doesn't matter whether the device is capable of transmitting or not.

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

#94

Post by Johnythree »

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…

None of the cheap USB SDR dongles have transmit ability.

The reason being that they are based on a cheap Receive Only chip set.

Those that do have TX are much more complex and expensive.

BTW, you've pretty much discredited your own post by talking about a "antenna with a shunt". Whatever you think that is.

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

#95

Post by Johnythree »

djmips wrote: post #89
R0b0t1 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kits are already easy to buy. People don't bother buying the kits because if you use the jammer generally you are found. Occasionally pops up in the news.

" if you use the jammer generally you are found. Occasionally pops up in the news." - only people who are found pop up in the news. Your logic looks faulty.

The thing with phone jammers is that they actively flag "I am here" and are easy to locate.

Because phone jammers cause serious problems to the phone companies, they have teams in the field actively tracking them down. And the phone base stations run software which automatically flag that they are present and log the co-ordinates.

The FCC doesn't even need to get involved.

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

#96

Post by NickNameNick »

midev wrote: post #78
behringer wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Youre expected not to board a plane with a bomb And we have a lot of controls around this! Congrats! You've discovered airline security! > expected to not operate equipment on wrong frequencies that interfere with others If I can build a small electronic device, that goes through no controls, and can cause catastrophic damage, that is a HUGE problem. > Just because you can do something does not mean its ok to do. l…

Building jam resistant navigation radios would require too much power to be practical. The real transmitters are too far away.

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

#97

Post by Johnythree »

midev wrote: post #78
behringer wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Youre expected not to board a plane with a bomb And we have a lot of controls around this! Congrats! You've discovered airline security! > expected to not operate equipment on wrong frequencies that interfere with others If I can build a small electronic device, that goes through no controls, and can cause catastrophic damage, that is a HUGE problem. > Just because you can do something does not mean its ok to do. l…

Because aircraft systems are multiply redundant, there is little likelihood of a jammer directly causing an accident.

However, any deterioration in that redundancy is considered a serious safety risk and immediate action is usually taken.

Bottom line: The high redundancy is there to prevent accidents, however any idiot who compromises that redundancy deserves to learn an expensive lesson.

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

#98

Post by pydry »

quercusa wrote: post #49
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…

I suspect this bit didn't endear them to the FCC either: HobbyKing had told the FCC that it had no notice of the Commission’s authorization requirements; that the Fifth Amendment relieved HobbyKing of its duty to respond; that the forfeiture amount was inappropriate because its parent company, Indubitably, Inc., lacked the ability to pay to the Forfeiture Order; and that the Commission was time-barred from taking act…

Ouch. Either they had a terrible lawyer or demanded the lawyer they did have make the impossible happen.

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

#99

Post by fortran77 »

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…

Certainly untrue in the United States, though there are some bands that are prohibited to listen to — the old 800 MHz analog cell phone bands. And you won’t get 500mw transmit out of usb SDR dongles.

> I’m quite certain of this.

Hmmmmm

> shunt

LOL

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

#100

Post by squarefoot »

I don't know how big HobbyKing is, and surely agree than the RF spectrum is a fragile limited resource that we must use properly, and therefore abuses must be punished, however $3M seems a lot. That fine could destroy a business and send home a lot of people, probably none of which have any responsibility on the matter. Did the FCC at least give HobbyKing the chance to withdraw those products?
Post reply on HN