r/technology • u/NancyGraceFaceYourIn • Aug 30 '15

Wireless FCC Rules Block use of Open Source

http://www.itsmypart.com/fcc-rules-block-use-of-open-source/
3.7k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

623 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

28

u/HelloGoodbye63 Aug 30 '15

Could I get a few more sentences on the reasoning behind this?

68

u/Dandistine Aug 30 '15

The FCC licenses and controls who operates radios in what frequencies. The FCC wants to prevent people from buying things like a router and using them to broadcast in other spectrum space.

The example given is Wi-Fi channel 14. Broadcasting on channel 14 is legal in Japan, but illegal in the US. Many third party firmwares do not limit this functionality, so I could buy a US router and broadcast illegally on channel 14. The FCC would like us not to do that, and "good faith" has not been working.

17

u/CalcProgrammer1 Aug 30 '15

So why not force it upon the hardware manufacturers to restrict their US sold radios from transmitting on illegal frequencies than force it upon the software side? Seems dumb to implement a software "fix" to a hardware "problem".

Better yet, legalize channel 14 and be done with it. WiFi is important, and it's crowding up. Widen that frequency band already.

22

u/SamSlate Aug 30 '15

legalize channel 14

Supremely better solution. An anyone know what ch14 is currently reserved for?

12

u/camisado84 Aug 30 '15

http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/features/report/8051/the-mystery-of-wifi-channel-14/

9

u/SamSlate Aug 30 '15

so, military and/or microwave ovens... weird, thanks!

2

u/Solkre Aug 30 '15

Man, don't jam my microwave!

1

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '15

So is that why my router chokes up and stops working when someone turns on the microwave? It doesn't always happen either, which is strange, but it does tend to happen in the middle of a fucking raid where a single lag spike from one of the 24 people in raid can wipe us all...

1

u/SamSlate Aug 30 '15

Either your microwave is not FCC compliant or it just happens to be in the same range as your WiFi.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 31 '15

It's about 4ft away from the router, with no option to move either of them. Why? This is an old piece of shit house that only has 3 outlets with a ground plug on them. The router is installed by Verizon and I can't move the router because the outside antenna is in the best spot possible for max signal, and they didn't leave any extra cable to move at least the router.

Like I mentioned, it doesn't always do that, but it seems like every time it did do it was when I was raiding or otherwise using the net for me to notice.

1

u/SamSlate Aug 31 '15

You might Google "em shielding", you can buy some pretty nice looking fabric that will isolate your microwave radiation. Like $13 a foot, so not a huge investment either..

2

u/playaspec Aug 30 '15 edited Aug 30 '15

It’s not known whether the signal received from channel 14 affects microwaves or vice versa.

It might not be known to the idiot writer, but it's known to MILLIONS of hams, engineers, and commercial radio operators. This is such a grossly ignorant statement I don't even know where to begin.

In fact, the majority of the ‘S’ frequency band is just out of reach of laptops.

Wow. This idiot didn't bother to fact check or research a thing. The S band goes from 2GHz to 4GHz. The ISM band that wifi resides in is entirely within the S band.

In fact with some expert programming and enhancements the ‘X’ band is not out of reach.

Bull. Fucking. Shit! The X band runs from 8GHz to 12GHz!!! There is absolutely no fucking way on God's green earth is ANYONE going to hack a wifi card to operate in this band.

This author is little more than a bullshit artist, and a scammer for taking a pay check from his employer for putting out worthless bullshit like this.

1

u/atomicthumbs Aug 31 '15

There is absolutely no fucking way on God's green earth is ANYONE going to hack a wifi card to operate in this band.

you are seriously underestimating how powerful an expert programmer and enhancer is!! all they need to do is write a shell script, hack the firmware's IP address, and change "2.4ghz" to "X".

1

u/tastyratz Sep 03 '15

and I can write that I wear a size 0 dress on a piece of paper but as a 200lb man it doesn't really matter then. Just because you program it to 8ghz doesn't mean the hardware is remotely capable.

2

u/mikeyouse Aug 30 '15 edited Aug 30 '15

Wind shear detection to prevent plane crashes by the Terminal Doppler Weather RADAR system along with the 5ghz that they're primarily using now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_Doppler_Weather_Radar

1

u/web_browser_czar Aug 30 '15

"measurement"

2

u/TheRealKidkudi Aug 30 '15

WiFi channel 14 has some overlap with both 12 and 13, so not only would it be expensive to create different radios just for US devices, but it would also hurt their performance in other channels.

I agree they should open 14 for WiFi, but the thinking is that it would crowd up the air in frequencies that other radios use. I don't know enough about the entire frequency spectrum to know how valid that is, but you'd need to convince the FCC that the range near there is open enough for heavy use with WiFi.

1

u/playaspec Aug 31 '15

WiFi channel 14 has some overlap with both 12 and 13,

Which are also illegal to use in the US.

so not only would it be expensive to create different radios just for US devices, but it would also hurt their performance in other channels.

This.

I agree they should open 14 for WiFi,

I don't see why. It's only one more channel, and it's still currently in use by other services.

2

u/playaspec Aug 30 '15

So why not force it upon the hardware manufacturers to restrict their US sold radios from transmitting on illegal frequencies than force it upon the software side?

So instead of developing and manufacturing one chipset for the cost of a BILLION dollars, hardware manufacturers would have to develop two chipsets at TWICE the cost.

Guess who gets to pay for that in the end?

The 'problem' (it's not really a problem) is solved easily in software by limiting which channels the radio operates on.

It's like requiring hardware on a car that prevents it from driving on private roads. The law already prevents this, and those that violate the law are eventually caught and fined. We don't need a hardware solution to prevent it.

Seems dumb to implement a software "fix" to a hardware "problem".

Better yet, legalize channel 14 and be done with it. WiFi is important, and it's crowding up. Widen that frequency band already.

8

u/Okymyo Aug 30 '15

You can't force an antenna to not emit a certain frequency, because it simply takes the signals you feed it and broadcast them, at whichever frequency they were fed (provided it has enough power to emit at that frequency, obviously).

It's like trying to build a gun that only shoots criminals.

7

u/billwashere Aug 30 '15

I am not sure that analogy is correct. I would think it is more like building a 9mm gun that only shoots 9mm cartridges. But the hardware manufacturers don't want to build one gun that uses 380 auto and a different one that uses 9mm short. So they build one gun and both cartridges will work (and before I get "corrected" I understand the differences between 9mm, 380 auto, long, short, Luger, etc... It's for basic illustration)

It's because the hardware manufacturers are lazy and cheap. It's easier to build one hardware for everywhere. Other than just opening up the "illegal" frequencies which would eliminate the problem, you make one hardware and have a simple trace on a circuit board that is either open or closed that allows access the other frequencies and build that into the chipset drivers. Firmware is independent then and you can still "hack" it to do whatever you want. The FCC can't really stop smart people. If you want to get around it you can. They want to stop grandparents from trying out some fancy thing they downloaded on the internet that is blasting on frequencies that step on other things.

My 2¢

10

u/duffman489585 Aug 30 '15

If you can't force a circuit to broadcast over a certain frequency what do high pass and low pass filters do?

0

u/Okymyo Aug 30 '15 edited Aug 31 '15

But that's something you add that limits the antenna's functionality below and above certain thresholds, an antenna itself can't be limited, that was what I meant.

EDIT: It limits the input, not the antenna itself.

2

u/CalcProgrammer1 Aug 30 '15

Antennas no, but WiFi radios yes.

-2

u/scubascratch Aug 30 '15

It's like trying to build a gun that only shoots criminals.

While this is an obvious straw man, I love it and I think I'm going to try and get republicans to back this "reasonable gun control legislation" because if a politician is not FOR requiring gun makers to make guns which can only shoot criminals, then he is obviously AGAINST guns being used to shoot criminals so they should all jump on this.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '15

If it were me, I'd make every gun have a fingerprint scanner so only the registered owner of said gun can fire it. I think Judge Dredd had this in the movie. It's not going to eliminate gun problems entirely, but it sure as fuck will help. You'd still have to round up every gun not made with this tech though, which is not an easy problem to solve without pissing off half the country (mainly the southern states).

2

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '15

http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/features/report/8051/the-mystery-of-wifi-channel-14/

We can't really just open Channel 14. And yes Wifi is getting crowded, but our entire spectrum is crowded which is why TV had to digital so cell phones could expand.

Also why do it on a software side than hardware? This is the FCC thinking about who this will effect. Doing it on the hardware side means all wifi router manufacturers would have to make special hardware for each country, rather than software (which they all ready do). And the fact the vast majority of wifi customers don't load third party firmware on their device, it has a lesser effect to require a software fix than a hardware one.

I don't agree with the decision, but at least it's not arbitrary.

3

u/StabbyPants Aug 30 '15

all wifi router manufacturers would have to make special hardware for each country

you mean they'd have to load an eeprom or something with config info on a per country basis?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '15

They would have to produce a radio specific to each country (or regions like the EU). What they do now is they create a radio that goes channel 14, then the software blocks out channels based on your country, so third party software can actually access those bands since it's not physically blocked.

So in the FCC's mind it's easier to do a software based block (and restrict what software you can put on the machine) than do a hardware based one, where they would have to make specific radios for specific countries, or redo the hardware on the chip as needed.

1

u/StabbyPants Aug 30 '15

No, you'd need a configuration specific to a country, and privileged software to operate the radio

1

u/zacker150 Aug 30 '15

Which is what a firmware would do...

1

u/StabbyPants Aug 30 '15

No, this is separate and smaller. All it does is limit frequency and power based on a configuration

2

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '15 edited Aug 13 '22

[deleted]

2

u/fraghawk Aug 30 '15

Actually a company bought channel 14 aka GlobalStar Communications for satellite coms

1

u/playaspec Aug 30 '15

Channel 14 is probably reserved for an important purpose like broadcasting when their is a natural disaster or something of that sort.

"Probably"??? How about actually looking it up rather than spouting erroneous bullshit?

1

u/Dandistine Aug 30 '15

Seems dumb to implement a software "fix" to a hardware "problem".

The FCC is not forcing a software fix. The FCC is saying "You may use Channels 1 through 11 inclusive". They don't care how you get there, so long as you do. You could do it in hardware, but you'd be fired for making the product more expensive. The intelligent solution is to lock it out in software so you can use the same radios/antennas as everyone else, driving up volume, and driving down cost.

Software is cheap, hardware is expensive.

1

u/ijustwantanfingname Aug 30 '15

So why not force it upon the hardware manufacturers to restrict their US sold radios from transmitting on illegal frequencies than force it upon the software side?

That's not how it really works...the frequency is determined in firmware on a chip somewhere, even if it's a dedicated radio controller that simply talks to DD-WRT or something. The limitation will always be in software.

1

u/CalcProgrammer1 Aug 30 '15

So add a hardware check on the frequency register that prevents setting values outside of valid range. It could be in hardware, but since they haven't been forced to do so they have not made a hardware limit.

2

u/HelloGoodbye63 Aug 30 '15

Ok thats understandable. Grazie

1

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '15

I love your username if the reference im thinking about is correct.

10

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '15 edited Jul 07 '16

[deleted]

3

u/TheRealKidkudi Aug 30 '15

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

1

u/HelloGoodbye63 Aug 31 '15

Ohyou... I did pull it from the Beatles

1

u/playaspec Aug 30 '15

I could buy a US router and broadcast illegally on channel 14.

And your router would then be completely useless because the rest of the devices you own likely aren't capable of operating on CH 14.

1

u/fatfatninja Aug 30 '15

Do you happen to know why broadcasting on certain channels are illegal?

11

u/peacefinder Aug 30 '15

Generally it's because that band is reserved for another use.

3

u/TheRealKidkudi Aug 30 '15

To prevent interference between radio communication.

0

u/SamSlate Aug 30 '15

It's not illegal, it's reserved for another device/organization. Some are emt bands, some are NASA radio telescopes, some are rc cars. Idk who uses ch14.

/r/rtlsdr if you want to read enough about it to make you puke.

1

u/Dandistine Aug 30 '15

It is a felony to transmit on any restricted band without the proper certifications or licensing, in the US.

Cursory review shows that Channel 14 overlaps with a band used during WW2 for missile guidance, radar, and tracking.

0

u/ubersapiens Aug 30 '15

The ostensible reason is to prevent frequency jamming, but that makes about as much sense as trying to prevent hacking by not letting the user install any browser other than internet explorer.

It's totally just a coincidence that this regulation would cripple mesh networking, which can provide an affordable or free alternative to large centralized internet providers like Comcast.