On Friday 06 July 2007, Philip Balister wrote: > Found on /. I wonder how much Cisco paid for the words .... > > http://news.com.com/Feds+snub+open+source+for+smart+radios/2100-1041_3-6195 >102.html?tag=nefd.lede
Well, quite honestly, Cisco's only costs would have been the lawyer time and the filing of the petition. This action to me seems rather reasonable. The only software that the FCC is worried about is that which sets the radio's operating mode, emission mask, and transmit power. Given the FCC's well-known reticence to radio anarchy this is as much of a concession as could be expected at this time. Yes, I said concession. This is actually a relaxation of the interpretation of the rule; the FCC recognized the usefulness of open source in this, and intentionally narrowed the scope. The specific mention of amateur equipment (if you think of the USRP as a radio, it is amateur equipment; it is, however, marketed as test equipment (and the part 15 rules apply)) is a very good thing. Petitions can be filed to this M R&O too, if the new rule isn't to anyone's liking. But is open source less secure, when the item being secured is 'how do I manipulate the operating frequency, power, and mode of this radio?' Discussion, anyone? -- Lamar Owen Chief Information Officer Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
