-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This is a controversial topic, so I'm reluctant to post it here. However, there are enough genuine experts on radio technology and FCC regulations on this list, to provide some useful replies and avoid degeneration into /.-type silliness.
The posting about SDR and gnuradio got me to thinking about this. The manufacturers of closed, proprietary software-controlled WiFi chips (Broadcom, Atheros, others) claim that at least *some* of their code must remain proprietary and binary-only "to comply with FCC regulations". I had a ham license way back when, so I've been appropriately potty-trained to be conscious and careful about interference, and I have an inkling of how fragile all this spectrum-sharing really is. But this justification for keeping the code closed sets my bullshit detectors to ringing. Anyone could, with the purchase of an oscillator (or even just a Schmitt trigger doubled-back on itself) and a few other very cheap, common chips, and expense of maybe $5, quickly produce a transmitter that would generate huge swaths of nasty, illegal interference, on bands limited only by the experimenter's ingenuity, or at least with harmonics that thrash bands up in the microwaves. It's not expensive, I can't see it requiring very much skill (*avoiding* interference requires skill, not generating it ;-) and... why aren't the manufacturers of all basic 74-series IC's, for example, under similar "FCC regulation" to keep their products under strict control to only licensed hardware/software developers? It's a reductio ad absurdum, perhaps, but I think it still begs asking. The GNU Radio project made this even more apparent: with a reasonably fast computer, I could see it possible to emulate the capacity of these WiFi chips entirely in software on a general purpose CPU or decent DSP (notwithstanding how practical that is, but it's at least possible). Given all that, are these WiFi chipmakers acting in good faith? Is the FCC *really* pressuring them so intensely, to keep tight control of their firmware? Or is it an excuse? Is it simply greed? Or is it another example of technology-changes-much-faster-than-legislation? Or are there other issues at play here (i.e. liability exposure, historical issues, etc.) of which I am ignorant? Thanks. - -ken - -- - --------------- The world's most affordable web hosting. http://www.nearlyfreespeech.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+52G8e8HF+6xeOIcRAvMNAKDv836gqOkBwuwOWNDeSwwj+cAmkgCdHWYP L9seDWyg35c+J+hfSMFqQW4= =zu6X -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
