OS and Software > All Things Unix > FCC says free/open source software radio drivers are OK

FCC says free/open source software radio drivers are OK

quote:

---

SFLC Releases White Paper on FCC's New Rules Relating to FOSS in Software-Defined Radio Devices

The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC), provider of pro-bono legal services to protect and advance Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), today released a white paper that considers new U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules, which go into effect today, governing Software-Defined Radio (SDR) devices.

In the white paper, SFLC explains why the FCC's new rules do not restrict independent development and distribution of FOSS made for use in SDR devices. This is because the FCC's new rules only apply to hardware manufacturers who distribute SDR devices, regardless if they use FOSS in them or not. However, the FCC does acknowledge the importance of FOSS — specifically identifying the GNU/Linux operating system — and expressly encourages its use in SDR devices.

"We applaud the FCC for recognizing the importance of Free and Open Source Software in wireless devices," said Matt Norwood, SFLC Counsel. "Although the rules subject FOSS to a higher level of scrutiny to satisfy security requirements for SDR devices, we see this as a strong step forward in clarity that will lead to further discussion and adoption of Free and Open Source Software."

Software-Defined Radio devices are radios that are highly configurable by software. Unlike an AM or FM radio, an SDR device is a generic device that can be reprogrammed to operate in various modes. Today, SDR devices are most often used in cell phones and wireless network cards. They are expected to be used in a greater variety of devices in the future.

The paper is available at »www.softwarefreedom.org/resource···per.html

---

How do we keep the air waves orderly, though? Personally, I'd be happy if some portion of the code was kept out of the hands of people who would, for example, tune the radio to an improper frequency.

I am absolutely in favor of manufacturers working with the open source community to make drivers available. I vote with my wallet on such things. But, there have to be boundaries or all hell will break loose.

I'll go read the paper to see if it provides some insight into how this relates to, say the Intel or Atheros model of assisting with writing the drivers and keeping a HAL or firmware closed or to Broadcom (cues boo and hiss loop) who continues to arrogantly deny any assistance on non-Windows drivers.

reply to jyc76
My sentiments are similar to No_Strings -- On one hand I'm THRILLED that manufacturers who want to oepn source their wireless drivers won't have to fear the FCC not ratifying their devices anymore, or being dealt legal responsibility for misuse of devices.

However, on the other hand, I'm worried about the consequences. Already, I've seen a few nerdy guys tune their atheros chips with OpenBSD to run on arbitrary frequencies, mostly for fun. What will stop people from creating frequency invasion hell? Federal law?
--
UbuntuForums Administrator: try Ubuntu Linux

reply to jyc76
Ultimately you're limited by the hardware. It won't be possible to get an 802.11 chipset to transmit on 121.5 MHz, for example. All the SDR hardware I've worked with still has frequency limitations determined by its end-use. A *truly* broadband "DC-to-Daylight" radio with decent performance is a _very_ expensive item.
--
One man's Magic is another man's Engineering.

reply to sporkme
OK, but when your garage door starts mysteriously opening in the middle of the night, don't come crying to us.

reply to drjim
Jim,

In your experience, how much of an effect is possible? Could someone in the 802.11G band case operation in the adjacent ones enough to disrupt anything important.

My fear is not so much that someone will block an emergency communication or stop a pacemaker as it is that the powers-that-be will use some malicious miscreant as an example and later clamp down on the whole thing with a "We gave you a chance and you blew it" kind of rule.

It depends on the hardware. Most of the 802.11 stuff I've seen is capable of being re-flashed to operate on the European/Japanese channels, which is illegal in the US, but I don't know how much further it can go. US Channels 1~11 cover from 2401 MHz to 2473 MHz, and I forget what the "other" channels are. There's also a bunch of satellite stuff from 2200 MHz to 2300 MHz, like Sirius and XM. Either the output filtering will knock the signal down, or the PLL will no longer lock if you go too far. There are various fixed, mobile, and radiolocation services above and below the 802.11 allocation, and an Amateur Radio band overlaps the first three channels. Since the 802.11 hardware can cover over 70 MHz "as is", it would be interesting to see just how far it could be pulled with just a firmware hack.
--
One man's Magic is another man's Engineering.

reply to jyc76
Isn't the 5.8GHz 802.11A frequency illegal to use outdoors due to interference fears?
--
UbuntuForums Administrator: try Ubuntu Linux

It depends on which "802.11A" frequency band you're talking about.
»www.vocal.com/data_sheets/802.11a_fre.html
»www.isp-planet.com/fixed_wireles···bol.html
--
One man's Magic is another man's Engineering.

reply to jyc76
This is about the software driving the radio itself and not the software making up the interface to your operating system I do believe. That isn't to say that the decision makers at the FCC or wherever in the government had a clue in anyway what it is.

This overall seems like a bad idea for for general consumer/business/industrial devices that operate on non-licensed spectrum. Every tweaker is going to be boosting their power and using the secret channels at the first chance they get.
--
Location: +48° 5' 23.40", -119° 48' 30.00"

The practical impact of boosting Tx power or using channel 13 would be minimal in most cases, I think. For a tin can telephone to work, you need two cans.

To use Euro channels, you'd need a router reflash for example, and increasing tx on a wifi card without a corresponding gain at the router end it wouldn't do much. That won't stop someone from trying.

My microwave oven or my neighbor's 2.4GHz phone will probably nuke the other neighbor more than my card tinkering would. My concern, again, is a couple of morons pissing in the pool and making everyone get out.

reply to firephoto
Yes, it's the control software, not the user interface. We've already seen some of this with l33t hax0rs (or however they "spell" it) ramping up the power on Linksys units. Some of them get quite cruddy when run "To The Max". It was kind of moot anyway, as they were only getting another dB or two, not enough to make much difference.
And don't get me started on Pringles cantennas!
--
One man's Magic is another man's Engineering.

reply to No_Strings

I'll grudgingly agree with you on most of your post.
The question then becomes what happens when the stupid things people do have severe unintended consequences? Who pays and how?
--
One man's Magic is another man's Engineering.

reply to jyc76
According to other reports it was less an endorsement of open-source software-defined radio than a very skeptical ruling which barely allowed it. The FCC called open source less "secure" - apparently on "security through obscurity" assumptions. Also they apparently used "secure" as a malapropism for DRM, meaning not protection of the owner of the equipment in question but rather protection of others from him.

E.g. »news.com.com/Feds+snub+open+sour···efd.lede

Yeah, OK, but I'm not sure I see the value of putting a card in monitor mode to listen on a channel no one else is supposed to be using. I wasn't trying to imply that out-of-band reception is bad, but rather assuming standard two-way communication and the resulting interference.

reply to jyc76
I personally don't care if people use cards to tune into any radio frequency. In fact, by national law we all have the right to receive any radio transmission at any frequency, and I strongly believe in that.

However, transmission is a whole other realm. I fear that open source SDRs might make it way too easy for script kiddie kinds to wreak havoc.
--
UbuntuForums Administrator: try Ubuntu Linux

Are you sure? Is "national law" you refer to other than U.S. (altho your sidebar says Michigan)? It's my understanding that scanners for police, cell and some other frequencies are prohibited to civilians.

Edit: I think this threat of new access to signals is one of the things the FCC is concerned about.

As far as controlling transmissions is concerned, it's already necessary to rely on enforcement against individuals' behavior - homing in on the signal and confronting them in person - rather than trying to limit access to un-crippled equipment.

Scanners can be prohibited by state law. In many states, mobile use of a scanner is outlawed, unless the person has a compelling need for it, like a volunteer fireman. In California, use of a scanner during the commission of a crime carries an additional penalty. I'm not aware of any state with an outright prohibition on scanners, although some of them have some pretty screwy laws regarding where you can have one.
The only federal law regarding scanners is the prohibition of them receiving cellular frequencies. And the Communications Act of 1934 prohibits disclosing the content of received signals unless they were meant for broadcast. Personal gain from received information also falls under that act. And the DCMA gets in here too, as having a device to decrypt/descramble a communications signal is illegal.
--
One man's Magic is another man's Engineering.