
FCC considering a proposal to lock down devices with a “modular wireless radio” - thejosh
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Save_WiFi/Individual_Comments
======
Chirael
Sounds like another battle in the "coming war on general purpose computing"
[http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html](http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html)

~~~
tedunangst
Only if the manufacturer insists on connecting the radio directly to the
"general purpose" part of the computer, instead of using a more fixed/limited
radio. If the radio is isolated, there's no need to lock down the rest of the
device. But developing a fixed function radio will probably add a penny to the
cost of each unit. So whether you can run openwrt will come down to whether
linksys cares more about their pennies or your freedom.

~~~
yuhong
I think one problem with this idea is that different countries can have
different spectrum ranges or rules.

~~~
tedunangst
For example, Japan. Afaik, the fcc permits the sale of such devices, as long
as they are not in "jp" mode. Would the proposed regs prevent setting a
laptops locale to jp?

~~~
thinkpenguin
The new rules would effectively stop users in the future from flashing third
party firmware altogether. Right now with $100 of equipment you can get around
the signature checks as its just being done in firmware. In the future you
won't be able to because companies will (likely) have to adopt tougher and
tougher measures including tech from Intel and others. Intel designed its tech
to be licensed out to others not in the X86 world. That effectively locked
down Intel hardware already and no recent generation hardware can be
completely free'd. LibreBoot is a 100% free BIOS that only works on older
laptops because the lead developer can't port it to newer hardware due to
locks that can't be overridden. The signature checks are done in hardware and
you can't even just wipe out the firmware. No firmware means check fails means
system doesn't turn on.

------
thinkpenguin
From the down link:

Take Action Now!

The FCC is asking for comments on this proposal. The most important thing you
can do is comment on the FCC's proposal and tell them you want to be able to
control your computing devices. Will you do this?

Comment deadline extended to October 9.

Instructions:

1\. Go to the Federal Register and press "Submit a formal comment"
([https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-184...](https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-18402/equipment-
authorization-and-electronic-labeling-for-wireless-devices))

2\. Start your comment by respectfully asking the FCC to not implement rules
that take away the ability of users to install the software of their choosing
on their computing devices. Additional points of emphasis you should consider
adding:

\- Wireless networking research depends on the ability of researchers to
investigate and modify their devices.

\- Americans need the ability to fix security holes in their devices when the
manufacturer chooses to not do so.

\- Users have in the past fixed serious bugs in their wifi drivers, which
would be banned under the NPRM.

\- Billions of dollars of commerce, such as secure wifi vendors, retail
hotspot vendors, depends on the ability of users and companies to install the
software of their choosing.

3\. Enter your name and address. This is a public comment and your personal
information provided will be publicly available.

Once you've submitted your comment, make sure to encourage others to submit
comments opposing these restrictions on computing devices. Use the #SaveWifi
hashtag on Twitter or your favorite microblogging services.

Google cache:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Save_WiFi/Individual_Comments&client=ubuntu&hs=Clj&channel=fs&strip=1&vwsrc=0)

~~~
Sanddancer
The rules do nothing of the sort. The guidelines state that the hardware
manufacturer must make certain that reasonable efforts have been made to keep
the device from trampling over radar systems, etc. The guidelines state that
one route to do so is to have the firmware locked down in its entirety, but
there are other ways to do so. Atheros chips, for example, do not expose the
functionality that would require the chips to be locked down. Wireless
researchers will almost certainly have the licensing in place to do
investigation and modification. Device makers choosing not to update their
devices should honestly be handled through tort; a few lawsuits against
companies making defective routers will get makers to shape up. Buggy devices
can and should be handled similarly. Finally, with your point regarding secure
wifi vendors and the like, those would be the manufacturers and would by
definition have access to all of those settings.

This campaign reminds a lot of the bad old days of Microsoft and spreading
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. This is not an evil policy that has nefarious
purposes, it's about making sure people don't intentionally use their devices
that will cause damage to the neighbors on the bandwidth spectrum. Also, keep
in mind that the unlicensed regions were not created for communications, but
rather so that medical and industrial heating devices have some range of
frequencies to operate magnetrons, etc, without disrupting sensitive
communications. Wifi uses them mostly because they do go unused the majority
of the time.

~~~
the_ancient
>>Wireless researchers will almost certainly have the licensing in place to do
investigation and modification.

Most/Alot of research, especially security research is one with out the
manufacturers permission,I highly doubt they will have licensing in place to
do investigation.

>>Device makers choosing not to update their devices should honestly be
handled through tort; a few lawsuits against companies making defective
routers will get makers to shape up.

You may want to consult a lawyer on that, since most of the manufacturers EULA
explicitly indemnify them from this type of liability. If this was possible
Microsoft should be bankrupt by now. My 2.5 year old Samsung phone has need
seen an update for over a year, many security problems have been found both
Samsung and my carrier say "Buy a new phone" yet somehow I think me attempting
to sue them for not updating the device will be less than successful. Instead
the best option I have is a Custom non-OEM ROM that is still being updated.

>>reasonable efforts have

Most of the people posting in support of this measure, including yourself seem
to have a vastly different defination of "reasonable" that people like myself
for who are open source / open hardware advocate. I bet you believe secure
boot, UEFI and other measures are "reasonable" as well.

>> This is not an evil policy that has nefarious purposes, it's about making
sure people don't intentionally use their devices that will cause damage to
the neighbors on the bandwidth spectrum

The Road to hell is paved with good intentions, it may not be the FCC's goal
to lock in hardware and to prevent users from replacing OEM operating systems,
we can call it an "unintended consequence" if you wish. At the end of the day
however it is a distinction with out a difference. If this rule is adopted,
innovation, consumer freedom, and consumer security will suffer.

------
guelo
FCC should be working to massively expand the unlicensed ranges instead of
clamping it down more. The amount of innovation and economic activty in the
unlicensed bands is massive. They should be working on taking back the TV HD
and SD frequencies and leave the tinkerers alone.

~~~
mikeyouse
They are doing that, but the tinkerers are interfering with more important
frequencies like RADAR used by weather providers and ATC... Locking down the
frequencies so they can't possibly interfere isn't at all at odds with opening
up new ranges for better service. I know a few people over at Mimosa (GBPS
wireless backhaul providers) so I've seen a lot of progress in advocacy for
new spectrum.

[http://mimosa.co/news/36/75/Mimosa-Advocates-Expansion-
of-23...](http://mimosa.co/news/36/75/Mimosa-Advocates-Expansion-of-23-GHz-
Spectrum-to-the-FCC-Enabling-10-Gbps-Backhaul/d,flat-blog-detail.html)

------
jdiez17
The link doesn't load (connection timed out), so I'm only going by the
headline - do they also want to "lock down" software defined radios, like the
HackRF?

~~~
thejosh
Reddit hug of death right now. Direct link is
[https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-184...](https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-18402/equipment-
authorization-and-electronic-labeling-for-wireless-devices)

~~~
jdiez17
>For a device to be certified as an SDR, in addition to demonstrating that the
device complies with the applicable technical requirements, the applicant must
also demonstrate that the device contains security features to prevent the
loading of software that would allow the radio to operate in violation of the
Commission's rules.

So... yeah. Well, that sucks.

~~~
w8rbt
What sucks more is interference ;)

Much of the radio spectrum is shared. As an overly-simplified explanation,
that means only one transmitter may be in operation at a time, or the
frequency in question in that area will be useless.

Spectrum is also segmented and some segments require a license to use. The FCC
(and all the other foreign national bodies that regulate radio) do so for the
good of everyone. If they did not, we could not turn our lights on and use a
cell phone or watch TV at the same time ;)

Also, the rules have been around for a long time. This is an old problem.

[https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/rules-regulations-
title-47](https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/rules-regulations-title-47)

~~~
guard-of-terra
You can't do that, you can't shift monumental costs on the other party in
order to also shift blame for an imaginary problem.

Here we have imaginary problem (wi-fi "interference"), we have FCC who wants
to shift blame for it to somebody else, so they try to force measures on users
which, if properly enforced, will cost them tens of billions USD in collateral
damage.

Because mind you, 99,9% users reinstall their OS a) not to mess with wi-fi,
and b) to derive some personal gain from it. Where they got the right to
sabotage millions of people?

~~~
wpietri
How is wi-fi interference an "imaginary" problem?

Note, for example, the many stories people tell about microwave ovens
interfering with wifi:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=wifi+interference+microwave](https://www.google.com/search?q=wifi+interference+microwave)

And when open up a spectrum analyzer and look at how much power is on the wifi
bands around me, it sure looks like interference is an actual thing. So it
seems to me that interference is a real problem, which is why we have the FCC
regulating this stuff in the first place.

The right they have, by the way, is that we the people created the FCC to
solve the problem of radio interference:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Radio_Commission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Radio_Commission)

Now it could be that there are better ways to solve the problem. But given the
people totally losing their shit in classic "ehrmegerd guvmint steelin my
freedums" style, I am wondering if this issue belongs in my bucket labeled
"antivax, fiat money, 911 truth, etc".

~~~
teddyh
_The myth of interference – Internet architect David Reed explains how bad
science created the broadcast industry._

[http://www.salon.com/2003/03/12/spectrum/](http://www.salon.com/2003/03/12/spectrum/)

~~~
Silhouette
And when someone proposes a viable technology that could actually work the way
Reed contemplates, we can and should review these kinds of regulations.

Right now, today, in the real world, it doesn't matter whether the phenomenon
we commonly call interference is a property of radio waves or a property of
the receivers we use or the will of benevolent aliens watching us in their
lab. The fact is that it causes communications systems not to work properly.

~~~
DennisP
Ultrawideband exists today. It's not in common use because the FCC restricted
it to such low power it has about a 30 foot range.

~~~
Silhouette
What would be the effect of the Ultrawideband that exists today on other
devices using the relevant radio frequencies, absent that regulation? Put
another way, what was the justification for imposing such a restrictive rule?

~~~
Frozenlock
> what was the justification for imposing such a restrictive rule?

This is a totally worthless question to ask about a law or rule.

The general form would be "why was the law created?"

And of course, there's never a law with the (disclosed) purpose of killing all
kittens, giving money to friends or destroying an enemy. On the contrary,
every law is always spun on some kind of "will you think of the children".

The only good question you can ask about a law:

"What are its consequences?"

Interestingly, your first question was more in this sense.

~~~
leereeves
> The only good question you can ask about a law:

> "What are its consequences?"

Also, what are the consequences of not having the law?

Which I suspect was the intended meaning of:

> what was the justification for imposing such a restrictive rule?

------
ignisf
Mirror: [https://archive.is/tGCkU](https://archive.is/tGCkU)

~~~
pvdebbe
hmm...

> 451 Unavailable > This content is not available in your country.

------
guard-of-terra
Why would it affect your PC? Should not they just lock down wi-fi module if
they want?

I fail to see much difference between installing alternative OS on your PC and
installing third-party software.

~~~
mcbridematt
Most radio modules would have an embedded firmware that in addition to the
radio handling, should enforce regulatory constraints (i.e preventing the use
of 5GHz DFS channels if radar use is detected).

Building these firmware images is something you are (usually) only equipped to
do under NDAs from the silicon manufacturer (or only done by request from the
manufacturer).

My understanding (and what I have gathered from previous threads on the
subject) is the FCC is going after the embedded radio firmwares, and
mistakenly (or due to extreme lack of knowledge) named OpenWRT,DD-WRT as
offenders.

Otherwise, the effect of this would be to outlaw PCIe and USB WiFi, Bluetooth
etc. cards/adaptors unless sold inside a computer with a locked bootloader.

~~~
the_ancient
>Otherwise, the effect of this would be to outlaw PCIe and USB WiFi, Bluetooth
etc. cards/adaptors unless sold inside a computer with a locked bootloader.

Lenovo already does this for laptops, you have to use a Whitelist Wifi card,
they claim it is to comply with existing regulations from the FCC, which this
will expand.

------
duhast
Will this affect Google Ara project?

~~~
deelowe
No. Google will pay for the requisite licenses.

------
gopowerranger
People aren't paying attention to what this is for. It's to prevent people
from modifying RF devices, transmitters, from operating at power levels and
frequencies, or other technical things, from interfering with other devices
and outside the bounds of their intention. It's to protect devices from
interference that was prevalent in the days when radio was first invented, and
for decades afterwards.

This is a good thing.

~~~
the_ancient
Back here in the real world we understand that the most cost effective manner
for device manufactuers to comply with this moronic regluation is to lock down
the entire device.

Phone, Routers, Tablets and even some Laptops will be shipped with out the
ability to change the operating system, or firmware. As that will be the
cheapest way to comply with the regulation and since less than 1% of the
customers ever bother changing there will be no backlash

This will be a nightmare for Computer security, and innovation.

I hope you love botnets becuase the FCC is creating the next wave of them with
this moronic regulation.

~~~
gopowerranger
There is nothing in that FCC paper that says you won't be able to change the
operating system and that is specifically mentioned in section 24.

~~~
gdwatson
The FCC doesn't require it directly, but since it's the cheapest way to
achieve what the FCC does require it's what the manufacturers will all do.
That's the point.

------
ck2
Yeah, whatever industry lobbyists are hitting them with tons of money need to
just find their conscience - or prison, whatever works.

I guess I am going to be a criminal the day they tell me I cannot run openwrt.

~~~
Spooky23
My guess is they are getting lots of complaints from folks running into dopes
doing stupid things with SDR that interfere with others.

Looking at the noxious behavior of drone owners sets a few examples of the
type of thing I'm referring to.

~~~
ck2
The quadcopter problem is easy to solve, jail time for repeat offenders.

But they are now making laws to ensure the bulk of the population commits a
few felonies each day, changing your phone software from stock, changing your
router software from stock = prison? How exactly does that harm/help society?

~~~
gopowerranger
If you want to jail offenders then there has to be a law or regulation for
that. This is that regulation.

How does this harm society? Imagine your wifi router becoming useless cause
your neighbor decides to modify his and boost his output which overpowers
yours. Plus adding additional frequencies that render your wireless phone
useless.

~~~
kazinator
Imagine (and be terrified of) your neighbor sneaking over at night and
smothering you with a pillow. Let's ban pillows! Bonus: the ban will stop
those vicious pillow fights.

~~~
gopowerranger
You are pretending such things I mention don't happen but they happened all
the time before the FCC came into being and happened often during the CB
craze. In fact, I still occasionally hear of such things.

Imagine there were no regulations. Such things would be rampant as they were
in the past.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Your example of the CB craze ignores the fact that there were plenty of
regulations at that time -- there were actually more then than there are now.
They were totally ignored.

For instance, back then you were required to have an FCC license to operate a
CB radio, but not one user out of a thousand bothered to get one.

Regulations and laws aren't magic.

~~~
gopowerranger
I'm not ignoring it at all. It's my point that, if those CBers couldn't modify
their equipment, many of those issues would not have come up. Being an illegal
operator is a different story unrelated to this topic.

------
SCHiM
I'm not too worried, like all prohibited substances and devices (except maybe
weapons of mass destruction) there will always be ways to get what you want if
you want.

Especially since from the headlines it appears that they're considering a
software based approach.

~~~
nsajko
Umm, no. Such laws legitimize prohibition (by definition) and represent and
form public opinion and can thus be harmful even if they are loosely enforced.

~~~
SCHiM
> Umm, no

Exactly what are you disagreeing with? Going by your comment you seem to think
that I said that a ban would have no effect at all. I did no such thing, and I
would suggest that you read more carefully next time.

So, umm, no I can't actually get access to a XTC in my country where it is
prohibited?

Of course I can. Even if/while such laws effect more than only a ban on the
substance in question.

