
The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems - dsr_
http://prpl.works/2015/09/21/yes-the-fcc-might-ban-your-operating-system/
======
lexicalscope
This title is kind of click-bait - they aren't prohibiting operating systems,
they _might_ be prohibiting installation of operating systems that are not
approved on certain types of devices that allow software defined radio - that
is, transceivers that can be tweaked easily by software.

That is not at all the same thing as banning an operating system.

This is already present insofar as hardware requirements in radios - radios
cannot be permitted to listen on frequencies reserved for cell phones, and
must not be restricted in such way as they can be easily modified to enable it
(e.g., a header/jumper). This really just extends this requirement that it is
non-trivial to enable illegal broadcasting or reception on software defined
radios.

Now - insofar as if this should impact open source operating systems, we have
a good question. I don't think it does that - my interpretation, potentially
wrong of course, just as the article's could be wrong, is that you would have
to restrict the actual firmware in question to a blob that communicates with
the hardware in a secure way. This would prevent open/free components insofar
as the actual driver, but would not permit the operating system itself from
being installed. They mention this, but only at the end of the article.

I also doubt the impact of this for non software-defined/modular radio
systems. I don't see a way this would really impact everyday wifi or non-
modular systems in a way most people would care about. That isn't to say it
isn't _bad_ but once again, it just seems super misleading and alarmist.

Whether or not the FCC should or shouldn't do this is a different question,
but the link's title seems intentionally misleading.

~~~
tgflynn
_radios cannot be permitted to listen on frequencies reserved for cell phones_

Is this true ? I've never heard of the FCC restricting receivers before. You
don't need a license to buy or operate a HAM receiver.

~~~
ThinkingGuy
Listening to the the cell frequencies, selling a device capabable of listening
to them, or modifying a device to enable listening to them, has been illegal
in the US for years:
[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title47-vol1/xml/CFR-2...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title47-vol1/xml/CFR-2010-title47-vol1-sec15-121.xml)

The law dates back to the days when cell phone tranmissions were analog and
could be picked up with a consumer-grade police scanner. As I recall, it was
passed soon after an incident where a congressman's conversation with his
mistress was picked up and publicized, but I don't have a authoritative source
for that.

Even with modern phones being digital and encrypted, the law remains in
effect.

~~~
tgflynn
The regulation you linked to appears to date to 2010, long after analog phones
had been replaced.

18 U.S.C. 2512 may be older but I wonder why such a regulation would have been
issued so recently.

Also if this regulation is intended to implement 18 U.S.C. 2512 it appears to
be broader in scope than that law. The law only prohibits devices that are
"primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire,
oral, or electronic communications". The regulation on the other hand
restricts scanners that are capable of receiving such communications. I don't
see how a broadband scanner that includes cell phone frequencies along with
other bands could be considered to be "primarily useful" for intercepting cell
phone communications.

------
fencepost
My contribution to the commentary:

I feel that the proposal to regulate device firmware and effectively ban non-
vendor firmware is both overbroad and will result in significantly increased
security risks faced by the general public (myself included). If the FCC
chooses to go forward with this, it should also require and put in place
penalties to enforce MANDATORY security updates from vendors within tightly
constrained timelines, including to products which the vendors no longer sell
or wish to support.

I have used various third-party firmware replacements (generally OpenWRT,
occasionally DD-WRT) to replace firmware on routers with known security holes,
undoubtedly including some for which patches were years late if ever
delivered. I have done this for myself, friends, family and customers.

If the FCC mandates that I may not legally replace the firmware with secure
versions unless they come from the equipment vendors without also taking steps
to ensure the availability of those security fixes, then the FCC is acting to
ensure that the state of network security in the United States is AND WILL
REMAIN unacceptably poor.

~~~
csirac2
They are struggling with a very simple problem. If you configure your 5GHz
U-NII device to the wrong country, and turn it on, it will stomp all over
licensed/restricted spectrum.

That's because unlike 2.4GHz, 5GHz has been carved up very differently in
different parts of the world (each place has had its own evolution of
technology and spectrum pressures).

To such a degree that this isn't even about power and frequency. As an FCC
registrant seeking to slap FCC stickers on your new/imported devices, you'll
be required to submit proof of conformance documentation which demonstrates
you've properly implemented radar avoidance in your frequency hopping/spread
spectrum algorithms.

Finally, the FCC has made it obvious that this aimed at the transmitter
module, not the overall device. And so, "banning" OpenWRT and other 3rd-
party/alt firmwares would only be required if that's the only half-arsed way a
manufacturer can hope to comply with the new regs.

In future, I'd hope hardware becoming better isolated from radio components,
this ruling (and similar around the world) are essentially mandating region-
locked devices, so we might see something similar to what's happening in
mobile phones (Eg. baseband radio firmware separately versioned/updated from
OS firmware).

------
Vexs
I thought to myself: "This looks like a good time to stock up on SDR
equipment, in case this ever goes through."

And then I realized this is exactly the same thing gun enthusiasts thought
when they though Obama would limit their guns/bullets, and stocked up on them,
and I thought it was silly. I guess we're a lot more similar than I would have
thought, made me think a little bit more about it. I'm reminded a bit of that
"first they came for me" poem/story.

~~~
jMyles
FWIW, I don't think there's a lot of regret among gun enthusiasts who stocked
up. They like guns, they like ammo, and they found a reason to buy in bulk.

The people I know are happy they did.

I can imagine being pretty happy in a year or two having stocked up on SDR
gear. :-)

~~~
guelo
And I bet those people would never concede that their favorite political
commentators that whipped up a frenzy without any evidence were 100%
completely wrong about what Obama was going to do. I wouldn't be surprised if
some of those people think that Obama actually did ban bullets. And they still
listen to their favorite loud mouths and take them seriously.

The FCC thing is based on actual information, not the fevered mind of deranged
anti-Obama conspiracy theorists.

~~~
jMyles
Your mileage may of course vary, but as I said, in my circles it wasn't so
much a knee-jerk reaction as a decision to take the occasion to buy in bulk.

I haven't yet met any of the stereotypical deranged gun owners that I keep
hearing about. Although I'm not a gun owner myself, I have visited ranges and
gun shops throughout the US and all the "gun people" I've met have been
peaceful, helpful, open-minded, and friendly.

And FWIW, you don't need to subscribe to a "deranged anti-Obama conspiracy
theory"; the market mostly moved (quite rationally) after the Obama
administration announced support for the so-called UN Treaty on Trade in Small
Arms. The conference concluded without adoption of a treaty, but US support
has made it more likely, and passage may well mean decreased availability of
small arms and ammunition.

------
matheweis
I was slightly surprised about a week ago when I came across the NPRM by
accident and realized the comment period was already over.

But, I'm more taken aback though by the reactions here to this guy's
(admittedly alarmist) thoughts... From reading the comments here, it sounds
like only a couple people scanned past the headlines.

TL/DR, Eric (Who is actively involved in the OpenWrt project), makes a very
good case that the FCCs proposed rules will require DRM for software on all
devices with radios, thus preventing the use of third party OS like OpenWRT
(although he thinks the rules could probably be applied to computers, phones,
etc. too).

Sure, the FCC won't "ban" OpenWrt et al, but lets not be pedantic here; if
there are no devices left that allow you to legally (or otherwise) install
your own firmware, projects like that _will_ die a death by a thousand cuts.

~~~
csirac2
The FCC responded to Ars saying that the line about DD-WRT was clumsily
worded. I'm under the impression that if the OEM/importer demonstrates in
their filing that their proof of conformance documentation will always be
representative (valid) of the device no matter what the user can do through
user-accessible features and menus, i.e. they can prove that the radio module
is locked down in some way other than the main device firmware, this should be
sufficient and does in fact meet the requirements.

After all, preventing APs from stomping on licensed spectrum due to wrong
country selection seems to be half of what's driving all this anyway.

~~~
matheweis
Do you have a link for that? I'd like to see it...

The original wording from the FCC about DD-WRT was pretty awful, and I don't
see how their intent can be interpreted otherwise (although they may be
backpedalling now):

"2\. What prevents third parties from loading non US versions of the
software/firmware on the device? Describe in detail how the device is
protected from "flashing" and the installation of third party firmware such as
DD-WRT."

As seen on this thread and the document linked within:
[http://lists.prplfoundation.org/pipermail/openwrt/2015-July/...](http://lists.prplfoundation.org/pipermail/openwrt/2015-July/000373.html)

~~~
csirac2

        Do you have a link for that? I'd like to see it...
    

It's the very same document - I'd encourage everyone to read it in full. There
are only 3 pages of content after all: "Software Security Requirements for
U-NII Devices" [1]. But keep in mind - this is not representative of the
actual license conditions and regulations, it is a piece of bureaucratic
administrivia that helps the FCC staff process and assess your applications!

    
    
        "2. What prevents third parties from loading non US versions of the software/firmware on the device? Describe in detail how the device is protected from "flashing" and the installation of third party firmware such as DD-WRT."
    

Again, I think people are picking stuff at random and missing the context. I
could find much scarier wording than this if you really wanted to FUD this up
some more. This is part of a bureaucratic administrative process used to help
assess applications.

It even says that follow-up questions may be asked. As someone familiar with
regulatory compliance processes in another country (.au), just because you
answer in the negative does not mean your application will be rejected - your
other responses (see the _rest_ of the questions to see how redundant they
are) will be taken into consideration.

Even though we have the old joke where our equivalent of the FCC has an
unofficial motto, "We're not happy until you're not happy", even bureaucrats
have enough imagination to see that scripted questions can't capture every
single possible way to meet the underlying requirements for a given regulatory
compliance issue.

The questions are centered around identifying how the device is restricted
from operating outside of the conditions asserted and tested in the
conformance documentation submitted with the FCC registrant's application.
That's not an unreasonable expection from a spectrum regulator's POV, but it
is terrifying given that this will likely mean region-locked (or region-
specific) devices - choosing a country from a drop-down list will become a
thing of the past (after all, 5GHz is carved up quite differently in different
parts of the world compared to 2.4GHz, where things are already a complete
mess).

Whilst you might find that "OMG, these questions seem to assume that the FCC
wants only OEM-approved firmwarez", as per the DD-WRT wording this is because
the questionnaire has been written from the assumption that these drastic
measures are necessary to meet the new regulations. If you read the proposed
regs themselves, carefully [2], I don't see anywhere where the "host device"
is explicitly required to control OS firmware _unless this is the only means
that the registrant can meet the U-NII security requirements_.

It doesn't help that we have a whole new population of people trying to read
and understand these documents (me included). They use the term "software"
rather loosely, and you have to have some background understanding of how the
existing FCC registration/approval/certification process works (difference
between an approval for a host device vs module etc).

I even see people mixing up the SDR rules. Technically an SDR product must
undergo a completely new FCC approval process with new validation test
results/proof of conformance for every firmware update! There's no way WiFi
router AP vendors are going to go down that path; this is reserved for things
like mobile phone baseband firmware that change infrequently and are
profitable enough (check out Qualcomm's profits) to actually afford to be able
to do this.

This [2] basically summarizes the intent behind the U-NII security
requirements:

    
    
        Manufacturers must implement security features in any digitally modulated
        devices capable of operating in any of the U-NII bands, so that third parties
        are not able to reprogram the device to operate outside the parameters for which
        the device was certified. The software must prevent the user from operating the
        transmitter with operating frequencies, output power, modulation types or other
        radio frequency parameters outside those that were approved for the device.
        Manufacturers may use means including, but not limited to the use of a private
        network that allows only authenticated users to download software, electronic
        signatures in software or coding in hardware that is decoded by software to
        verify that new software can be legally loaded into a device to meet these
        requirements and must describe the methods in their application for equipment
        authorization.
    

[1]
[https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=1UiSJRK869Rsy...](https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=1UiSJRK869RsyQddPi5hpw%3D%3D&desc=594280%20D02%20U-NII%20Device%20Security%20v01r02&tracking_number=39498)

[2] [http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-
bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=9a15d7771e...](http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-
bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=9a15d7771edde76916923037f790b75d&ty=HTML&h=L&mc=true&r=PART&n=pt47.1.15)

Edit: I guess you meant the Ars article! Here it is:

[http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/09/fcc-
ac...](http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/09/fcc-accused-of-
locking-down-wi-fi-routers-but-the-truth-is-a-bit-murkier/)

    
    
        Ars is attempting to schedule an interview with the FCC to explore this issue in
        more depth. So far, the commission has only told us that “versions of this open
        source software can be used as long as they do not add the functionality to
        modify the underlying operating characteristics of the RF [radio frequency]
        parameters. It depends on the manufacturer to provide us the information at the
        time of application on how such controls are implemented. We are looking for
        manufacturers of routers to take more responsibility to ensure that the devices
        cannot be easily modified.”

~~~
matheweis
New ars article: [http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/09/fcc-
op...](http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/09/fcc-open-source-
router-software-is-still-legal-under-certain-conditions/)

"Despite an FCC guidance to router manufacturers that seems to ban open source
firmware such as DD-WRT and OpenWRT, FCC spokesperson Charles Meisch told Ars
that there is in fact no such ban. But there are restrictions that in some
cases could cause a manufacturer to decide to prevent the installation of
third-party firmware. _In fact, disabling the installation of third-party
firmware by the user may be the easiest and most straightforward way for
hardware makers to comply with the FCC 's guidance._ ... _Manufacturers could
choose to achieve compliance by simply locking out any kind of third-party
firmware, the FCC acknowledged._ "

------
aianus
This is like banning guns cause people sometimes use them illegally to kill
other people. Not very American.

Just go after people who are causing illegal interference and leave the people
who 'might be able to' alone.

~~~
feld
Yeah, there is a gun problem in this country and this is a terribly flawed
analogy.

~~~
aianus
A random American has a 1/10,000 chance of dying to a gun this year. Half of
them are suicides. Hardly a 'gun problem' worthy of banning guns.

I have a higher chance of crashing my motorcycle and dying that way, do you
support banning motorcycles too?

~~~
scrollaway
If you're going to lecture someone on numbers, at least get your arguments
right.

1\. You should separately account for "random Americans" and americans that
actually own guns. I, too, would have a higher chance of crashing my
motorcycle... if only I owned a one.

2\. Vehicular transportation is a worldwide leading cause of death. It is a
problem that is defining the beginning of the 21st century, what with self-
driving autos and all. You're setting a pattern in bad analogies.

3\. Do you enjoy having that extra 1 in 10k? Do you realize it's _really not
that high_? By your already-biased numbers, there's a 3% chance that someone
in your non-gun-owning household of 5 will die with more holes in their body
than they were born with.

~~~
aianus
> You should separately account for "random Americans" and americans that
> actually own guns.

Yes, but I'm overstating the risk to parent by choosing random Americans vs.
Americans who own guns. This is fine because it helps my argument the least.
Consider that someone who is anti-gun like parent can easily choose not to
have a gun in his home and further reduce his risk without the need for
legislation.

> Vehicular transportation is a worldwide leading cause of death. It is a
> problem that is defining the beginning of the 21st century, what with self-
> driving autos and all. You're setting a pattern in bad analogies.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

> Do you enjoy having that extra 1 in 10k?

No, but I find it preferable to gun control (or the regulation in the article
or any other kind of pre-emptive legislation against crimes that haven't even
happened yet).

------
jordigh
What I don't get it is, why make the software enforce certain frequencies? If
the hardware should never be able to broadcast on a certain frequency, why not
build the hardware with that limitation?

~~~
paulmd
In the past that's exactly what they've tried to do, and this usually ends up
clobbering the law-abiding users in the process. Most of these bands are
pretty close to each other - the 10M HF band is right next to the CB band, the
2M band is right next to the emergency services bands and pretty close to both
the aviation bands and the weather radio bands, and so on. Gear from one will
pretty much just work on the nearby bands, absent some other protection. You
can do filtering, but it's physically pretty hard to make an amplifier work
ideally within its band and then immediately stop working when you take it
outside its band.

So the FCC's response in the past was to make it illegal to produce anything
that could go from [unlicensed power level] up to [licensed power level] on
demand. If you wanted to make a 10M amp that could hit say 150W, you had to
require at least 75W drive power because that was beyond what a legal CB radio
could deliver. Kinda sucked for anyone who couldn't afford a radio with 100W
of drive, and I think they eventually let off a bit because they were losing
the battle to cheap Chinese junk sold over the internet. They're very
proactive about enforcement, they'll get you sooner or later, but until then
it's better for everyone if you're not spewing harmonics everywhere.

There are radios and amps that use a frequency analyzer to automatically cut
out when operated out of their intended bands, they're just very expensive
compared to most of the gear that's out there. And a lot of the Software
Defined Radios and so on are actually wideband radios that are physically
capable of operating across a bunch of bands. These are very concerning for
the FCC, and you pretty much cannot limit these physically, it has to be built
into the firmware or the controlling software. Hence the article.

There's also just different rules for different license classes. As a radio
amateur, I can also use 2.4 GHz (13cm band) under my license, and I am allowed
to operate with up to 1500 to 2500 watts EIRP depending on mode. That is of
course subject to lots of limitations including "minimum necessary power", but
there's nothing physically stopping you from taking a 13cm amp sold for radio
amateurs and running wifi over it. Same frequency, how does the radio know?

~~~
PhasmaFelis
> _There are radios and amps that use a frequency analyzer to automatically
> cut out when operated out of their intended bands, they 're just very
> expensive compared to most of the gear that's out there._

Why is that expensive? It obviously can't require fancy hardware if it can
also be done in software.

~~~
cbhl
Here's a contrived version of this:

Imagine trying to design a calculator that isn't allowed to display the digit
'8' on its LCD display.

In software, the implementation sees if the LCD is being set to a value that
contains '8' in binary and if so, ignores the input.

In hardware, you have to have a camera that is pointed at the LCD, and a
hardware OCR implementation that looks for the 8, and then a circuit that when
the OCR implementation sees an 8, turns off the display.

~~~
paulmd
Just to fill in the context that's missing here:

1\. If you have a single radio unit, you can easily do the "software"
implementation where you look at what you're going to be broadcasting and cut
it off if it's not legal. The problem comes when you have separate radio and
amplifiers - the amplifier has no idea what whether you're feeding it 10M or
CB frequncies. It will amplify either just fine, so the FCC really prefers you
to build in a "hardware" type implementation there (a frequency analyzer that
figures out what's going into it). It's just expensive to do so - like if you
didn't already have a digital amp, you might easily add 1/4 or 1/2 to the cost
just to get some dumb logic built in. And you can still probably get around it
if you really try.

2\. There is a disproportionate amount of cheap gear and old gear in
circulation. We didn't get "smart" rigs until the late 90s at a minimum, and
even so they are vastly outnumbered by stuff from the glory days of the 50s,
60s, and 70s. There has always been a relatively small amount of high-power
stuff in circulation, and there's even less smart high-power stuff. A lot of
the modern kit-built stuff like the Elecraft K2 focuses on QRP (effective
operation on low power) instead of crazy high output.

3\. This manifests as a CRAZY price curve. It's relatively easy to get an old
radio from the 70s that'll do 50 or 100W (especially after factoring in weak,
aging tubes, etc). A modern mini-rig that will do 25W or something is also
relatively affordable. But if you want something new, powerful, or new AND
powerful you can easily jump into the thousands of dollars. For the cost of a
modern rig that'll do any given power level, you can afford an older rig and
an amp that will put out an equally good signal with substantially more power.
Or with a better antenna. And so on.

4\. There's nothing wrong with the old gear and things like tubes can be
fixed. If you trash your new wünder-rig it's garbage. So given that amateurs
are crafty people (the proto-hacker, really) there's a strong incentive to
make the old or lower-power stuff work, because it's repairable when it
breaks.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Thanks for the info, cbhl and paulmd. I'm afraid I still don't quite get it,
probably because I don't understand EE and radio as well as I ought to.

Why is there significant expense in putting a ROM chip between the radio and
the amplifier that cuts out certain frequencies? I can see where that's not
_as_ simple as mandating software that is simply incapable of generating bad
frequencies in the first place, but it intuitively strikes me as the same sort
of embedded programming that goes into, say, a microwave oven--I can see it
adding some cost, but not so much that it would be unfeasible in e.g. an home
wifi router. What am I not understanding?

~~~
hacker234
Chicken and Egg. If you can modify the radio (hardware/software), you can
modify the protection device.

Adding a protection device merely shifts the problem (being discussed) from
the radio to the protection device.

It achieves exactly nothing.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
I'm not sure that follows. On the kind of wifi router that the FCC wants to
ban, you can install new firmware because it's designed to allow you to to
that. You could have accessible firmware whose signals have to pass through a
non-accessible ROM.

~~~
cbhl
You can change the frequency that a thing communicates on by changing the
length of the wire in the antenna, and you can change the strength of the
signal by changing the shape of the antenna, and the ROM will be none-the-
wiser.

An example of the former is "homemade AM radio", where you wrap a lot of wire
in a coil, and changing where you complete the the circuit along the coil
allows you to "tune into" different frequencies.

An example of the latter is the cantenna, a directional antenna that can be
made from a Pringles can.

------
anigbrowl
A driver is not an OS, notwithstanding the legitimate and well-founded
objections to driver signing as it affects open source operating systems...but
I'm willing to firgive a little hyperbole in the pursuit of attention. On the
other hand:

 _I firmly and respectfully disagree. The user always knows their life better
than anyone else. Linux exists because users could modify their device.
OpenWrt exists because users could modify their device. CyanogenMod exists
because users could modify their device. Ultimately, a software community
which believe users are fundamentally unqualified is a broken community. I
trust users to take responsibility for their own lives._

Sure, philosophically I feel the same way. But as soon as I begin
broadcasting, I'm not just living my life any more, I'm affecting yours, too.
Probably not by much, but possibly by a lot - what if my actions impact your
ability to live your life?

Externalities are an economic fact. The article itself discusses ways that
ignorant or indifferent radio users could cause trouble for others. Pre-
emptive regulation of the sort the FCC engages in is annoying, but what other
mechanism is proposed to prevent spectrum abuse? We saw from the Marriott
Hotel case that where economic incentives exist, some actors will opt to
defect and collect an economic rent.

~~~
pdonis
_> as soon as I begin broadcasting, I'm not just living my life any more, I'm
affecting yours, too_

Do you have a wifi router? If so, you are already broadcasting. Have your
neighbors complained that they can't use their wifi because of your
broadcasting?

The huge missing piece in this whole discussion, to me, is: how much of a
problem actually exists? How many people actually have problems using wifi
because someone else is violating the FCC rules? My sense is that the number
is very small.

 _> Pre-emptive regulation of the sort the FCC engages in is annoying_

I think it's much worse than annoying. Perhaps you don't do any hacking on any
device that has a wifi radio; if so, it might only be annoying to you. But if
even a small number of people who want to innovate (and won't be doing
anything that would break the rules anyway) are prevented from doing so
because of pre-emptive regulation, that is a big price to pay. Particularly
if, as I suggested above, the magnitude of the actual problem is small.

 _> what other mechanism is proposed to prevent spectrum abuse?_

The article suggests two: social norms, and aggressive enforcement against
actual offenders--as in the Marriott case.

~~~
anigbrowl
My neighbors haven't complained because I'm not doing anything particularly
radical with my router. But if I started swamping their signals I imagine they
would be annoyed about it. I thought this context was obvious in my post
above.

 _The article suggests two: social norms, and aggressive enforcement against
actual offenders--as in the Marriott case._

And people who disagree with our perspective thought the Marriott case was a
big government shakedown. I am disinclined to rely on social norms, given that
there are often substantial economic rewards for flouting them.

~~~
pdonis
_> My neighbors haven't complained because I'm not doing anything particularly
radical with my router. But if I started swamping their signals I imagine they
would be annoyed about it._

But you're not swamping their signals. Neither are the vast majority of people
who have routers. So the vast majority of people are _not_ hindering each
other by broadcasting. That includes many people (like me) who have routers
with third party open source firmware on them (I run OpenWRT). Just saying
"well, someone _could_ swamp others' signals" isn't enough to justify pre-
emptive regulation; that should require showing that enough people _are_
swamping others' signals to make ordinary enforcement insufficient.

 _> people who disagree with our perspective thought the Marriott case was a
big government shakedown_

How do you think those people would view pre-emptive regulation by the
government?

 _> I am disinclined to rely on social norms, given that there are often
substantial economic rewards for flouting them._

I see the economic incentive in the case of a large corporation like Marriott
(and that's why I mentioned them in connection with enforcement, not social
norms). But for ordinary users who just want to run routers in their homes?
Social norms seems like a reasonable way to regulate in that case.

------
dbbolton
Apologies for the off-topic comment, but I feel compelled to say that a
#6D6D6D anchor color with a #444444 body text color on a white background is a
terrible UX choice. I guess they expect me to hover over the entire paragraph
to see if it contains any links.

------
sandworm101
Go ahead and ban new OSes on radio hardware. These are radios. Anyone can
build them (see the ubertooth). My startup will be called "locked down radios"
and our products will come with a very serious EULA instructing you to never
ever ever cut that one little wire blocking you from flashing on new software.

(serious business to do now. The new Muppets show is on.)

------
mschuster91
Nitpick: a 1kW amp wouldn't be sufficient only on the AP side in order to
expand your WiFi range.

You'd need a damn good RX amplifier with damn good antennas or have a 1kW TX
amp on the other station, too, in order to get wide-range communication.

------
powera
How is this not equivalent to a theoretical "The ATF Might Ban Specific [Gun]
Operating Systems"? The ban isn't on the OS, the ban is on the gun (or in this
case, high-powered radio).

------
aidenn0
Note that the FCC _still_ hasn't stopped manufacturers from using RP-SMA
connectors on their routers, despite ruling that they are "commonly available"
in 2000.

~~~
dublinben
Can you elaborate on why the FCC would ban a commonly used antenna connector?

~~~
jauer
Adding higher gain antennas without decreasing transmit power is a common way
for people to exceed authorized transmit power. The regulatory theory was that
by using a "uncommon" connector only people who know to decrease transmit
power (the "professional installer") would be changing antennas:
[https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm...](https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?id=29031&switch=P)

------
aqwwe
Do they do this because they don't have the resources to enforce the law?

------
shmerl
Nasty. The last thing we need is FCC mandating DRM by law.

------
ijktdot
In 5 years we'll all just be using a SoC as the entire computer, so likely
there will be no free operating systems considering they'll also make it
illegal to tamper with any approved operating system bootloaders/firmware so
can't replace anything on it.

------
jjtheblunt
Conjunctive mode verb ("might") in the title -> bullshit.

~~~
monochromatic
1\. Subjunctive, not conjunctive.

2\. Mood, not mode.

3\. This isn't subjunctive anyway.

4\. But it wouldn't make the article bullshit even if it were. (But funny
enough, "were" is subjunctive.)

