This is the first report I have seen on this, so I will not vouch for it’s accuracy; however, its does sound like the kind of thing a bureaucrat would think is a good idea.
The full text if anyone wants to dig through it:
I’ve also seen note that the FCC comment system is undergoing upgrades this week, so there may only be one day ( Sept 9th ) where you can actually leave comments.
Very Very Bad proposed rule in my opinion.
2 Likes
The surest way to recognize the presence of bovine fecal productive writing, is to identify the following characteristics:
- It’s alarming
- It tosses out a bunch of opinions without quoting or citing anything from whatever source it claims to be referencing.
- It reminds you of your oddball uncle, who began every sentence with “goddamned gubbamint”
- It was written by a person or persons referring to themselves as an “activist” (libreplanet)
In this case, I read through the synopsis and NPRM, and see not a scintilla of wording that supports the assertions of the quoted source. Even worse, the NPRM contains a number of small improvements which may actually do what Hams have begged for for years - reduce the “harmful interference” created by unintentional radiators, and attempt to at least slow a bit the flood of “self-certifying” imported junk that causes so much grief in the ham bands. But the majority of it just streamlines the number of categories of device, and simplifies (a little) the process of getting an FCC-ID.
There is NO ban on SDRs. This will not effect ANY software, unless it changes the transmission envelope on a device which was previously certified and given an FCC-ID. By envelope, I mean moving the transmit spectrum away from the permitted and tested spectrum.
Most of these FCC-ID rules can be summarized as “Be a good RF neighbor”, and don’t build a device which, by intention or accident, screws up everyone else’s gadget.
The language of the rule changes makes this claim debatable.
“39. The Commission proposed, for certified device operating under all
rule parts, to require that any party making changes without the
authorization of the original grantee of certification must obtain a new
grant of certification and a new FCC ID. This would codify a uniform
application process for instances where parties other than the original
grantee wish to make changes to certified devices, and would remove the
current distinctions in § 2.1043(d) and (f) of the rules.”
Doesn’t not state that only hardware changes are covered, and if you require the original manufacturer’s opinion to publish changes for software, things like OpenWRT and HAMnet will get shut down.
In my experience, one must always read government rules in a way as to guess what the worst possible interpretation will be. Because that is almost certainly what the result will be in practice.
1 Like
Licensed amateur radio operators have always been allowed to build their own equipment with no concerns about type-certification.
It’s all of other makers out there who may be affected by these kind of changes.
Walter,
The quote you provided is an example of my point. The operative words there, are “certified device”. Right now, prior to the adoption of the rulemaking being proposed, you cannot legally modify a type accepted devices with an FCC-ID to operate outside its original transmission parameters. Keep in mind what those are - maximum power (defined in the band plan), legal transmitter frequency range (licensed or unlicensed for the purpose the xmitter is made), and producing no harmful interference (an FCC legal term).
What the FCC is doing, is eliminating and consolidating categories of devices which are redundant, for the most part, and saying "if you create a new device out of an old device, it must be re-certified in order to be type accepted. You can’t re-use the old FCC-ID on the new device.
That seems pretty sensible to me.
As to Open WRT and Hamnet, the people raising hell about this are simply showing the rest of us that they really don’t know much about radio. OpenWRT, in no way whatsoever, modifies the transmission envelope of the type accepted 802.11 chipset contained within the various devices that run it. That’s a fact. And it’s also a fact, that the proposed rulemaking will have absolutely no impact on OpenWRT for that reason. The same is true for Hamnet - the software does not modifying any transmitter (or modular transmitter in this rule) to operate outside the spectrum (bandplan) its host radio was designed to transmit within, and does not increase the operating power beyond the legal limit, and does not cause harmful interference. Therefore, the FCC rules do not address it.
With respect to SDR, you have never been able to get an SDR radio which did not conform to the bandplan type accepted, and this rule doesn’t change that at all. It is sayingthat if you load new code in one that changes the operating transmitter envolope for which it was originally type-accepted, then you must get it re-certified.
If, for example, you took an SDR with a programmable oscillator, which was type accepted to sell as an amateur band radio (like, lets say, a Flex 5000), and modified its firmware so that it would transmit in the protected cellular bands, would you argue that the modified radio set could then be sold as “FCC Type accepted” with the same FCC-ID as the original radio?
The quote I provided does reinforce your belief that the feds will be reasonable when applying this regulation. But, you are making a big assumption, since the language has no text which says it only applies to changes in transmission parameters.
The languages says any party making changes, not any party making changes to the transmission parameters.
Some us have been around long enough to see regulators say one thing to get their rules passed, then turn around and interpret the new rules in precisely the way they said they wouldn’t.
Since such a scenario is already covered, why do we need new regulations.
Some of us have. I filed my first request for reconsideration at the FCC in 1997 (and won) and have been party to 6 cases since, done a fair amount of ex parte work there. All of my experience there has been in opposing various FCC decisions or policies. I’m not a cheerleader, but I’m not inclined to harken after the heathen either.
1 Like
And some of us believe that ALL regulatory language should be clear, concise, and not subject to later interpretation so that we don’t have to fight later. Your claim that this language is fine is flawed in that it fundamentally trusts the regulators, while the language allows huge loopholes that commercial interests can use to get ‘interpretations’ they desire.
I didn’t say the language was fine. I said it doesn’t say what the cited articles claim it says.
As to what it should be, it’s a lot like shaving a cat. Easy, until you turn the clippers on…
1 Like
And I provided an excerpt that supported one of the claims in the article. The language as written can be interpretated to accomplish what the article claimed in that one instance. It would take more time then I currently have to review the remainder, but your claim is already wrong on that one point. ie, effectively preventing the modification of firmware without the original authors approval. At least that is a plausible interpretation of that language. And it is easily foreseeable to see commercial entities lobbying for that interpretation.
Agreed, which is why allowing agencies to create any ‘rules’ is problematic. They are invariably written by special interests with an intent for future interpretation.
2 Likes