Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:34:32 -0500 Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
>
>
>> Francesco Poli wrote:
>>
> [...]
>
>>> "We would really love to be more permissive, but we cannot, 'cause
>>> that other evil guy forbids us."
>>>
>>> As I keep reading answers like this, I'm less and less convinced of
>>> their good faith...
>>>
> [...]
>
>> For some companies I would agree, but as has been said, intel has been
>> opensourcing a lot lately,
>>
>
> And is getting good publicity for this: as a consequence, I think they
> should act likewise on other fronts...
>
> [...]
>
>> For a lot of wifi cards (dunno about Intel's) it's regulatory - they
>> can't sell cards that can be easily modified to exceed FCC limits, so
>> they limit it in a binary firmware. If they gave away the source,
>> people could easily modify the card to exceed the legal output power,
>> and thus they can't give away source.
>>
>
> This sounds like another cheap excuse: I cannot believe that the law
> really says that *Intel* is responsible if *I* modify an Intel WiFi card
> so that it exceeds regulatory limits... If there indeed is a law like
> this in some jurisdiction, well, the law should be changed ASAP.
>
> Intel should be able to sell easily-reprogrammable WiFi cards: if *I*
> modify one card and exceed regulatory limits, I should be seen as the
> *sole* responsible.
>
>
>
Rules for transmitting devices certified under FCC part 15:
FCC Rules, Part 15 section 15(b):
"(b) Except as follows, an intentional or unintentional radiator must be
constructed such that the adjustments of any control that is readily
accessible by or intended to be accessible to the user will not cause
operation of the device in violation of the regulations. [...]"
A firmware setting in an open-source firmware would be considered to be
"readily accessible".
Some other points to consider:
Section 202:
"[...] Master devices marketed within the United States must be limited
to operation on permissible Part 15 frequencies. Client devices that can
also act as master devices must meet the requirements of a master
device. For the purposes of this section, a master device is defined as
a device operating in a mode in which it has the capability to transmit
without receiving an enabling signal. [...]"
Which limits frequencies, but it's similar
Section 203 specifically forbids allowing the user to change antennas
(by saying it should be permanently attached or use a non-standard
connector. This is for the same reasons.
204(a) says that "[...] no person shall use, manufacture, sell or lease,
offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease), or
import, ship,
or distribute for the purpose of selling or leasing, any external radio
frequency power amplifier or amplifier kit intended for use with a Part
15 intentional radiator."
I would think a firmware that boosts power beyond the part 15 limits
would count as an amplifier kit, but I could be wrong.
-----
Now, the reason why this is good:
Imagine if someone could boost the power of their device at the click of
a button. You'd get better performance, so anyone who is aware of it is
likely to do it. (The likelihood of being caught is extremely low). So
what happens?
a.) Anyone who isn't using boosted wifi power is likely to lose the
ability to use wifi as their signals are drowned out
b.) The same happens for other part 15 devices on nearby frequencies
(cordless phones, wireless mice, etc, etc)
c.) The likelihood of exceeding RF radiation safty limits is increased,
both for users and for people nearby.
Remember, the airwaves are a public resource. While I agree with you
that you should have the right to do with your equipment as you see fit
in general, this conflict with my rights to enjoy a public resource and
to use equipment I purchased legally. Since it is illegal to boost the
power on these devices (or even use a higher-gain antenna), I think it's
fully reasonable for the FCC to say something that is basically "You
can't put a switch on there between legal and illegal".
HTH,
Benjamin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature