Mobile-gadget makers are starting to take advantage of software-defined radio, a new technology allowing a single device to receive signals from multiple sources, including TV stations and cell phone networks. But a new federal rule set to take effect Friday could mean that radios built on 'open-source elements' may encounter a more sluggish path to market - or, in the worst case scenario, be shut out altogether. U.S. regulators, it seems, believe the inherently public nature of open-source code makes it more vulnerable to hackers, leaving 'a high burden to demonstrate that it is sufficiently secure'.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
I am always confused when I see these sorts of things; why does the US government see themselves as fit to regulate radio to such a degree where by they define what can do into a radio?
Because the spectrum is a limited public good, and the market falls down in managing such resources. If the FCC wasn't carefully managing the spectrum, it would literally be useless to everyone. All it would take would be one idiot with a high-power amplifier to ruin all the TV reception in a neighborhood.*
You can think of a computer programming analogy for this. If you've got 4MB of RAM, would you manage it using free-for-all mechanisms? No, you'd use some sort of allocation mechanism. The technology to do dynamic spectrum allocation is still in the research stages, so in practice all you've got is static allocation, which is the equivalent of the FCC system. There is no other sane way to handle things.
*) I think people underestimate how enormous the spectrum management problem can be. Your neighbor's wifi network interfering with yours is a nuisance, but intentional interference or jamming of public safety bands can be deadly. And the worst part of it is that its almost impossible to track down who is causing the interference. We were doing a field test last year, and spent hours tracking down a spurious transmitter that was intruding on spectrum that had been allocated to us. We never found the guy, eventually he just went away and stopped messing up our test results.
Edited 2007-07-08 01:00
Member since:2005-07-06
Which would sit under the regulation of "transmitting without a licence" - you don't need to regulate whether the transmitter is using an opensource piece of software - as long as the transmission conforms to the paid licence, that is all that is worth worrying about.
As for interferance, if there one has purchased a relevant licence, it is therefore up to you as the licence holder to take the interfering party to court - it has been done in the past in NZ when one FM station of a particular area interferred with the transmission; they were fined, equipment adjusted, end of story.
Like I said, there is a difference between managing the spectrum and micromanaging everything that goes on in the spectrum.
Edited 2007-07-08 06:57
Member since:2006-02-01
Regulation of the airwaves is sensible, in the same way that having rules of the road is sensible. If there weren't those rules, we'd have utter chaos.
What the FCC is doing however seems to me to be far too heavy-handed. It's the equivalent of requiring by law that cars are *unable* to go over the speed limit, or drive on the wrong side of the road, or go through red lights. And further, "guaranteeing" that it's impossible to modify the car to allow it to do those things.
Why can't they just trust people do to the right thing, and come down heavily on those who don't? It's a model that's worked pretty well for the roads for 80 years or so. And in general, being in charge of a radio is considerably less of a life-or-death matter than being in charge of a ton and half of metal capable of 100mph+....
Member since:2005-07-06
Why can't they just trust people do to the right thing, and come down heavily on those who don't? It's a model that's worked pretty well for the roads for 80 years or so.
Because it's really easy to spot the car going at 100 mph in a 35 mph zone. It's almost impossible to pin down or track down the guy whose radio is operating out of spec. Scroll up and read my comment about the guy who was interfering with our testing. We had a state of the art experimental radio sensor looking for the source of the interference, and we still couldn't find it.
And in general, being in charge of a radio is considerably less of a life-or-death matter than being in charge of a ton and half of metal capable of 100mph+....
Interfering with public safety or military bands could cause a lot of trouble.
Member since:
2005-07-06
I am always confused when I see these sorts of things; why does the US government see themselves as fit to regulate radio to such a degree where by they define what can do into a radio?
This is just regulation for the sake of creating jobs and justifying some politicians existance rather than actually any real world justification.
Heck, New Zealand, we have regulations pertaining to broadcasting, but they're simple, straight forward, and possibly could fit onto the back of a beer coaster - regulate only what needs to be regulated and leave the rest up to the industry.
If there are issues with so-called 'opensource radio's' then let the market dictate whether or not they're a good product - I certainly don't want politicians coming into my life dictating what they consider to be 'good products'.
For the 'bastion of capitalism' that America claims to be, they seem to have the same excessive regulation that a soviet bloc would.