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 view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-04-06
You do raise an excellent point. SDRs are different from PCs and other embedded systems. It would make no sense to discourage open source in mobile phones for instance, but it is different for SDRs where the frequeny range of the tranceivers is under the control of the software (or firmware), making it easy for potential abuse.
But however, open source in the case of SDRs can help to reduce developement costs thus making the devices cheaper and also help foster good standards (SDR ICs that are easy to program and debug and with good third party tools for doing so, for example),just as in any other embedded system industry. And it is possible to prevent modified versions of the opensource SDR software to run on the device (even though the FSF doesn't like it). AMD's PIC computer* and the TIVO DVR completely prevent modified (or entirely new) versions of the source code to run on them.
This 'locking down' of devices is disallowed under the new GPL3 but perfectly possible under other open source licenses (including the GPL 2, google for Tivoisation for more info). Hence usage of open source only stands to benefit all the parties involved. What should be prevented, is the ability to modify the device range.
Moreover usage of strong digital encryption and a spread spectrum system, as well as other techniques should be carried out to prevent eavsdropping and interference.
* AMD's Personal Internet Communicator (PIC) did not run open source software. Hackers have tried their best to run linux on it, but to no avail (as I last checked). The PIC is discontinued now.
Member since:2006-02-15
You do raise an excellent point. SDRs are different from PCs and other embedded systems. It would make no sense to discourage open source in mobile phones for instance, but it is different for SDRs where the frequeny range of the tranceivers is under the control of the software (or firmware), making it easy for potential abuse.
In a modern cellphone, the frequency range and power level of the transceiver is under control of software.
The reason why the FCC isn't as paranoid about cellphones as it is about cognitive radio is that current cellphone designs are all dual processor, with a 'modem' processor that runs software proprietary to the radio vendor and an 'application' processor that runs software from the cellphone developer. Even on an open design like openmoko, the modem processor runs software that isn't open.
But however, open source in the case of SDRs can help to reduce developement costs thus making the devices cheaper and also help foster good standards (SDR ICs that are easy to program and debug and with good third party tools for doing so, for example),just as in any other embedded system industry.
Of all the myths that surround open source software, that of reduction of development costs is the most annoying. I am now working on my fourth development project in ten years that uses OSS, and am familiar with many others. In none of them has there been an overall reduction in development cost as a result of using OSS.
Likewise, the attitude that "there's more than one way to do it" coupled with the willingness of open source developers to start over rather than try to get along with other open source developers is a significant hindrance to any tendency of OSS to increase standardization within an industry.
Member since:2006-12-07
There is no way to enforce these protocols ourselves
Now, maybe, but in a few years, with better institutions and better technology i can imagine it.
The thing you forget is that the government *is* ourselves
I totally agree, but having dysfunctional institutions , "ourselves" is rarely the decision maker. But i'm not whining, things are getting better, and we have a lot more freedom and power than a few decades ago. Here in europe, where freedom of speech is a lot worse than in the us, no one could freely create a radio station before the eighties, those where considered pirate radios, and its the censorship authorities that decided what was good or not.
The test I mentioned was on a military base, on a military frequency, with military and government folks in attendance.
Damn :-) Touché! Nonetheless, i'm amazed how vulnerable they are then..
edit: typos
Edited 2007-07-09 12:25
Member since:2005-07-06
Now, maybe, but in a few years, with better institutions and better technology i can imagine it.
Possibly, but detector technology is fairly physics-limited, and that sort of thing advances slowly. I think what you're more likely to see is detailed control being obviated by inteference-resistant radios, either UWB radios that can tolerate some interference on a sub-band, or spectrum-hopping radios that can jump away from a bad frequency.
Damn :-) Touché! Nonetheless, i'm amazed how vulnerable they are then..
It's no big secret. I'm sure parts of the military has some "24"-style technology to investigate these sorts of things, but your average guy on the ground doesn't have anything fundamentally different from what's available to the general public. Interference is actually one of the big communications problems in Iraq, both interference resulting from enemy jamming, and self-interference resulting from conflicting frequency assignments.
Member since:
2005-07-06
We just need protocols and safety mechanisms, defined and enforced by ourselves.
There is no way to enforce these protocols ourselves. Even the FCC often can't resolve the interference complaints it receives, and they have tremendously more resources to do it. How would a neighborhood enforce these protocols anyway? A good spectrum analyzer costs $10,000+, and requires some skill to use as an interference-finding tool. How is a community going to get those sorts of resources?
The thing you forget is that the government *is* ourselves. They exist explicitly to define and enforce the sorts of protocols that are outside the capabilities of individuals to do. Yes, there is a lot of potential for abuse (the FCC does stuff with regards to broadcast content that goes way beyond their spectrum allocation mandate), but in any domain where nation-wide coordinate effort is necessary, the government needs to get involved.
A regulator saying that since everybody will see how soft-radio works, we should forbid it for your own safety and freedom.. does it sound right?
The spectrum is a public resource. It's not for your own freedom and safety, but everyone else's. It's along the lines of the sorts of laws that keep you from dumping crap into a river. Yeah, it would be nice if people would naturally avoid pissing in the communal pool, but they don't. Read up on the state of the Ganges in India sometime.
As for safety or military bands, forbidding the civilians to use those bands isn't safe in any way, the army obviously know how to defend themselves against radio attacks, and when they are attacked it's usually not from their civilians.
The test I mentioned was on a military base, on a military frequency, with military and government folks in attendance. They don't have some magic technology that can pinpoint the source of the interference, nor otherwise change the realities of the underlying physics. As for sources of attack, it's not even necessarily malicious. Some idiot with a modded high-power transmitter using a military band could easily wreck somebody's day by interfering with some pilot's radio. It's not like all military users have giant high-power radios that can shout over anything else they might encounter. The military has their own regulations and rules, and lots and lots of safety-critical communications happens over radios not much more powerful than a good FRS.
Edited 2007-07-08 03:58