Deeper story on FCC versus open source SDR


#1

http://news.com.com/Feds+snub+open+source+for+smart+radios/2100-1041_3-6195102.html

This story had more details and investigation than the others I’d seen.
FYI.

John


#2

John G. schrieb:

http://news.com.com/Feds+snub+open+source+for+smart+radios/2100-1041_3-6195102.html

This story had more details and investigation than the others I’d seen.

This article was sent out on the list a few weeks ago. I personally see
such a ruling as sinster. As it
stands with 802.11 and ‘FreeBSD’ + Sam Leffler’s HAL, while allowing for
much more application
variablility than the ‘access point’, and ‘station’ model of using
802.11… the closed ‘HAL’ has presented
many obsticles to applications which would operate in the regulation
limit, such as lower than X power
or within X bandwidth, but because of the FCC’s paranoia (and other
regulatory agencies around the
world…), such applications as 5 MHz bandwith 802.11 operation, are
very difficult to acheve without
paying ‘3-rd’ party developers to make crappy software ‘attempts’, then
charge more for ‘fixing’, or
even eventually saying that ‘you needs are such small potatoes that we
don’t want your business’.

For companies that have the funding, I’m sure such regulations are minor
obstacles, just part of
the development costs. However for many smaller operations, or even ‘low
funded’ operations
in bigger companies these sorts of regulations are basically brick walls
to innovative products…

John C.


#3

On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 04:05:07PM -0700, John C. wrote:

, but because of the FCC’s paranoia (and other regulatory agencies
around the world…),

John,

Does any written statement from the FCC give credence to the “regulatory
excuse” for keeping the Atheros HAL closed? Atheros cites the FCC’s
SDR NPRM, which doesn’t really apply.

Dave


David Young OJC Technologies
removed_email_address@domain.invalid Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933 ext 24


#4

David Young schrieb:

SDR NPRM, which doesn’t really apply.
Larry Flint has ‘gone to the edge’ with pushing the concept of ‘free
speech’ often enough, and
won enough, so that, while you may not purchase his Hustler magazine,
you may be able to
purchase without fear, ‘mild’ erotica…, because the book seller knows
their material is far
away from the Flint edge…

I realize that the analogy may be a bit strained, but I only see
companies pushing the regulatory
edge, when there is a significant profit to be made. Otherwise, often
their policies are to work
unquestionably within the regulation. So, if there is a hint that the
FCC regs suggest a need for
a closed system, they will close it and avoid any ill that could have
come their way.

Face it, Atheros, and other wireless chip manufacturers can report
profits for a very long time,
without making one change in their ‘closed’ policies. The amount of
‘change’ for their income by
publishing more details of their devices, will not ‘double’ their
profits… or even close…


#5

Some more takes on the FCC position.

My favorite is the second. The line “The Software Defined Radio (SDR)
Forum politely responded that the FCC did not know what it was doing
and asked it to get a clue.” amuses me.

http://internetcommunications.tmcnet.com/topics/enterprise/articles/8305-sflc-releases-white-paper-fcc-rules-software-defined.htm
http://reclaimthemedia.org/legislation_and_regulation/fcc_doesnt_know_what_its_talki=5340
http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/communications/0%2C39044192%2C62028023%2C00.htm

Philip