Tim wrote:
Michael A. Peters:
In some cases - it is the FCC that may actually be at fault.
The FCC has regulations on what devices can be user configurable - with
respect to how much power can be sent to the antenna.
John Summerfied:
I gather that if the source for the HAL (the firmware) were released,
then (evil) hackers could hack on it and use the devices to interfere
with air traffic control and (maybe) military.
I think that hackers can figure out how to be a nuisance, anyway. All
the FCC is achieving is some limits on some people, while imposing
annoyances on others.
I wonder how effective it is against the serious folk, but I've no doubt
it's a serious impediment to the more casual wannabes. Consider the
difficulties with wireless kit from TI and Broadcom (who don't do
anything to help hackers), with ntfs and so on.
For instance, here (in Australia) it's permissible to transmit what you
I've lived in Australia for over 50 years, and read Radio TV & Hobbies
(later Electronics Australia) and ETI International (for anyone who
recognises the name, ETI started in Oz with plans to take over thw
world, and I sometimes see an OS edition on sale even tho the original's
long gone). I don't believe that.
like, how you like it, so long as your transmissions don't emit from
your property (e.g. imagine inside a large metal-construction factory
building, where circumstances needed higher than normal power for it to
work, but not *that* high that it'll cause problems to outsiders).
There's been enough fuss over overhead power transmission lines,
transmission towers for mobile (cell) phones: I don't suppose any
practices such as you suggest would have escaped the notice of unions.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
do not reply off-list
