On Mon, 2006-20-02 at 16:04 -0600, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: > Mike McCarty wrote: > > Andy Green wrote: > > > >> Mike McCarty wrote: > >> > >> > >>>> The manufacturers accept such restrictions only because they know a > >>>> binary-only distribution is acceptable, for example, in the Windows > >>>> world. At the edges already Linux challenges this assumption (because > >>>> the benefits using it brings outweigh the risk from loss of obfuscation > >>>> of the code) and can bring about change. So it isn't enough to > >>>> consider > >>>> the situation as it is, one also needs to consider what Linux can make > >>>> be by its policies towards closed source modules. > >>>> > >>>> I don't buy the story that certain classes of device can never have > >>>> open > >>>> source drivers regardless of all considerations. If Linux is desirable > >>> > >>> > >>> Who argued this? I haven't seen this argument. > >> > >> > >> > >> This is the explanation put forward by the binary-only wireless network > >> companies, that regulatory requirements mean there can be no OSS > >> wireless drivers because it would facilitate using the PLLs on the chip > >> outside of the allowed frequencies for the countries it is sold in. > > > > > > Hmm. Actually, this makes sense. It would be a lot cheaper this way > > than actually to ship different hardware. And the regulations make > > it clear that it cannot be something someone could easily figure out > > and change as a user. > > > It would make since if they were supplying different drivers > depending on where they are selling the device. But what I have > seen is that the installer asks what country (drop-down menu) > and this determines what channels the driver uses. So all you have > to do is pick a different country... So a closed-source driver > does not insure compliance... Very true. As a matter of fact, since most wireless devices are using "public" frequencies, the regulatory departments won't do anything if you are interfered with by someone who is not compliant. The problem arises though that if the manufacturer does not abide by the regulatory department, their product will not be certified, even if the regulatory departments conditions are poorly conceived. It is not usually the PLL frequencies that are at issue, but more often the power output. If you make the product transmit frequencies outside the alloted bandwidth it is not the manufacturer who is going to get into trouble it will be you. But if you "amp" up the transmit power, which is common, nothing will happen, unless you go overboard and start cooking birds as they fly past your antenna or horn, but even then it would likely be Greenpeace or PETA that would come after you first. I used to repair HF, VHF and UHF transceivers for aviation, military, law enforcement and civilian services, and all licenced frequencies are subject to audit and enforcement, but non licenced frequencies are regulated but rarely audited and almost never enforced, unless the equipment causes spurious signals that effect other licenced frequencies. Most of the "public" frequencies are the same worldwide but the regulated EIRP [Effective Isotropic Radiated Power] varies by jurisdiction and implementation. For instance omnidirectional antennas are required to have more restrictive power output than highly directional site to site configurations. In many cases official installers are required to setup licenced equipment, and must be capable and competent to determine if there are any out of band emissions and provide a spectrum analysis and site survey of each site upon request. I now have little to do with wireless, but who knows it is like a recurring nightmare, every so many years it becomes important and I have to work with them, but they can be a real pain when working with "public" regulated products.
