'Economist' Calls For Open WiFi Specs

DavidNWelton writes "An interesting and well thought-out call for Wifi manufacturers to open up their specs, at least partially, written by The Economist. 'So it is hard to see what the problem is beyond a dog-in-the-mangerish desire not to give anything away. Time to open it up, boys.'"

Comments

You know ... something about this article ...

[DikSeaCup]

I'm not saying it's wrong but as I started to read it, my brain switched to scanning mode, and I reflexively developed the opinion:

This guy saw something that he can consider "closed" and decided to write an article saying it should be "open" just to get people to agree with him.

Kind of like a Slashdot karma whore.

I'll have to try to read it all again.

Re:You know ... something about this article ...

[ebuck]

Actually, the article describes people asking for something along the lines of an API to allow programmers to use exsiting functionality in new ways, in this case to make wireless repeaters.

But the manufacturers are deciding that even the API is secret, and then claiming that it can't be opened up because it would violate federal law (by allowing people to broadcast out of proper power ranges and out of spectrum). By this line of thinking, the wireless manufactureres are doing a public service by keeping the API secret.

Unfortunately, the laws they reference have to do with computer controlled radio stations, not wireless networks.

Abuses of the wireless spectrum happen all the time, odds are that somewhere right now, someone is violating an aspect of the FCC guidelines. It's not the manufacturer's responsibility to enforce the laws, that's the exclusive domain of the government. The companies should expose their API until the government makes it illegal to do so.

Real world politics probably makes this impossibly simple, I'd bet the government wouldn't appreciate any company that made thier job harder.

Re:You know ... something about this article ...

[mmkkbb]

Unfortunately, the laws they reference have to do with computer controlled radio stations, not wireless networks.

Are you talking computer controlled transmitters or computer controlled music programming?

Re:You know ... something about this article ...

[Gob Blesh It]

Yeah, that was a good one.

Well the article might have been interesting

[ikkonoishi]

The ads on the page make my IE take 99% of the cpu.

Re:Well the article might have been interesting

[DFJA]

Ads on the page? So that would be those things that MS Internet Explorer users get, I presume.

Re:Well the article might have been interesting

[Phil246]

hehe indeed. Good ol firefox with adblock extention :D

hmm tho, is it just me or does the source of the article have this in it ( strange script with a stupid amount of white space which ive ever so nicely removed for you. i mean wtf is the purpose of it )

<script>
function getTitle()
{
return 'Shant!';
}
</script>

and another gem :

<!-- where is the javascript -->

these web developers are having fun now arent they lol

not that well thought out..

[gl4ss]

**Broadcom and Atheros say that making the interface information public would be illegal, because it could allow users to change the parameters of a chip in ways that violate the rules for using unlicensed spectrum (for example, by increasing its power or changing its operating frequency). That is a worry, but it depends on rather a conservative interpretation of the law. The current rules apply to so-called "software-defined radios" (where the ability to send and receive signals is modifiable on the chip), and do not apply directly to Wi-Fi. Also, by supplying the data, manufacturers would not be held liable if a user chose to tweak the chip in unlawful ways. And in any case, if the firms are really worried, they could release most of the interface, keeping back those features that are legally sensitive.

Nor is the interface information commercially sensitive. Engineers are not asking for the computer code that drives the interfaces, merely for the means to talk to them. And having the interface information in the public domain should eventually result in more chips being sold. So it is hard to see what the problem is beyond a dog-in-the-mangerish desire not to give anything away. Time to open it up, boys.**

why would not "software-defined radios" apply directly to wifi? because it doesn't say wifi specifially? gimme a break.

would you expect that they could sell itrip with a dial and extender that you could use to boost the output to 100wats, and not get in trouble with fcc?

and of the " Engineers are not asking for the computer code that drives the interfaces, merely for the means to talk to them." bit.. you would still need that computer code that drives the interfaces for the 'interfaces' to work at all. the code the 'engineers' would like to write would need to talk through the properiaty code, or is he really suggesting that the engineers would be totally rewriting all the software - and that the things would still work as intended?

just make the damn linux drivers, or build the windows drivers so that they're easy to interact with for use in other os'ses as well..

Re:not that well thought out..

[Anonymous Coward]

Wifi devices are software defined radios. The band limits are different in the USA (11 channels), Europe (13 channels) and Japan (14 channels). That hasn't stopped the companies from offering firmwares for these devices which allow ordinary users to illegally use channels 12 to 14 by simply using the Japanese firmware instead of the firmware for the US market. Sometimes it's just a simple "Where are you?" question during setup that decides which channels are accessible. That is where the hypocrisy is. On one hand they hide behind the law to avoid opening the specification and on the other hand they sell hardware which makes it easy to break the law (at least orders of magnitude easier than writing custom firmware to go beyond the legal limits).

don't make no sense

[rich42]

from the sound of the article - the chip manufacturers are refusing to share information that's not "commercially sensitive" with engineers who are working on devices that would provide a market for their chips.

this don't make no sense.

either:
1. the information -is- "commercially sensitive"
2. the companies in question have some lame policies - in which case they will lose the business to the competition
3. the article isn't accurate
or
4. something else entirely (to cover my ass)

Re:don't make no sense

[Vo0k]

2. the companies in question have some lame policies

All of them. No "competition".

Re:don't make no sense

[Lisandro]

Well, the thing WiFi adapters are basically computer-controlled radio emmiters, on a tightly controlled band - releasing full specs for these devices could enable them to transmit in unwanted frequencies, which means they would have problems with organisms like the FCC.

Of all the hardware whose manufacturers refuse to release specs, WiFi adapters are perhaps the more justified. Still, atleast partial specs (enough to have a basic, working driver) would calm the OSS zealots and give a start to developers.

Re:don't make no sense

[JeremyALogan]

The FCC doesn't have any say, what-so-ever, over this. You could start a company tomorrow making cards that'll transmit on any frequency and even if they don't like it there's nothing they can do. Now, that being said, if I were to purchase one of your cards and start illegally broadcasting on restricted frequencies then they're free to nail my ass to the wall because I have then broken the law.

If you don't believe me then how about this... anyone (in the United States, at least) can buy a ham radio that'll broadcast on all types of frequencies that the general public isn't allowed to use. And yes... there are "computer controlled" ones.

I really hate seing people use this excuse to protect the companies when it really has no merit.

Re:don't make no sense

[Detritus]

They are. However, the operator has the final responsibility for operating the radio in accordance with FCC regulations.

Re:don't make no sense

[yaff]

The FCC certainly does have a say-so in this. WiFi operates in the 15.247 unlicensed ISM bands, and there are very specific rules that your transmitter must pass to sell equipment for those bands.

Certainly, the ultimate resposibility lies with the operator, but the FCC demands that you make it difficult for the user to break the rules. For example, many pieces of ISM gear have either integrated antennas or really funny antenna connectors. That's not an accident. If you sell ISM gear to the general public, the FCC mandates that they can't easily strip off your antenna and mount a 12-foot dish.

HAM gear is just as subject to FCC rules. Most of the commercial HAM gear for sale today is "locked out" (at least by software) from transmitting outside of the HAM bands. Yes, most radios are modifiable, but they can't be shipped from the factory as open boxes.

Re:don't make no sense

[Nate B.]

Actually, the FCC does indeed have rules covering the sale of transmitters in the U.S.A. It was at one time known as 'Type Acceptance' and a manufacturer had to submit a sample of the unit to the FCC so the FCC engineers could verify that it met the rules. The system has since been modified and renamed slightly, but the fact remains that a good way to attract unwanted FCC attention is to start selling non Type Accepted transmitters.

The rules for Amateur Radio are different, however, the manufacturers must submit their models to the FCC for approval for sale. Even Part 97 limits the number of RF amplifiers an amateur radio operator may build or modify that operate from 25 to 30 MHz. There have been petitions asking for elimination of these rules in recent years.

The ham rigs that you assert will broadcast on any frequency do require internal modification to do so. Why do they transmit outside the amateur bands? Because the radios are also used for MARS (Military Affiliate Radio System) and CAP (Civil Air Patrol) which use frequencies outside the ham bands.

Part 15 devices, which WiFi cards operate under, must meet the Part 15 rules plus the FCC specifies in its rules that Part 15 devices not be modifiable in any way by the user. So, the manufacturers are very much correct in their assertion that the interface to modern WiFi cards remain closed.

Don't believe me? Just manufacture and sell cards that violate Part 15. Eventually you will attract notice from the FCC.

This doesn't hold

[drwho]

Sam Leffler's MadWifi is an example of coming to an agreement with a company and producing a really good driver while keeping the 'secret sauce' secret. Yet Atheros isn't given credit in this article. This doesn't seem fair to me.

Also, It claims that these wifi chipsets are not Software Defined Radios -- well from what I can see, they are indeed SDRs. So it makes sense to restrict knowledge of things that allow people to mess about too much. And of course the government needs to be able to detect your signal so they only allow a few spreading codes to be used and make sure there's no way for the user to change them.

Yes, I'd like to have the details of Atheros and other wifi SDRs but that's not practical. What IS practical is opening up everything needed for compatibility reasons.

In other news, pot calls kettle black

[mrogers]

a dog-in-the-mangerish desire not to give anything away

That's rich coming from a magazine that doesn't publish the names of its journalists.

Re:In other news, pot calls kettle black

[iworm]

You are factually correct but very unfair. I quote from The Economist:

Why is it anonymous? Many hands write The Economist, but it speaks with a collective voice. Leaders are discussed, often disputed, each week in meetings that are open to all members of the editorial staff. Journalists often co-operate on articles. And some articles are heavily edited. The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it. As Geoffrey Crowther, editor from 1938 to 1956, put it, anonymity keeps the editor "not the master but the servant of something far greater than himself. You can call that ancestor-worship if you wish, but it gives to the paper an astonishing momentum of thought and principle."

I want it, so give it to me you meeny!

[wowbagger]

First of all - I have an Atheros chipset WiFi board down in my server that is currently doing little but sucking milliamps as the Linux drivers are unstable as sweaty nitro. I'd *LOVE* to see Atheros release proper programming specs for the chip - as an embedded software engineer I could then fix the damn drivers.

That said - folks, it ain't a-gonna happen. The FCC , DTI and other regulatory bodies around the world are very clear about this - for a product to be type certified, it must not be easily modifiable by the end user to operate out of the allocated frequency bands and power specifications.

Consider the recent Notice Of Forfeiture against the Pilot truck stops for selling amateur radio equipment that could be modified for use in the Citizen's Band frequencies by moving a jumper. Whether the jumper was set or not was unimportant - the fact that the radios could be trivially modified to operate outside their allocated frequencies was enough.

The arguement that "The card + the drivers as shipped cannot operate out of spec, so that combination can be type certified" only works when the user is not give the source for the driver! That is why the card manufacturers can ship Windows binary drivers - the user is not trivially able to change things. A driver which has source under /usr/src/linux/drivers/802.11 is a different issue - the user can trivially change the card's output power and operating frequencies.

And I am sorry folks, but that is a spectacularly bad idea. For an example of why, just listen to the Children's Band within a hundred miles of any major city - it is one big heterodyne squeal and spatterfest because of all the morons who think "If 90% modulation is good, then 190% modulation must be BETTER!"

ESPECIALLY with a complex modulation scheme like 802.11 uses, you CANNOT safely just rail the power levels - the amplifiers have to have a certain amount of headroom in order to faithfully reproduce the signals, and if you turn the gain up too far, you will start to run the amplifiers into compression, and distort the signal - and a distorted signal will have LESS range than a properly modulated signal. And you cannot tell the signal is properly modulated without a signal analyzer - and that is about US$20K or more (I know, as I design them!)

Or consider the recent Slashdot post about the guy who could not use his WAP in his apartment, because of all the other WAPs in the building. What was the first piece of advice he received? "Turn it up, D00D!" So then what happens? Nobody can use the band.

There is a GOOD REASON that there is regulation of the RF spectrum - it IS a shared resource that we all wish to benefit from. However, all it takes is one jackass to screw it up for everybody in the area. One child peeing in the pool once is not a big problem - but if you let one kid do it, the pool turns yellow pretty damn quickly.

Now, if the card manufacturers would stop trying to do things on the cheap, and would put a microcontroller on the card to control the RF section, and would either put flash on the card to drive the micro OR release the binary of the micro for free redistribution, THEN this wouldn't be a problem, as the user-modifiable driver would not be able to make the card go out-of-spec (and this would not be a violation of the GPL as the code for the micro would not be linked against anything - it would be data that is stuffed into the card at init, possibly by a userspace program in response to a hotplug event). However, the card manufacturers would rather "save" the money (even though the incremental per-unit cost of embedding a micro into the ASIC that implements the RF modem is essentially zero).

To recap - I am ALL FOR Free Software drivers for hardware: I've bitched at ATI for the poor support for their video cards, I've bemoaned the poor Atheros WiFi drivers, I've cussed at more crap drivers that I can count! But unless you repeal the FCC's (DTI, or whatever the TLA is in the reader'

Re:I want it, so give it to me you meeny!

[0x0000]

I have an Atheros chipset WiFi board down in my server that is currently doing little but sucking milliamps

Fwiw, I have a NetGear WG111 USB thing working (nominally - haven't used it for much yet) on a cheapo laptop using ndiswrapper, the windows driver for the chip, and SuSE 9.2.~ It might be turn out to be unstable - but I was able to ping the iMac, which made me happy... hth

how about bringing pressure on Atheros, Intel, Broadcom and others to add the US$0.10 to the damn bill-of-materials

I can sympathize w/ your (and the FCC) argument against allowing all the l33t hx0rs access to the frequency and output amp controll registers, but would it really add cost to just hardwire those settings?

IANAHGPS (I am not a h/w geek, per se) but I was figuring these dongles I've been getting (e.g. Prism2 802.11b for $10US) are basically a single IC with with the registers wired to the USB bus. Seems like it would be pretty trivial to just tie them to some value, no? And aren't these chips commercially available? How much trouble can a private citizen get into by buying the (unpackaged) chip hooking it to a battery and some light switches? I'm guessing there's the small matter of some Federal Laws, but does anyone really care how one abuses the frequency spectrum in the privacy of ones own home (not that I have a home, you understand, but in principle....)?

So isn't it the power control that's the potential for problem, really? I mean, any Red-Bleeding Amerikan should be Free to build widgets that cause strange phenomena on their own t.v. screen and perhaps explode the microwave oven provided the neighbor's signals are not affected. At least, so one might be forgiven for believing up until a few years ago...

Doable, you think?

And once done, will the FBI be sent overseas to the home of the individual who published the schematic onto the internet and - citing the sponsorship of Sony corp and the precedent of DeCSS - drag the perpetrator in irons back to the US to stand for punishment in a kangaroo court?

Enquiring minds are blinded with outrage...

Is there ANY 802.11x card that is open

[jonwil]

Is there any 802.11a/b/g Wi-Fi LAN card (either PCI or PCMCIA, not something built into a motherboard) out there that is truely Open?
I dont mean some driver someone has figured out by reverse engineering, I mean a card where the manufacturer has released the specs and/or the driver code.

What I want to see is for someone to build a PC with all the features one would expect for a decent linux setup using only hardware components where either any driver code required to access the full features of the device is released by the company (firmware that runs from a ROM chip and/or that runs on a seperate CPU on the card doesnt need to be open for the hardware to qualify) or alternativly, enough specifications are released to enable someone to completly re-create said drivers.
It should have (in addition to the regular hardware features):
802.11 Wireless WiFi lan
CD/DVD burner
10/100 ethernet (most motherboards include this anyway these days)
Video Capture Card that has inputs for all the common standards (including the standards used for High Definition Digital cable/sattelite/free-to-air). Does anyone make a high definition capable capture card that supports that CableCard stuff? If so, that would fit perfectly here. If not, there is almost certainly a market for such a thing from those making PVR boxes.

Such a system (even just a list of bits to buy to pull it off would be nice) or systems (e.g. one for PVR use with the video capture card and one for use as a desktop without the extra bits) would be a great thing IMO.
Related to this, a list of companies and/or products that support open operating systems in various ways.
Each product would have one of these designations:
Totally closed, doesnt run on linux at all
Runs on linux only though closed binary driver (e.g. nvidia gfx stuff)
Reverse Engineered open driver exists for the hardware.
official company written open driver exists (the companies and hardware with this designation would be the ones that open-source people could then patronise)

Re:Is there ANY 802.11x card that is open

[MsGeek]

Actually it depends on which Netgear WG511 you get. If the card says "Made In Taiwan" you're cool. If the card says "Made In China" the only thing that will work with it is the ndiswrapper and the drivers you get with the card.

Funny thing, I found that out only *after* I bought a WG511 on eBay. Too late to ask about the origin of the card, dammit. :P

Closed drivers should work if they won't open them

[hazee]

When the manufacturers refuse to open up the specs for their hardware, then there's an implicit understanding that they will at least supply working (closed) drivers of their own.

So I may not be able to get the device to work under Linux, or some other OS that wasn't listed on the box, but at least I'll be able to run it under Windows, as advertised.

Unfortunately, the driver for my particular card (Netgear WG511) is one of the worst pieces of crap that I've ever had the mispleasure of having to use.

By way of example, when run under Win 2K, it doesn't "remember" the settings, such as WEP keys, unless you're running as Admin. Netgear's advice has to be seen to be believed - they have a web page that tells you that you need to run with Administrator privileges to avoid the issue, and ON THE SAME PAGE, tells you how dangerous it is to run with admin privileges...

This same piece of crap utility loads itself into the system tray at startup, and continues to soak up processor time for no readily apparent reason - - you can kill it, and the wireless link continues to function.

This same utility also regularly sends packets out to numerical addresses on the web. Spyware, who knows?

In summary, if the manufacturers can't or won't supply working drivers, then the whole product they're selling is essentially fraudulent - they're promising something that they're not delivering.

So I believe that they should be FORCED to open the drivers.

Re:The Economist should give its contents away

[Malc]

They do give a lot of their content away for free, for a short period of time. If it was all completely free then how would they cover their costs? If print dies out then they'll really be in trouble.