Slashdot Mirror
Possession of Cantenna Now Illegal?
Mad-Mage1 writes "The recent arrests in Florida and the UK of men who were accessing unsecured wireless hotspots has created a flood of articles that contain panic inducing rhetoric. "A small subset of computer-savvy hackers has the know-how and gadgets for more nefarious activities," claims the Sacramento Bee (via Techdirt). "They're (Pringles cans fashioned into antennas) unsophisticated but reliable, and it's illegal to possess them," quips Sacramento County Sheriff's Lt. Bob Lozito of the Sacramento Valley Hi-Tech Crimes Task Force." I hope they tell Fry's about all the illegal antennas they're stocking, too.
The cantenna itself isn't illegal to posess, but it may very well be illegal to use if it boosts the directional signal beyond the FCC's limit. Remember, 2.4GHz space is unlicensed, but it's not completely unregulated. Power limits are in place to prevent greedy users from stepping on the whole band and locking out others. (See FCC rules.)
The reason why there's all those proprietary connections in antenna space is because you're only supposed to use antennas that are approved for use with the transmitting device, so you stay within the perscribed limits for effective directional power. (Just recently the FCC announced plans to allow for mix-and-matching of antennas.) Connect a tightly directional antenna to a transmitter that's operating at full power meant for omnidirectional use, and you'll have an illegal setup. That's exactly the situation most canttenas find themselves in.
First of all Here is the reg sheet on low powered unlicensed transmitters
See Page 2 - Antenna Requirements
Changing the antenna on a transmitter can significantly increase, or decrease, the strength of the signal that is ultimately transmitted. Except for cable locating equipment, the standards in Part 15 are not based solely on output power but also take into account the antenna characteristics. Thus, a low power transmitter that complies with the technical standards in Part 15 with a particular antenna attached can exceed the Part 15 standards if a different antenna is attached. Should this happen it could pose a serious interference problem to authorized radio communications such as emergency, broadcast and air-traffic control communications.
In order to prevent such interference problems, each Part 15 transmitter must be designed to ensure that no type of antenna can be used with it other than the one used to demonstrate compliance with the technical standards. This means that Part 15 transmitters must have permanently attached antennas, or detachable antennas with unique connectors. A "unique connector" is one that is not of a standard type found in electronic supply stores.
(Section 15.203)
It is recognized that suppliers of Part 15 transmitters often want their customers to be able to replace an antenna if it should break. With this in mind, Part 15 allows transmitters to be designed so that the user can replace a broken antenna. When this is done, the replacement antenna must be electrically identical to the antenna that was used to obtain FCC authorization for the transmitter. The replacement antenna also must include the unique connector described above to ensure it is used with the proper transmitter.
Now here is the stick. So yes, technically under federal law they are.
If the operation of a non-compliant transmitter causes interference to authorized radio communications, the user should stop operating the transmitter or correct the problem causing the interference. However, the person (or company) that sold this non-compliant transmitter to the user has violated the FCC marketing rules in Part 2 as well as federal law. The act of selling or leasing, offering to sell or lease, or importing a low-power transmitter that has not gone through the appropriate FCC equipment authorization procedure is a violation of the Commission's rules and federal law. Violators may be subject to an enforcement action by the Commission's Field Operations Bureau that could result in:
Section 15.1
Section 15.5
Section 2.803
Section 2.805
Section 2.1203
o forfeiture of all non-compliant equipment
o $100,000/$200,000 criminal penalty for an individual/organization
o a criminal fine totalling twice the gross gain obtained from sales of the non-compliant equipment
o an administrative fine totalling $10,000/day per violation, up to a maximum of $75,000
what? what I thought we were in the trust tree in the nest, were we not?
Pringles can antennas are legal to own in the US. They are not legal to use for 802.11 equipment because you are only permitted to use an antenna that has been expressly approved for the specific model of 802.11 base station that you are using it with.
When Linksys comes up with a new antenna design, they must test it with every single AP they want it to be legal to use it with. The idea is that you can't accidentally transmit a stronger signal than you're supposed to.
If you are a radio amateur, you can re-classify the gear and use it legitimately, as long as you use no encryption, no swearing, nothing commercial, etc. etc.
However, for most people, and most uses, pringles can antennas are unquestionably illegal to use. They also usually don't work that well - many of them are _directional_, sure, but they're directional because they're weak in most directions, rather than strong in a particular one.
A good antenna would mask the signals behind you and boost the signals in front. Many pringles designs mask the signals behind you but don't amplify the ones in front. That makes them really not very useful.
"They're (Pringles cans fashioned into antennas) unsophisticated but reliable, and it's illegal to possess them,"
That's not strictly accurate, but it contains a grain of truth.
It is an unlawful violation of the FCC regs to USE a cantenna, as it has not been certified for use with any radio broadcast systems.
Violators may be forced to immediately and permanantly cease use of their uncertified system. That is the extent of the possibile penalties.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I hope someone points out the error of his statement in a very public manner, to persuede other law enforcement officials from making uninformed blanket statements like this. Yes, this is a single statement, but the problem is that anyone with a motive or just the urge to bust a user of a cantenna can say "look, the sherriff in such and such place said it's illegal, I can arrest you for it" without even checking the facts. This kinda stuff can carry on long after the first statement was issued, and snowball into a really ugly affair. If you are at all worried about this, do something, make a call, and like I am about to, INFORM him that he was wrong.
Lozito, meet fcc part 15 rules:
Also, cantennas are no better (except in terms of price) than commercially available antennas which are also legal to own and use, provided you use them in accordance with fcc regulations, for instance by not exceeding power and gain limits, and without breaking any other applicable laws.
(disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, or an RF engineer)
I checked up on the task force and sent a request for more information. You can to here: info@sachitechcops.org.
From the looks of their website, they are a loose collection of law enforcement agencies that are using this organization so they can be associated with a group with "High Tech" and "Task Force" in the title
I think this title association was described in a Dilbert book...
I am billdar, and I approve this message.
Same topic with same wording was posted on broadbandreports.com earlier today: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/65821
Channels 1 thru 6 are inside the 2.4Ghz ham radio band. If you have a valid amateur radio license, you have the right to operate with homebrew equipment.
The July 2005 QST magazine has an article about ham expermenting with 24dbi dish antennas and standard off the shelf AP's. They claim 12 miles is easy, but they run into problems with ack timing at longer ranges. Bandwidth rolls off significantly... at 34 miles!
I contacted the officer asking for clarification of his claim:
bani: Er, what exact law makes cantennas illegal? I'd seriously like to know.
bob_lozito: Bad quote.
bani: is there an accurate transcript or recording available?
bob_lozito: Not sure. Either way, it is not illegal and if I inferred it, I was
wrong. I have had so many emails concerning this, it is getting to the
point that I cannot get any work done.
I cannot reply to all of you but am trying to do the best I can.
He admitted he was wrong, maybe we can cut him some slack?
'm sorry, but how can an antenna possibly be illegal? If that were true, then a long piece of wire would now be illegal too.
I am not a specialist, but I vaguely remember that every antenna used for transmission in that range (2.4Ghz included) is supposed to be FCC approved and not modified, much like every electronic device sold in US must pass FCC tests, etc. Even combining two FCC approved antennas or using an approved antenna for a purpose other than what it is tested for, requires a separate approval.
Again, I am no speciallist.
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
While the requirement for unique connectors remains, the regulations for certification of antennas have changed with the new rules introduced in October 2004. These new regulations permit any user to install any antenna that is of the same family or style, and equal or lower gain, than any certified antenna. For example: if a 10-dBi patch antenna is certified for use with a specific WLAN transmitter, any patch antenna with a gain of 10 dBi or less may also be used, regardless of its manufacturer. Or if a Yagi directional antenna with a gain of 13.5 dBi is certified with a transmitter, any Yagi antenna with 13.5 or less gain may be used with that transmitter.
s 469/products_white_paper0900aecd801c4a88.shtml
The FCC staff clarified that under the Communications Act, the FCC has exclusive authority to resolve matters involving RF interference (RFI) when unlicensed devices are being used, regardless of venue. The FCC also affirmed that the rights that consumers have under the FCC rules to install and operate customer antennas one meter or less in size apply to the operation of unlicensed equipment, such as Cisco and Linksys Wi-Fi access points.
This means that local municipalities, cities, or neighborhood groups cannot impose restrictions on installations of 802.11 WLAN products on property controlled by a user, except where public safety is a concern.
From http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/wireless/p
As an extreme example you might consider 'safe' signal levels rather than regulated levels - a high power omnidirectional antenna at some level L might be safe to be around ... but if all that power's concentrated by a dish in the same direction you don't want to get in the way (if you want kids for example) - that's why those satellite uplink dishes have all those warnings on them.
Receiver antennas are unregulated though - it's legal to have a stock wifi transmitting antenna ... but a pringles can receiver - probably not much use unless you have a pringles receiver on both ends though
Title 47, section 151 (Creation of FCC):
:
For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the "Federal Communications Commission", which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter.
Title 47, section 153 (Definitions)
(22) Interstate communication
The term "interstate communication" or "interstate transmission" means communication or transmission
(A) from any State, Territory, or possession of the United States (other than the Canal Zone), or the District of Columbia, to any other State, Territory, or possession of the United States (other than the Canal Zone), or the District of Columbia,
(B) from or to the United States to or from the Canal Zone, insofar as such communication or transmission takes place within the United States, or
(C) between points within the United States but through a foreign country; but shall not, with respect to the provisions of subchapter II of this chapter (other than section 223 of this title), include wire or radio communication between points in the same State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or the District of Columbia, through any place outside thereof, if such communication is regulated by a State commission.
--
Clearly the FCC does not have jurisdiction in matters of intRAstate commerce.
No authority is conferred to it by congress. It is because that is the sole domain of state governments. The consitution LIMITS the powers of the federal government as well as establishes them. In this regard, congress's authority to control intrastate broadcasts is limited.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
The limit for part 15 devices is 1 watt (30 dbm) absolute power or 4 watts (36 dbm) effective radiated power (EIRP). Most wireless cards are around 35 milliwatts (~15 dbm), and are well within the absolute limit. EIRP is measured as transmit power+gain, so a 15 dbm wireless card connected to a 12 dbi cantenna gives us 27 dbm EIRP, about 1/10th the legal EIRP limit. (Note: this is for point-to-multipoint communication. The gain restriction is much looser for point-to-point setups.)
Those who use high power cards (200 milliwatt (~23 dbm) wireless cards are available) may be close to or over the limit, but I doubt they represent a majority of cantenna deployments.
Homemade antennas are permissible according to part 15 section 23 (subject to a few restrictions).
Its not illegal to posess a cantenna! The legality/illegiality happens when you are an unlicensed part 15 user using more than 1watt ERP. The thinking here is this.. An orinoco card is 80mW a cantenna is about 12db gain. So 12x.80 is about 960mW (Still less than 1W) Now if you add cable you induce loss. So you probably only get about 10db gain.. still not illegal.. Now, the FCC does have issue with people experimenting with antennas that aren't tested with the radios so there might be a problem there. Either way, posession of the antenna does not break any laws. Its not like you're carrying around a lock pick set for god sakes!
So whoever wrote the post and the editor missed the point of the article entirely. The article is telling people to secure their wireless networks to prevent unwanted guests accessing your network for nefarious purposes. However, one line was pulled out of the article, saying possessing certain antennae is illegal, when it probably should have said these antennae can be used illegally by breaking the FCC maximum output power requirements for WiFi. The point was to warn people that a person doesn't need to be parked next to your house to access your network, since by using the right equipment, someone can access your network from a long distance. Given all the publicity on /. over security, I'm surprised that an article claiming that people need to lock down their wireless networks is described as "containing panic inducing rhetoric".
Vote for Pedro
How come are so many parts of the spectrum blanked out on my wideband receiver? Yanno.. the FCC made it illegal to buy, trade, sell, or create any receiver capable of receiving certain frequency ranges that cell phones use. Additionally, it is illegal for me to modify my equipment so I can pick it up.
The FCC does tell you what you can listen to on the airwaves, as stupid as it may be.
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/65821
before you spam him into oblivion perhaps give it a second thought:
Several users e-mailed Lt. Bob Lozito to let him know he was dead wrong. You can't broadcast with a Cantenna or you'll violate FCC guidelines, but you can receive signal. Also, there's no law on the books in any state we're aware of that would make owning a makeshift Wi-Fi antenna illegal. "have received several similar emails," says Lozito. "My comment was not accurately quoted," he states.
the Heath Company, approximately 1961, for its brand of oil-filled dummy loads for amateur radio tuning use. Heath is still around. try calling these the "chiptennas" instead, eh?
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Using a cantenna (or indeed, any antenna other than that which the device was certified with, except in certain circumstances) *is* against the law.
It just happens to be administrative law, not legislative law. The FCC regulations are laws regarding transmission of radio frequencies, and it is a violation of such regulations to use a "cantenna" to broadcast as a Part 15 user, which is what you fall under as a consumer with your wifi equipment. If you have a HAM license, you can operate under a different set of regulations, but there are restrictions on what you can do with the radio, and most people don't have such authorization who are using these antennas.
Not to mention it is illegal to connect to someone else's computer network and use its resources without their explicit approval. This legal approval may be automated (software that takes payment or verifies location) or not (you have to talk to the owner) but unless you're given some sort of legal authorization, not just the technical authorization, you're also breaking the law.
So, two things in one there, really.
I'm sorry, but how can an antenna possibly be illegal? If that were true, then a long piece of wire would now be illegal too.
Actually it's my understanding from working with a WISP that the cantenna would be illegal as far as the FCC is concerned.
Our lawyer and the local FCC field people always told us that the entire system had to be certified for Part 15 before it could be used. Even if you build a system out of certified pieces and parts (say an amplifier and an antenna) it's still not Part 15 compliant unless the complete system is certified.
Now of course that doesn't mean that mere possession of such a device would be illegal. But in the eyes of the FCC you could receive a notice of violation if you were to actually use an uncertified system.
Just food for thought.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I don't remember of the top of my head the allowed levels, but it is different for omni and directional antennas. For highly directional antennas you can up the dBi quite a bit.
And in order to stay completely with the letter of FCC regs, you can't pick any antenna and radio you want and do the math to stay below the dBi limit. FCC certification is for a complete system (both antenna and radio) and not for the separate components. If you check the websites for outdoor WISP equipment, you will find that they list the antennas that a certain radio has been certified with.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
IIRC, for 2.4 it works like this:
You cannot _sell_ an antenna to the average joe, unless it is part of a FCC _certified_ system, even if it will remain within the TX-power and EIRP limits. You can, however, sell them to vaguely defined "professionals".
You can _use_ any antenna for _reception_, regardless of it's gain.
You can _use_ any antenna to transmit, as long as you remain within the TXp/EIRP limits. For 2.4ghz, the TX-power limit is 30dBm (1W), but the EIRP limit is a little more complicated.
If your antenna will be communicating with more than one other antenna (Multi-Point), you are limited to 36dBm EIRP (4W), distributed as you see fit between TX-power and antenna gain.
If your antenna will only be communicating with one other antenna, you are allowed 36dBm EIRP + 3dBi of antenna gain for every 1dBm you reduce your TX-power. So, you could use a 30dBm radio + a 6dBi antenna, or a 23dBm (200mW) radio + a 27dBi antenna (about a three foot drum at 2.4).
In the case of consumer grade radios, they almost never excede 200mW (some exceptions do exist), and a cantenna will never excede ~15dBi (at best, that is VERY optimistic). So, you will be in the clear, as long as you don't use it on an AP (Multi-Point), or try to sell it.
That's true for anything mass produced, but there is an exception for homemade devices:
42 cents.
Please... I cant take this much ignorance anymore.
I'm am drowning in technological myths...
I am Federally Licensed Radio Operator certified to administer FCC Amateur licenses. I specialize in antenna design.
Myth
The Cantenna... very aptaly named antenna. Heathkit came up with the name originally... in 1985. It was a dummy load antenna. Purpose to take a signal and not radiate it.
From the ARRL website..."
One antenna worth mentioning (and a bit of fun) was a copy of a design being used to sniff out unsecured wireless LANs on the 2.4 GHz ISM band. This is not an Amateur Radio antenna per se, but when someone mentioned it on a microwave e-mail list, one of the CSVHF members (doubting it could possibly work) decided to follow the instructions and bring it to the antenna range. The antenna is made from a Pringles brand potato chip can with a probe inserted. As anticipated, it did not work well, and in fact is believed to be the worst antenna ever measured on that range."
WORST antenna ever measured on the range....
Hmmmm...
The problem is that you have computer geeks (which I am a 35 year one) doing antenna experiments, without any knowledge to base it on.
Solution... educate yourself and get a Amateur License. It only takes 10 to 15 hours of studying. You then gain the ability to legally
experiment with antennas and transmit at higher power than the consumer grade products.
In fact Ham operators are licensed to use the first few 2.4GHz channels and have priority use over them. The 2.4 Ghz wireless channels extend into the Ham bands on purpose.
This talk about amplifiers and such... totally erroneous. A mere 180 milliwatts with a BBQ dish antenna (24db gain at 40 feet) will span a distance of 20 miles.. And seeing that microwave is mostly a line of site you are not going to gain much by pumping up the signal...
As a Licensed operator I am allowed to add the 24db antenna at 180milliwatts (and more... This arrangement is allowed under Part 95 rules).
Non-licensed people run the risk of running astray of the FCC part 15 rules... and deliberatly be running an unlicensed transmitter setup and risk a fine of $10,000.
Part 15 rules are in place so that equipment manufactured does not interfere with licensed users. Please read that as including Ham radio operators.
The nonstandard antenna jacks on wireless equipment were placed there so consumers could not easily add an antenna of greater gain causing the equipment to fall outside of the part 15 regulations of not interfering with other licensed stations...
Whenever you use an antenna that is not type 15 certified by the FCC you run the risk of a fine.
Is it illegal?... yep... But it is the domain of the FCC to enforce, not local law enforcement. Is it a felony?... nope.. its a civil infraction with a hefty fine. Chance of being caught?... Minuscule. Should you do it?? Licensing only takes 15 hours of study... and then you can do more than contempate the bottom of an empty potato chip can.
Radio technology added to my many years in the computer industry has led to a great synergy of
curiosity and equipment building to my great satisfaction.
Do yourself a favor and get licensed and expand your horizons. I just have to speak up when I see my computer industry compatriots struggling with the small stuff... Ham operators routinely bounce
signals off the moon... so I yawn when some computer geek re-discovers the parabolic dish and spans 15 miles. Ham radio operators have designed and built satellites that are operational for communications for years. There are a whole lot of engineers with licenses...
Wireless is where the intersection of Ham radio and the computer industry meet.
Wanting to understand how I was going to control that 'apparatus' across the way is what made me
become licensed and actually learn how antennas work and what I could do... Once I got here I was happy to discover it all hasnt been done.
Speaking from experience...
TrenchWarrior
Wow, there is a lot of nonsense in this thread.
Anyway, if people are worried about store-bought brand Cantennas (cantenna.com), here is a snipplet of their FAQ:
Is it legal to use your Cantenna?
Yes, our Cantennas and Pigtails have been tested and comply with part 15 of the FCC rules. Make sure other wireless devices that you use also comply. Compliance with FCC regulations is your responsibility. Check with your Internet Service Providers to find out if they permit sharing of their Internet connections.
I use the commercial version after getting tired of the "HAY GUYS IM A HACKER WHO USES DUCT TAPE" look the home-brew version was giving my living room. Anyway, you aren't getting much gain if you don't get the measurments just right, so it was worth the $30.
Just hope your home brew doesn't have something wrong with it's shape. One of my friends got raided a few years ago because the FCC thought he was interfering with the local airport's radio systems. It turns out, the source was a frayed cableTV wire in his living room.
It's probably illegal to use such an antenna, unless you are an amateur radio operator (just need a Tech license, REALLY easy to get).
But possession? It is absurd to say that is illegal. Any metal object can be used as an antenna. I don't think the FCC has any rules whatsoever about wiring up connectors to Pringles cans, unless you then use it to generate unlicensed RF fields.
This cop is clueless. Ignore him.
-John (AE6NK)
Closer to topic reply about illegal combinations of equipment - Illegal to have a CB and a Liner Amplifier capable of operation below 50Mhz. Posession of this combination of equipment is equivalent to having them connected to each other (Illegal per FCC Rules), however for enforcement reasons posession of both togeather is how it is enforced. Think how easy it is to remove a cable between two devices. Rule is ignored by FCC if you posess a valid ham license, or are a bonefide ham radio dealer, as you have a legitimate and seperate reason for both.
Sorry folks, looks like I had bad info. http://www.sachitechcops.org/ Hi-Tech Crimes Task Force 4510 Orange Grove Avenue Sacramento, CA 95841 http://www.sachitechcops.org/news022205.htm Apologies to those who mailed out already.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
The "Antenna Rule," which is 47CFR15.203, states clearly that it is illegal for a manufacturer of a device to even give the user the ability to change the antenna from the original factory unit. SO, while possession of a commercially purchased Cantenna may not be illegal, use of one certainly is under this part. This law only applies to intentional radiators that are required to be certified under Part 15 rules. Furthermore, 47CFR15.23 exempts home-built units for personal use that are not built from a purchased kit or design.
Units built by Amateur Radio operators are further not covered under Part 15 and are instead regulated by 47CFR97.15.
For your reference:
TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION
CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
PART 15_RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents
Subpart C_Intentional Radiators
Sec. 15.203 Antenna requirement.
An intentional radiator shall be designed to ensure that no antenna
other than that furnished by the responsible party shall be used with
the device. The use of a permanently attached antenna or of an antenna
that uses a unique coupling to the intentional radiator shall be
considered sufficient to comply with the provisions of this section. The
manufacturer may design the unit so that a broken antenna can be
replaced by the user, but the use of a standard antenna jack or
electrical connector is prohibited. This requirement does not apply to
carrier current devices or to devices operated under the provisions of
Sec. 15.211, Sec. 15.213, Sec. 15.217, Sec. 15.219, or Sec. 15.221.
Further, this requirement does not apply to intentional radiators that
must be professionally installed, such as perimeter protection systems
and some field disturbance sensors, or to other intentional radiators
which, in accordance with Sec. 15.31(d), must be measured at the
installation site. However, the installer shall be responsible for
ensuring that the proper antenna is employed so that the limits in this
part are not exceeded.
[54 FR 17714, Apr. 25, 1989, as amended at 55 FR 28762, July 13, 1990]
When I first read the headline I scratched my head. Why would a dummy antenna be illegal?
Heathkit sold a dummy antenna (really a 1000w 50ohm resistor in a paint can filled with transformer oil) back in the 60's and 70's for hams to use for testing transmitters without causing interference, the device was called a 'cantenna'. Guess the word now has a new meaning.
BTW since hams also have use of the 2.4ghz band, this new cantenna would be LEGAL for sale and use by hams in this band.