Slashdot Mirror
Software-Defined Radio: the Apple I of Broadcast?
benfrog writes "A company called Per Vices has introduced software-defined radio gear that Ars Technica is comparing to the Apple I. Why? Because software radio can broadcast and receive nearly any radio signal on nearly any frequency at the same time, and thus could 'revolutionize wireless.' The Per Vices Phi is one of the first devices aimed at the mass hobbyist market to take advantage of this technology."
The USRP is really cool, but stupidly expensive. Some really cool stuff is happening with the RTL2832 based TV dongles, though. These are $20 devices that can be used to receive from ~64-1700 MHz (or DC-30ish with a little tweaking). So far, much of the info is here
The USRP would be cool if current PCB layouts and schematics were available or if the development effort went to a system that wasn't just making Ettus a profit. A truly open development platform would really benefit the SDR community.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
The game changer here would be in the Cell Phone industry which can substitute a single radio chip to do all the protocols, wifi, cellular, bluetooth, as well as mix and match them at will. New air protocols could be invented over night without waiting for expensive chip developments. Its a cost reduction path as well as a device longevity path.
Although it sounds wonderful when your cell phone is stuck on CDMA or your Bluetooth lacks all the latest capabilities, there are still problems of having an infinite number of antennas available (yes, we already have software defined antennas) in a small place.
There will still have to be frequency restrictions imposed in the hardware itself because the FCC can't afford to allow Joe Random Programmer bringing down jumbo jets. But within authorized bands the ability to use new methods without waiting for the next chip means that we can build a replacement for entire infrastructures much more quickly, while maintaining existing technology for as long as we need it.
Somewhere in this world there are still 029 card punches in use. I suspect we will keep some of our current stuff long after it should be scrapped.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
gnuradio just wasn't sexy enough, I guess. Not enough like arduino on the tip of everyone's tongue.
The device in TFA is a piece of hardware designed to support gnuradio(it might support other things as well; but a gnuradio interface is explicitly mentioned in the device specs).
Gnuradio is just the software side. Traditionally, the USRP has been the peripheral of choice. Not cheap; but configurable for a wide range of frequencies and probably the most mature. A sound card(with appropriate external circuitry bringing things down to audio frequencies, of course) is also an option, and certain flavors of DVB TV receiver dongles are the new hotness in the cheap seats.
This "Phi" device lacks some of the versatility of the classier USRP gear; but it is cheaper and offers a very fast interface to the host computer...
Unlike 'Arduino', where the term refers more or less interchangeably to both the software development environment and to a variety of atmega-based microcontroller boards, Gnuradio is just the software side. There is no 'gnuradio' hardware per se, as there is with Arduino. The USRP is probably the closest to being that; but it is pricey enough to be out of the hands of a great many hobbyists.
The article mentions GNU Radio, saying that the hardware used with GNU Radio during the "broadcast flag" debate couldn't capture more than 0.1 MHz of spectrum.
This is only legal to Amateur radio operators I believe, as it will not be vetted by the FCC/Ofcom... to broadcast only on the allowed part of the spectrum. From a Ham operators point of view, it's not much difference than a full HF/VHF rig, or a USRP with every possible daughter board installed. The big change is that it's all on one card and it uses PCI-Express for the interface to to the computer.
The whole this will stop the FCC having so much control over the spectrum is totally wrong. They'll have as much control as they currently do which is they can shut down any transmitter in the US if it's not following the licensing terms they set out.
hams have had SDR for a decade more or less. and software-controlled radio back a little longer. and I seem to remember a win95 radio card that slid into an AT slot back in the mid or late 90s...
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I don't know why the sockpuppets are badmouthing the GNU so loudly lately. That ship has sailed. They won. Free(as in freedom) software is legitimate, is a legitimate business model, and is eating the lunch of commercial software in many arenas while chipping away at others. Even the BSDers with their doublespeak about the GPL being "less free" amount to little more than a gigantic pile of butthurt. Maybe you could have made that argument a decade ago, but history has also vindicated the FSF here too.
The FSF and Stallman are like.. Socrates. Principled and unwavering, uncomfortably correct. Their detractors have little recourse but to badmouth them. (Haha communisim, haha dirty bearded hippy.)
Interesting time to talk about Software Defined Radios.
NASA's SCaN Testbed with 3 Software Defined Radios is launching onboard the Japanese HTV-3 Unmanned cargo vehicle in 15 days. (July 21st)
It's an experimental payload that will be bolted to the exterior of the International Space Station and perform communications experiments with the 3 SDR's contained in the payload.
http://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/SOPO/SCO/SCaNTestbed/Payload/
Nice try, but no. At least not in a practical sense and certainly not as a mobile rig.
Software Defined Radios are sweet but still dependent on a Physically Defined Antenna. I can see loads of wonderful uses for a broadband, frequency-agile SDR. Actually, I use them often as a Ham radio operator and they are extremely cool. However, there's still the problem of the pesky antenna. You can fudge quite a bit on a receiving antenna, not so much with a transmitting antenna (or a single transceiver antenna), and the engineers out there are very talented and clever at coming up with better designs... but it always tends to come down to the antenna.
My point is that advances in SDR tech is fantastic, but they're not-- nor do I ever see them becoming-- a magic box. What I think they WILL do is streamline production. One super SDR can be dropped into a number of application-specific boxes.
- Marching Band: It's not just for breakfast anymore
A few of the relevant obstructions in the form FCC regulations and laws are: 47 USC 2.501, 47 USC 302, 47 USC 605, 47 CFR 2.944, 47 CFR 15.3 (dd).
47 CFR 2.944:
Software defined radios.
(a) Manufacturers must take steps to ensure that only software that has been approved with a software defined radio can be loaded into the radio. The software must not allow the user to operate the transmitter with operating frequencies, output power, modulation types or other radio frequency parameters outside those that were approved. Manufacturers may use means including, but not limited to the use of a private network that allows only authenticated users to download software, electronic signatures in software or coding in hardware that is decoded by software to verify that new software can be legally loaded into a device to meet these requirements and must describe the methods in their application for equipment authorization.
(b) Any radio in which the software is designed or expected to be modified by a party other than the manufacturer and would affect the operating parameters of frequency range, modulation type or maximum output power (either radiated or conducted), or the circumstances under which the transmitter operates in accordance with Commission rules, must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section and must be certified as a software defined radio.
(c) Applications for certification of software defined radios must include a high level operational description or flow diagram of the software that controls the radio frequency operating parameters.
[70 FR 23039, May 4, 2005]
The penalty for a violation is forfeiture, a fine of up to $10,000, and up to one year in federal prison. See 47 USC sec. 501 This applies to person who purchase the radios as well as persons who sell them. See 47 USC sec. 500 et. seq.
Various internet sources assert that SDRs are "test equipment" and excluded under 47 CFR 15.3 (dd), which reads:
(dd) Test equipment is defined as equipment that is intended primarily for purposes of performing measurements or scientific investigations. Such equipment includes, but is not limited to, field strength meters, spectrum analyzers, and modulation monitors.
I find it difficult to believe the FCC would classify the various SDRs as test equipment, but we will probably find out soon enough.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/2.944
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/501
Before you downvote me because you don't like the laws; consider this: I posted this information because we must change these laws rather than suffer them.
Er, the Apple I didn't really revolutionize anything. (The Apple II was easily the more influential Apple computer, but even then that was mostly due to VisiCalc.)
Why not "the MITS Altair of broadcast", ars? You know, a computer that had a real influence on the personal computing revolution.
If they just wanted something really early, why not "the Kenbak-1 of broadcast" or "the H8 of broadcast"?
Before everyone accuses me of worshiping at the alter of a dead cult-leader like Roberts, here's what I'm thinking: They picked the Apple I to attract clicks from readers who would otherwise have no interest in software defined radio.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Not really.
There are large blocks of spectrum already set aside for use of personal radio devices. Just about anything goes in those bandwidths, subject only to power limitations and staying inside of the spectrum block.
The FCC is all for this type of use. The FCC is also fully in favor of reallocation spectrum when the situation and demand changes, which is why analog TV is a thing of the past.
There is precedent for this.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
This is a RECEIVER ONLY! The FCC has said that anyone can listen on any frequency.
GENERATION 24: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
Yes, yes it will. You cause issues, FCC gets complaints, it sends in the goon squad to shut you down.
No, the FCC field operations are a joke. They have been for many years. Budget cuts have all but neutered what little FCC field-monitoring & enforcement that did exist. Many of the monitoring facilities have been shut down or turned into unmanned remote-operated stations.
They've typically got two or three men and one or two tracking vans for a multi-State-wide area. They're kept so busy tracking things like interference to first-responder/aircraft/military/commercial broadcast that most stuff gets a report filed and that's about it.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Hopefully this guy won't be mad at the shoutout.
There is a lot of work being done to make GnuRadio in general more accessable
GQRX http://www.oz9aec.net/index.php/gnu-radio/gqrx-sdr
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
It's receive only, and the quality isn't magic by any means; but you can get an RTL2832-based DVB-T dongle for ~$20 and be on your merry way.
(And, indeed, this does seem to have spurred greater interest among people who weren't in for a USRP; but were interested. The fact that SDR involves substantially more nontrivial math than many arduino projects probably limits the mass appeal some, though.)
SDR isn't software controlled, it uses software to define the radio protocol in use. Could be as simple as AM or FM modulation, FSK, Manchester or some really complex frequency hopping madness. The point is that a single highly flexible receiver is connected to a DSP that can then replace any number of specialist radios.
Mobile phones already use it. A DSP can process various network protocols like GSM, CDMA and LTE which in the past would have had dedicated decoding/encoding circuitry for each.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Technical Specifications and Support:
Nope ... RX/TX. If you'd read the article by the way, it should have been clear they wanted a SDR that goes both ways. Of course it doesn't really have an amplifier to speak of, so you can't just hook up an antennae to it and expect to work the world. Especially if you want to output multiple signals in multiple bands, as mentioned in the article, things can get very hairy at the transmission end. By the way, good, distortion free, broadband amplifiers aren't cheap as well and come with their own set of problems.
The idea might be nice, an 'open source' spectrum, and for the receiving end it's all fine and dandy. I'm not a proponent, of security through obfuscation/obscurity, so regulation of waves receiving: Governments, just grow up!
But even at low power conditions, for certain frequencies, you don't want to have transmission capabilities in the wrong hands (read: someone who hasn't at least got a a HAM Radio license. A degree in Electronics, Electromechanics, Physics might suffice as well... if it has covered the correct subjects). Things can turn out very nasty even at low power situations. Things like GPS will stop working, or other satellite signals jammed. Many satellites only transmit at an order of 10-100 watts. The amount of signal left when received on earth is miniscule. A little more power and things like Wifi and RC toys/remote controlls/bluetooth will be affected. Digital broadcasting is next I think... including mobile phones and portophone systems there isn't nearly as much robustness in there as there was with the old analogue signals... As they digitized the signals, they could cut bandwith and power requirements... Nice for energy savings and miniaturization of systems but it does mean it can be jammed easier, even if there is overhead in the protocol for error correction. Well .. you'll get the picture.
While I agree this sounds like a better deal for radio enthousiasts than the Ettus USRP and I'll be itching to get my hands on one of these, color me sceptic about the whole low power broadband broadcast 4 noobs vibe the Per Vices founders seem to transmit.
73. PG8W.
Cell company lobbyists and congress drones apparently thought that you can keep the radio communication equivalent of shouting across a quiet room private by, instead of encrypting the communication, passing laws that make it illegal to notice.
I'm not sure that the FCC or ITU had any part in it, however it seems likely that at least ITU would have been involved....
The remaining question is whether we'll see the law rolled back now that it's been obviated by encryption (or at least CDMA spread spectrum), and is so obviously useless - the only way to detect if someone is listing is to yourself be listening in enough places to measure the shadow created by their receiving equipment or the extremely low-power emission of interference frequencies, assuming that they're using that method of demodulation, equipment capable of receiving the old AM cell phone transmissions can be made in an afternoon using readily available components.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
One thing to note that I haven't seen mentioned yet is that this goes a long way towards making secure & encrypted tactical radio communications much, much more do-able and affordable for private citizens. A capability that's up till now largely been restricted to LEAs and the military.
This unit's flexibility make setting up frequency/band-hopping and encryption relatively easy. This capability in civilian hands is sure to be disliked by US TLAs and police.
It makes me wonder whether the government will attempt to outlaw certain programs and/or regulate what software is "legal" to have loaded in such a device, and/or require device capabilities be hardware-crippled/restricted to be legally sold.
After all, according to the government, it's right and proper that the government conceal it's communications and activities from the citizens, but citizens may certainly not be allowed to communicate securely without the government being able to monitor if they wish.
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the RTLSDR yet. A $15 DVB-T Tuner than can tune from ~70MHz to 1700MHz. Maximum bandwidth is about 2MHz. It has poor dynamic range (8 bit ADC), but for receiving strong signals it's awesome. There is a source block for gnuradio, and some nice tuners for windows (HDSDR, sdrsharp, ..).
Lots of cool stuff to do. For instance I've successfully received MODE-S transponder replies from airplanes as far away as 200km with the stock antenna.
Tuning to FM radio, portable mobile radios, DECT, GSM, Exploring the spectrum, ..
Of course it cannot compare to an USRP or this new Phi, but it's very cheap and is perfect for getting started, and does not require a HAM license.
check here : http://sdr.osmocom.org/trac/wiki/rtl-sdr
Yes, there are many HAMs around working on custom SDRs. HPSDR is one I have some exposure to. It handles RX/TX and comes with open schematics. There are some HAMs doing some really cool stuff with it.
Of course, if you fuck with a cellular network or a broadcast operators ST links, they WILL jump in their van/helicopter and track down your transmitter, and when they do, they will file all the documentation with the FCC, then all the FCC agent has to do is serve the warrant.
At least that is how things work in my third-world country (New Zealand). The big networks police their own spectrum, and the MED receive notice of interference and intervene. It would greatly surprise me if the FCC ignored an interference report with complete field testing data.
I was an active US Amateur Radio Service operator ("Ham") for many years as well as being a professional RF/radio communications/avionics/military systems and general electronics technician for about four decades, so I have some idea of which I speak.
There's an FCC monitoring station about 20 minutes away that has three guys and two vans, because one van is usually being fixed. At least, that's how it has been for many, many years, unless DHS, FCC, or somebody gave them a much bigger budget in recent years and I hadn't heard. They cover this state and portions of three others. This state alone is only about ~6,000 sq. miles less area than all of New Zealand. For "three men and a truck". You have to be quite a "sore thumb" to attract their attentions.
Ask US CB'ers (yes, there are still some left) how much of a real threat the FCC is. I'd wager more than half of CB'ers are operating in violation with things like transmitter linear power amplifiers ("footwarmers" or "kickers") boosting the CB transmitter from 4 watts to hundreds, even thousands of watts, "out-of-band" frequency transmission capability, etc. Take-downs are extremely rare, and were even at the height of the "CB craze".
Unless multiple serious complaints of interference with public and commercial services are received, not much if anything will be done outside of possibly receiving a warning letter. If continued complaints are received and you've failed to respond to the warnings, then, your case may get put into the hopper for a mobile monitoring visit. Which, naturally, may easily be three or more months, depending. Unless the violation is of a nature that doesn't require a mobile unit dispatched, where you'll likely receive a summons and/or a warrant delivered by a Federal Marshall, with possibility of arrest and equipment seizure.
Of course, if you're interfering with aircraft/police/fire/military/cell services creating a public safety hazard and endangering lives, resources will be "reallocated" to find and shut you down ASAP. Interfering with AM/FM broadcast stations and OTA TV (like running a pirate station) will also get you on an enhanced-priority list.
They've got a LOT on their plate for the manpower they've got, to put it mildly, so as long as you're not being a complete ass, not causing good people problems and endangering lives, and not attracting attention to yourself, they've got bigger fish to fry.
Now, let me qualify my statements about US FCC attitudes, in that my comments were based upon ~15+ yr-old conversations I've had with field personnel, not FCC Administration officials, and do not reflect (I'm sure) the Administration's attitudes, policies, or official practices and procedures.
But of course the one saving grace is that most of those types of field personnel at the monitoring stations and in the vans are geeks and nerds as well, and probably ham operators too. Most of these guys (not all, sadly) "get it". As usual, it's the suits that are the problem, not the guy wearing a pocket-protector with a field-strength meter in his hand.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.