Slashdot Mirror


FCC Orders a Brooklyn Man To Turn Off His Bitcoin Miner Because It Was Interfering With T-Mobile's Wireless Network (arstechnica.com)

A New York City resident was ordered to turn off his bitcoin miner after the Federal Communications Commission discovered that it was interfering with T-Mobile's wireless network. From a report: After receiving a complaint from T-Mobile about interference to its 700MHz LTE network in Brooklyn, New York, FCC agents in November 2017 determined that radio emissions in the 700MHz band were coming from the residence of a man named Victor Rosario. "When the interfering device was turned off the interference ceased," the FCC's enforcement bureau told Rosario in a "Notification of Harmful Interference" yesterday. "You identified the device as an Antminer S5 Bitcoin Miner. The device was generating spurious emissions on frequencies assigned to T-Mobile's broadband network and causing harmful interference." The FCC told Rosario that continued interference with T-Mobile's network while operating the device would be a violation of federal laws "and could subject the operator to severe penalties, including, but not limited to, substantial monetary fines, in rem arrest action to seize the offending radio equipment, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment."

207 comments

  1. Fear uncle Charlie by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    This dude had better move his miner, or the FCC might send him another harshly worded letter.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Harshly worded letter? They'll fine him $10,000 and then seize the equipment and destroy it. Don't mess with the FCC where interference is concerned, he's lucky they gave him a warning instead of just outright fining him because they could have just hit him with the $10k fine and seized the equipment on the first contact.

    2. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by bobbied · · Score: 1

      This dude had better move his miner, or the FCC might send him another harshly worded letter.

      No, actually the next letter from the FCC would likely be a NAL...(Notice of Apparent Liability) Which amounts to a fine which can run thousands of dollars a day. Although, what they would likely do is knock on his door and ask to inspect the premises and explain to those present their responsibility to fix the problem before resorting to the official fine.

      IF you are running a part-15 device, you get to fix any interference problems your device causes at your expense and the FCC can issue you fines.

      Of course, the FCC doesn't have it's own police force and has to depend on local law enforcement and the US Marshal's service to actually confiscate equipment or force collections of their fines. So, if you are clever, you can drag this out for a very long time. One case I know of went on almost 2 decades before the FCC finally got the guy off the air and I don't think they ever collected the fines before the guy died.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Informative

      You have obviously never filed an interference complaint with the FCC

      I used to be able to hear my neighbors shitty CB radio plus linear through my landline, TV, radio and microwave oven.

      I eventually put a pin through his coax, which apparently burned out his linear. Ha Ha!

      Uncle Charlie is useless and basically toothless. They only wrote the letter because TMobile was involved. Unless you have a HAM licence to protect you can, more or less, ignore them.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2

      This, you really don't ever want to fuck with the FCC - they only even enforce things that are actual problems and this is down-right generous on their part compared to all the stories I've heard. They have a legitimate function and take it very seriously. The closest anyone ever came to successfully transgressing was that time the satellite internet+radio guys tried to buy politicians to use the GPS spectrum, until a general put a stop to it saying "no, this would break all our shit and leave us defenseless" and the company subsequently went under.

    5. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Harshly worded letter? They'll fine him $10,000 and then seize the equipment and destroy it. Don't mess with the FCC where interference is concerned, he's lucky they gave him a warning instead of just outright fining him because they could have just hit him with the $10k fine and seized the equipment on the first contact.

      What ever happened to that requirement to "accept RF interference" without causing improper operation?

      Doesn't his equipment have the "right" to spew anything it wants, at any frequency it wants, as long as the radiated power is below 100 mW?

    6. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Informative

      All the devices you list are part 15, they are required to accept all interference and that guy on the CB is protected unless you can show he's interfering with protected services. That 700mhz band in the story, it's a protected band and subject to the interference rules.

    7. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Wow, what a complete mis-reading of part 15.

      There is NO such requirement as 'accept interference without causing improper operation'. That statement is not a technical requirment, it is a regulatory one. What it means is 'as this is an unlicensed device, you have no regulatory recourse for any and all interference, including that which causes unwanted operation'.

      The second part is 'must not CAUSE interference' which means that if the device causes interference, regardless of the reason, you must stop using it.

    8. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You misunderstand the actual power of the FCC. Their threats are NOT empty. They have the power to levy fines, have right of entry powers, etc. They don't give a fly fuck about two CB channels cross talking... but fuck with spectrum that's being used by a commercial or governmental entity and they'll drop a fucking hammer on your head.

      I was once involved with a college radio station and due to an equipment malfunction (our attenuator failed) we were accidentally transmitting at a much higher power than we should have... the FCC showed up at a campus, exercised their right of entry, disconnected our receiver and then changed the locks. Needless to say, it was a fluckercluck.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    9. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by hjf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      pretty sure TV is a protected service and interfering with it will get you in trouble.

    10. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by bws111 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It depends. If the transmitter is actually radiating on the TV channels frequency, then yes, the transmitter can be fined. However, if the problem is that his TV, telephone, and everything else are picking up legally transmitted signals then it is HIS problem.

    11. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Trogre · · Score: 2

      You could hear it through your microwave oven?

      Please, tell us more.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    12. Re: Fear uncle Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pretty sure TV is a protected service and interfering with it will get you in trouble.

      For fucks sake, 'part 15' was stated in the post you are responding to.

      Read it before you give us any more 'pretty sure's.

    13. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by farble1670 · · Score: 2

      I eventually put a pin through his coax, which apparently burned out his linear. Ha Ha!

      And you're a psychopath. Have fun with that. Ha ha!

    14. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A television is a device, the broadcast is the service, and regulations reserve a certain frequency ranges for broadcasting. CBs don't use those frequencies, and interfering with your device if it picks up frequencies outside the range it should (very common problem) is not the CB users problem.

    15. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at it this way, The antminer is a legally acquired cell jammer.

    16. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may not have gotten anywhere in your complaint, but you're not a multi-billion dollar company with wide ranging government connections and teams of lawyers. Unfortunately it is a realty, even today, that "those who have the gold make the rules".

    17. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I eventually put a pin through his coax, which apparently burned out his linear. Ha Ha!

      I, too, love to chuckle about committing felonies (depending on the price of his amp) based on my complete misunderstanding of regulations and my rights and responsibilities under them. Hee hee, ho ho!

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    18. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Wow, what a complete mis-reading of part 15.

      There is NO such requirement as 'accept interference without causing improper operation'. That statement is not a technical requirment, it is a regulatory one. What it means is 'as this is an unlicensed device, you have no regulatory recourse for any and all interference, including that which causes unwanted operation'.

      The second part is 'must not CAUSE interference' which means that if the device causes interference, regardless of the reason, you must stop using it.

      Thanks for the clarification!

    19. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by mysidia · · Score: 1

      he's lucky they gave him a warning instead of just outright fining him because they could have just hit him with the $10k fine and seized the equipment

      Nope.... contrary to your ideas --- An In Rem proceeding is harder than that for the FCC -- requires some proof of a willful crime, and except in an "emergency" or if Public Safety is affected (Such as Fire or Police radio frequencies - to which the FCC has a response within 24 hours, Versus 5 to 10 days for interference to commercial services) subject to a bureaucratic process including opportunity for appeals they have to go through before they can go in and start seizing stuff.

      Only WILLFUL or negligent interference subjects you to the possibility of a fine. The guy had no idea his unintentional radiator was interfering, Therefore they cannot fine him, but Now he's on notice to cease operating it immediately and for an indefinite duration until he verifies the problem has been fixed.

    20. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      that guy on the CB is protected unless you can show he's interfering with protected services

      His linear is a violation.

    21. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by mysidia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I used to be able to hear my neighbors shitty CB radio plus linear through my landline, TV, radio and microwave oven.

      The FCC has very limited resources to investigate interference complaints, so RESIDENTIAL users generally go by the wayside.
      Until they start interfering with a commercial radio service or public safety, at which point the FCC prioritizes a reponse --- i've heard the people who work for that agency say they try to have all complaints from businesses addressed within 10 days or less, and for public safety the time frame is 24 hours.

      So if someone's pumping out CB with an Illegal 1Kilowatt amplifier; pinning the coax doesn't sound too unreasonable -- CB users are not legally to be using ANY kind of amplifiers anyways - the FCC generally just isn't there to quickly solve your personal RF woes caused by a neighbor anymore, unless they're making trouble for many people...

      Unless you have a HAM licence to protect you can, more or less, ignore them.

      Um... your license, If you have one, isn't even at risk, unless you have a bad history or refuse to cooperate with them and
      allow station inspections or were being ridiculously negligent or doing deliberately doing something very bad like out-of-band
      emissions, emitting an excessive wattage at ground levels, or failing to suppress harmonics...

      Most cases of "interference" are just people using cheap electronics, TVs, Phones, etc which are inadequately shielded ---
      in this case, the legal responsibility is for the people suffering interference to buy equipment of good design, instead.

    22. Re: Fear uncle Charlie by kenh · · Score: 1

      ...that guy on the CB is protected unless you can show he's interfering with protected services or running an illegal amplifier.

      FTFY

      Running an external amp is illegal on CB radios.

      --
      Ken
    23. Re: Fear uncle Charlie by kenh · · Score: 1

      the FCC showed up at a campus, exercised their right of entry, disconnected our receiver and then changed the locks. Needless to say, it was a fluckercluck.

      I suspect they disconnected your transmitter, not the receiver...

      --
      Ken
    24. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by mikael · · Score: 2

      At least he would be able to afford to pay the fine.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    25. Re: Fear uncle Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Running an external amp is illegal on krypto kurrency mining rigs.

      FTFY

    26. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      pretty sure TV is a protected service and interfering with it will get you in trouble.

      TV is not a protected service. Specific bands are, but you will find very rarely that the bands are actually blocked and rather the TV is not coping with generic other interference. e.g. Your TV may not work (part 15), but if they come with a spectrum analyser and don't see noise on the frequency they tried to tune then the CB transmitter is in the all clear.

      Some devices are really sensitive to receiver desensitization.

    27. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea- my understanding of it is the FCC has no real teeth when it comes to enforcement. They "fine" you, but can't collect without a court order and so they'd have to take you to trial. Apparently there has never been a trial involving illegal pirate radio broadcasts and it is my belief the reason for this is that they don't want to take it to court as the fine can be challenged on free speech grounds. We have had numerous pirate radio stations in Keene, New Hampshire and unfortunately while we keep putting em up and they keep "shutting us down" nobody has wanted to fight em properly. The reality is that they'll likely keep sending letters and not much will come of it in practice particularly if you don't play ball and prepare yourself for the fight.

    28. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your information sounds a bit suspect. My understanding is they can fine you, but the threats are mostly hollow. Maybe it's different for something like this- but in the case of pirate radio we've had numerous pirate radio stations in Keene, New Hampshire and never has there been a real problem. When one gets "shut down" it's at most a threatening letter and maybe they'll show up at your door. To enter they should have to get a warrant. Then once they fine you they have no power of collection. To collect they have to take you to court and you end up with a trial. The trail then opens the door to a freedom of expression argument which from what I understand the FCC won't let happen because they are afraid of losing. We've never been able to identify a single individual whose been taking to court over an FCC fine that wasn't paid. Ultimately it appears the easiest solution to the letters are shut down and move your pirate station if they keep pushing things. We've had 24/7 pirate radio stations in Keene, New Hampshire shut down many many times. Nothing has ever come of it. Keene, New Hampshire is at the heart of the biggest libertarian activist community in the world. If you would prioritize freedom over safety New Hampshire is the place to be as we're successfully challenging laws, curtailing further abuse, and passing laws to protect the rights of the people when the US Supreme Court fucks us. We have eliminated for instance the authority of the banking department to regulate businesses involved in crypto. We have undone US Supreme Court rulings that let governments enter your home without a warrant for "safety" (like for inspections or tax purposes). We have introduced bills to end the widespread abuse of peoples constitutionally protected freedom of travel. The US Supreme Court justices violated there oath to uphold the constitution and has enabled law enforcement to conduct DUI checkpoints. Yes- NAZI like checkpoints that are then abused and used as general purpose stops to cite people for trivial unrelated things and similar. So now we have introduced a bill after years of protests and hundreds of regular protests at checkpoints across New Hampshire to end this in New Hampshire. But this isn't just New Hampshire and is happening across the United States. The Free State Project is a migration of freedom loving people to a single region for the purpose of erecting a last bastion of freedom in the world. Spread out we can't achieve and haven't achieved shit. Together freedom minded people have been accomplishing a lot (at least here in New Hampshire because of the thousands of people who have moved and the 20+ thousand more working on moving).

    29. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I eventually put a pin through his coax, which apparently burned out his linear. Ha Ha!

      I, too, love to chuckle about committing felonies (depending on the price of his amp) based on my complete misunderstanding of regulations and my rights and responsibilities under them. Hee hee, ho ho!

      A linear amplifier is illegal on CB radios. And I've heard them bleed through all sorts of things (although not a microwave, but I wouldn't doubt it).
      I can see why he'd eventually take the law in his own hands, since it was probably incredibly irritating to not be able to watch TV or use a computer without some asshole's voice blare out every couple of minutes.

    30. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      picking up legally transmitted signals

      There's the rub. If CB'er was using a linear amplifier, he was running above the legally permitted maximum power. That's what makes him illegal.

    31. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Faraday. Paging Mr. Faraday.

    32. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wtf? He's clearly *causing* interference under p15 you stupid hunk of flavorful cuntcheese.

    33. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand the usage of the word 'linear'.

    34. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now playing on the Discovery Channel: "And here we see the wild HornWumpus in his natural environment. Typically a docile creature, but when provoked can attack under cover of darkness. In daylight the creature is often observed being smugly ignorant."

    35. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably the rate that the ASIC was clocked at, was at the right frequency to ride on top of the power going to the electric motor of the microwave turntable motor. That would generate some additional sound due to the speed variation of the motor. There is usually a large rubber ring used to step down the rotation speed of the motor to the turntable wheel.

      There was spyware for desktop and laptop PC's which could adjust the speed of cooling fan motors so that digitial information could be encoded like an old-fashioned accoustic modems. There were also electronic musical instruments called Leslie speakers that used a spinning loudspeaker to emulate church organs.

    36. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      Apparently, the Free State Project has also eliminated paragraphs.

    37. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You could hear it through your microwave oven?
      > Please, tell us more.

      The japs actually made an anime about that story, it's titled Stein's Gate.

    38. Re: Fear uncle Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not always, but there are definitely power limits, that many, but not all equipment are factory set for.

    39. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by mysidia · · Score: 1

      All the devices you list are part 15, they are required to accept all interference and that guy on the CB is protected unless you can show he's interfering with protected services.

      The Part 15 devices are only required to handle unintentional interference from a Legal transmitter creating emissions that are entirely within the allocation of that service --- although transmitting for the purpose of deliberate interference against a Part15 device is still illegal even by a licensed user, and the FCC can investigate a case and impose time-of-day usage restrictions on the CB user over reported interference being caused by their station to the OTA signal being received by neighbors' commercial Televisions of good design. The CB service is licensed by rule and has a strict 5 watts peak envelope power limit, and a rule against trying to contact another station more than 100 miles away. Because the CB guy was using a Linear Amplifier ---- which is illegal to use with the CB service (There are No amplifiers approved for use with the CB service, and they're specifically prohibited) -- he would have been exceeding the 5 Watts PEP, thus his transmissions were out of the scope of the CB license, and therefore unlawful transmissions ---- continued interference from an unlawful transmissions is ultimately something FCC enforcement department is supposed to deal with.

      There's no way a 5 Watt PEP transmission would be heard on the TV, the Microwave, and the Telephone, unless they were within about 10 feet.

    40. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by mysidia · · Score: 1

      It depends. If the transmitter is actually radiating on the TV channels frequency, then yes, the transmitter can be fined.

      ALL transmitters also emit harmonics of the intended signal which lawful stations are required to attenuate below a certain level, and many receivers have lower selectivity. If the transmitter was radiating at a Power level exceeding the 5 Watt power limit defined by the FCC for the CB service, then
      the transmitter was making unauthorized emissions and can be fined.

      Also, a CB using a cheap Illegal linear amplifier is likely putting out a bunch of harmonics at high power also, so if they're a frequent emitter -- it's only a matter of time before someone notices something more important than the neighbor's TV is affected.

    41. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      The Bitcoin mining rig was an unintentional radiator - that is, something that does not have the purpose of transmitting RF. They responded normally for a problem with that type of device. It should be possible to modify the mining device so it does not create harmful interference.

      Immediate confiscation and fines are usually reserved for intentional radiators - radio transmitters and jammers that transmit on the frequency of the service that is experiencing the interference. Those obviously cannot be modified to eliminate the harmful interference.

    42. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      If a federal judge steps in, US Marshals will come and seize his property and arrest him.

      He had better shut it down or put it in a Faraday cage.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    43. Re:Fear uncle Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy Fascist Wall of Text, Batman.

  2. Mr. Tinfoil by MikeDataLink · · Score: 1, Troll

    This machine was highly modified. They guy is also a tinfoil hat type who thought he was creating free energy with his modifications.

    --
    Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    1. Re:Mr. Tinfoil by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Funny

      If the miner had its own tinfoil hat, there wouldn't have been any interference!

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:Mr. Tinfoil by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2

      He is from Brooklyn. How would he fit that tinfoil hat over his man-bun?

    3. Re:Mr. Tinfoil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you 'highly modify' ASIC's? Bump their voltage levels or change crystal frequency? Neither of those sounds very 'highly modified'

    4. Re:Mr. Tinfoil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who the fuck has a man-bun in brooklyn?!?

    5. Re:Mr. Tinfoil by sinij · · Score: 3, Informative

      If the miner had its own tinfoil hat, there wouldn't have been any interference!

      Only if it was grounded.

    6. Re:Mr. Tinfoil by sycodon · · Score: 1

      So he really needs a tinfoil box.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    7. Re:Mr. Tinfoil by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1
      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    8. Re:Mr. Tinfoil by Jamu · · Score: 2

      Take them out of the metal shielding?

      --
      Who ordered that?
    9. Re:Mr. Tinfoil by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What you want here isn't just a shield, it's a choke - the emission was probably via the power supply cable.

    10. Re:Mr. Tinfoil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Miner In question didn't pay me for vjing a night at a high end club down in miami.

    11. Re:Mr. Tinfoil by Hetero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately, you will probably be modded down as troll or something while "sinij" is modded from +4 to +5 on his wrong answer. CORRECT on your part. Conducted emissions are always half the battle and generally easy to handle with EMI suppressors.

    12. Re:Mr. Tinfoil by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      A faraday cage works regardless of grounding ... troll.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    13. Re:Mr. Tinfoil by Megol · · Score: 1

      Don't know why people think this is informative - because it's wrong. If the device was properly shielded it wouldn't cause interference.

    14. Re:Mr. Tinfoil by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Clearly, I'm not expert, but...

      That's always seemed dubious to me. That an aluminum foil box would decrease signal strength significantly is plausible, but wouldn't the corners act as antennas? Perhaps, though, it's just my idea of the shape that's wrong. If you shape it like a cylinder or sphere I wouldn't think you'd get that effect.

      OTOH, an earlier post indicated that most probably the problem is with failed joins between separate sheets of aluminum foil, and that seems even more likely.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    15. Re:Mr. Tinfoil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A faraday cage works regardless of grounding ... troll.

      Not for transmitters. Not when transmitter puts energy into cage and it becomes the antenna. Grounding out cage puts the energy into earth instead of air.

      If you don't believe me go outside pull the ground wire from the ground block and isolate shield of coax going to your cable modem. Come back and post all about how your Internet still works without going bonkers.

    16. Re:Mr. Tinfoil by Hetero · · Score: 1

      Did all of Slashdot take stupid pills today?

      Try running that through a simulator and tell me what the S11 is.

    17. Re:Mr. Tinfoil by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

      The Brooklyn Ruby Users Group

    18. Re:Mr. Tinfoil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > A faraday cage works regardless of grounding ... troll.

      Bzzzt! Wrong, but thanks for playing.

      A Faraday cage without grounding prevents radiation from entering it (shields the inside from the outside). It is, however, useless in preventing radiation originating inside from leaving it. Only a grounded Faraday cage shields the outside from the inside.

    19. Re:Mr. Tinfoil by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Never heard of reciprocity, have you?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  3. Doing their job by HiThere · · Score: 0

    It's good to hear of the FCC doing their job for a change.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    1. Re:Doing their job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know right? You half expect Pai to check his bank statements before he makes any decision on who is interfering with whom.

    2. Re:Doing their job by nwf · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I know right? You half expect Pai to check his bank statements before he makes any decision on who is interfering with whom.

      How do you know he didn't? Sort of sounds like T-Mobile pays the FCC for spectrum and this guy doesn't.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    3. Re:Doing their job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool. A Blind Hared of Pai post that adds nothing to the conversation.

    4. Re:Doing their job by mi · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because this — policing spectrum — is their job. Note, they didn't tell him, he must spend equal amounts of electricity mining all cryptocurrencies...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  4. No FCC ID by The+Raven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How much you want to bet that the Antminer S5 has no FCC ID, because they never bothered to get one.

    He could turn it back on, he just needs to put his miner inside a faraday cage of some kind.

    --
    "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    1. Re:No FCC ID by stooo · · Score: 1

      Why should it ? It doesn't have a transmitter.

      --
      aaaaaaa
    2. Re:No FCC ID by BenFranske · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pretty much all commercially sold electronic equipment needs to be FCC certified for sale in the US specifically because they can cause interference like this. See https://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/rfd... specifically the sections on unintentional and incidental radiators.

    3. Re:No FCC ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All computing devices are required to, because computers, unintentionally, generate radio waves.

      Typically, they must be FCC Class B.

    4. Re:No FCC ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just about everything emits broad-spectrum, just most objects are pretty quiet. For example, the radio astronomers at Green Bank WV had issues with the construction of their new telescopes in the late 1990s, because the spark plugs in the trucks of the construction workers coming into the site emitted enough radio that the other dishes would pick it up as they drove by. It doesn't have to have an antenna.

    5. Re:No FCC ID by bobbied · · Score: 1

      IF you operate a device that radiates RF, you are subject to FCC regulation. Usually part 15. Computers radiate lots of RF.

      Part 15 devices cannot interfere with any licensed service. So this guy's computer draws the foul from the FCC and will get fined if he doesn't fix it.

      A metal box would be a great solution..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:No FCC ID by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      And yet it transmits.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    7. Re:No FCC ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any time a current is flowing through a wire, it is generating an electromagnetic field. If the field is varying at 700MHz it is broadcasting (more or less) on the 700MHz band. It probably isn't a problem until you have 1000+ devices transmitting this signal in close enough proximity for the broadcast to resonate and increase the overall range.

      As many have pointed out, a faraday cage would kill the broadcast to the outside world. I would hope he makes contact with T-Mobile to ensure whatever solution he comes up with will keep him mining without needing to relocate/ get fined by the FCC.

    8. Re:No FCC ID by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      He could turn it back on, he just needs to put his miner inside a faraday cage of some kind.

      Like, inside a jail cell, in a federal prison . . . ?

      It boggles my mind how much electricity we are wasting on these cryptocoins. I mean, it's not like the miners are actually producing something that will be physically there afterwards.

      The electricity is all just more or less going up in smoke. But, if folks want to speculate with smoke, why not sell them some . . . ?

      "Would you like some mirrors as a side order for your smoke, sir . . . ?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    9. Re:No FCC ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not "pretty much all". ALL.

    10. Re: No FCC ID by jo7hs2 · · Score: 2

      Indeed. They actually have to use diesel vehicles only within a certain area at the observatory for that reason.

    11. Re:No FCC ID by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Why should it ? It doesn't have a transmitter.

      Actually, it does. It's called an "unintentional radiator" under Part 15 of the FCC regulations, and like any other device with fast switching, it spews noise all over the radio spectrum. This could be resolved with a metal case and proper bypassing of signals on cables where they enter the enclosure. But they don't care enough to do that.

    12. Re: No FCC ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much all commercially sold electronic equipment needs to be FCC certified for sale in the US specifically because they can cause interference like this. See https://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/rfd... specifically the sections on unintentional and incidental radiators.

      I just read that, and it clearly states that only intentional transmitters, ie, wireless communication devices, need to receive FCC certification.

      The sections on incidental and unintentional radiators clearly state that no FCC authorization is required.

      So thanks for posting it, but it completely contradicts what you claim.

    13. Re: No FCC ID by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Indeed. They actually have to use diesel vehicles only within a certain area at the observatory for that reason.

      I presume they use only mechanical diesels with generators, not alternators? Because modern diesels have solenoid fuel injectors. That would restrict you to early-nineties American trucks, or early-eighties Mercedes cars... And you'd still have to retrofit a generator.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re: No FCC ID by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I rather clearly remember that personal computers used to need FCC certifications (part B I think) to certify that they didn't produce interference. OTOH, this is back in the days of the Apple ][+, and the rules may have changed. Just for drill I checked a fluorescent lamp beside my desk, and it didn't have any FCC sticker, though it could clearly be a source of interference.

      So maybe the rules have changed, or perhaps it has to do with interpretation. (I don't remember any florescent lamps with an FCC certification, but this is the first time I've looked. I *know* defective ballasts can cause interference.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    15. Re:No FCC ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It boggles my mind how much electricity we are wasting on these cryptocoins. I mean, it's not like the miners are actually producing something that will be physically there afterwards.

      What about all the electricity wasted watching TV? Playing video games?
      Imagine how much energy it takes to transmit from a TV or radio tower? What about cell phones and more importantly the services supporting them?
      But why stop there, people are also using electricity to create artificial light even though we have a perfectly good sun in the sky?

    16. Re: No FCC ID by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 1

      The main issue is that "spark gap transmitter". Apparently they have more modern diesel vehicles too. The radiation from injectors etc is not so much of a problem.

      It reminds me of a VW ad. They are the sponsor of a big radio telescope in Germany.

      They show a radio telescope and a researcher picking up an interesting signal in the early evening. Next day, they point it at the same place, it shows the same so it is escalated to telescope managent. The next day, they see the same signal at approximately the same time with various levels of brass.

      The researcher who first saw the signal is pushed to the outside and happens to see from the control room one of the admin people using a remote key to get into her VW diesel car.

    17. Re:No FCC ID by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Watching television and playing video games are values in their own right, bringing entertainment to the user. They are the end products.

      Cryptocurrency is not an end product, it is a sham pretending to replace real money. It adds nothing of value to humanity.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  5. Meh. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 4, Informative

    The letter states he can operate it if he fixes the interference. TFS makes it sound like the FCC won't let him mine bitcoin at all.

    1. Re:Meh. by pr0t0 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I was wondering why not just surround the thing in a small Faraday cage and call it a day.

      --
      I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    2. Re:Meh. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

      But what if he wants to call his Faraday cage something else than "a day"?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wooden leg named smith ... wooden leg named smith ... wooden leg named ......

    4. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they have to cast it as some stupid Anti-Trump trope, as usual.

    5. Re:Meh. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Informative

      Faraday cages aren't magic interference stoppers. The emission here was most likely via the power supply cables (or, less likely, data), and those would have to pass through the cage.

      Here's how you fix it:
      1. Read an article on noise surpression, choke design, capacitive coupling in inductors, choke self-resonance and core material selection.
      2. Go ask your nearest ham to build you a noise filter.

    6. Re:Meh. by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Faraday cages aren't magic interference stoppers. The emission here was most likely via the power supply cables (or, less likely, data), and those would have to pass through the cage.

      Here's how you fix it:
      1. Read an article on noise surpression, choke design, capacitive coupling in inductors, choke self-resonance and core material selection.
      2. Go ask your nearest ham to build you a noise filter.

      Back through a SMPS? Those things generally have ferrite rings and fairly hefty inductors in the power supply. And besides, the SMPS is chopping everything up into little pieces anyway; so I kind of doubt it is RF reflected back onto the power line.

    7. Re:Meh. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      and the primary and secondary of a smps are generally capacitively coupled.
      If the common mode choke on the input isn't enough to stop the EMI, it will go straight through. They're generally only big enough to stop the power supply itself from causing too much conducted EMI.

    8. Re:Meh. by Junior+Samples · · Score: 2

      Power Supplies generally won't radiate at 700 MHz. Most power supplies that I've worked with don't radiate much above 30 MHz.

      The GPU is probably the culprit. A Faraday cage should do the job, but every wire entering or leaving the enclosure needs to be EMI filtered.

    9. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha upvoted good sir!

    10. Re:Meh. by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      Eh, either way it's not that hard. Buy a metal pet cage or garbage can and snap a ferrite bead on the power cable and network cable.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    11. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What GPU? TFA says Antminer S5

    12. Re:Meh. by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      and the primary and secondary of a smps are generally capacitively coupled.
      If the common mode choke on the input isn't enough to stop the EMI, it will go straight through. They're generally only big enough to stop the power supply itself from causing too much conducted EMI.

      Ok, perhaps. But then, what about those magic Ferrite Rings?

    13. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No surprise since filtering is the first thing the chinese cut out from PSU designs

    14. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Faraday cages aren't magic interference stoppers. The emission here was most likely via the power supply cables (or, less likely, data), and those would have to pass through the cage.

      Here's how you fix it:
      1. Read an article on noise surpression, choke design, capacitive coupling in inductors, choke self-resonance and core material selection.
      2. Go ask your nearest ham to build you a noise filter.

      Back through a SMPS? Those things generally have ferrite rings and fairly hefty inductors in the power supply. And besides, the SMPS is chopping everything up into little pieces anyway; so I kind of doubt it is RF reflected back onto the power line.

      Holy crap this is inaccurate. Go try it, I'm an extra class ham, see if your SMPS supply can conduct emissions back onto the grid. :P *eyeroll*

    15. Re:Meh. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      They're not actually magic. They'll attenuate high frequency EMI, not remove it completely.
      They'll also be the first thing a cheap manufacturer cuts to save on BOM cost.

    16. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? It's an asic, wtf would a gpu be doing in there?

      Facepalm.

    17. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a Novice license that I got in 1993, back when you still had to pass a 5WPM Morse test. I've kept it renewed all these years.

      I've never transmitted under my call sign and I know fuck-all about any of what you said.

      "Go ask your nearest ham to build you a noise filter" is not necessarily a good idea. I'd probably just hand you a pillow.

    18. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just buy an isolation transformer...

      they're cheap.

      no reading needed.

    19. Re:Meh. by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      They're not actually magic. They'll attenuate high frequency EMI, not remove it completely.
      They'll also be the first thing a cheap manufacturer cuts to save on BOM cost.

      I was making a small joke, because they always seem to be an RFI band-aid "Let's try some ferrite rings", rather than part of a well-thought-out RFI suppression strategy.

      But OTOH, they ARE somewhat effective at reducing induced RF from escaping out of a device onto power and/or signal cabling...

  6. Run a radio station instead by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Forget mining Bitcoin, run a micro radio station. The FCC will never notice that.

    1. Re:Run a radio station instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except it won't make money, unlike get-rich-quick-krypto-kurrency-shit. you can't make america greedy again with a pirate radio station. duh-uh.

    2. Re:Run a radio station instead by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Use your pirate radio station to lure people into scams. Problem solved.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  7. Waste of energy by TJHook3r · · Score: 5, Funny

    Disrupting emergency services, helping global warming, distributing child porn... Is there anything Bitcoin CAN'T do?

    1. Re:Waste of energy by Aaden42 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes. Hold a steady valuation for five minutes.

    2. Re:Waste of energy by gman003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Function as a useful currency?

    3. Re:Waste of energy by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1, Funny

      Make a transaction for less than the cost of Starbucks' fanciest coffee.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Waste of energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting you a girlfriend. It has failed to get you a girl friend. sorry bro.

    5. Re:Waste of energy by bobbied · · Score: 0

      That sir, is FUNNY... Where are my mod points? Dang!

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:Waste of energy by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      No , that's "Save the Children" (a great charity ) but all I can think of is Sally Struthers saying "For less than the price of cup of coffee..."

    7. Re:Waste of energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disrupting emergency services, helping global warming, distributing child porn... Is there anything Bitcoin CAN'T do?

      Lower the cost of graphics cards.

    8. Re:Waste of energy by Kaenneth · · Score: 2

      Starbucks fanciest coffee is under 50 cents?

      'cause that's the median BTC transaction fee today.

    9. Re:Waste of energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Function as a useful currency?

      Well one can buy drugs with it. That's about as useful as currency can get.

  8. 700MHz... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    700 MHz is in the 10s of cm range as far as wavelength. Should be easy to construct some kind of Faraday cage to block the interference (while still allowing for air cooling), with filters on the AC line and Ethernet to prevent them from radiating as antennas.

    1. Re:700MHz... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      He should invest some of that FAT bitcoin money in a kw linear. They'll be happy when he goes back to just mining.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re: 700MHz... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can just connect the chassis of miner to ground i would presum.
      or put it back on if that was the "modification" :D

    3. Re:700MHz... by hankwang · · Score: 1

      You still need to get wires in and out of that Faraday cage without them acting as antennas and get a proper conductive connection between the plates forming the side walls of the faraday cage. I'm sure that an RF engineer can do that without too much cost; a layman: not so much.

    4. Re:700MHz... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with filters on the AC line and Ethernet to prevent them from radiating as antennas.

      Not so great on the reading comprehension today?

    5. Re:700MHz... by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Plates? Please don't comment about things you don't understand. Openings have to be smaller than the wavelength of the noise being addressed. At 700 MHz easy. Wrap it in chicken wire, solder the edges, ground it, done. Doesn't have to be perfect.

      This isn't antenna design. Anybody who flunked basic physics can build a faraday cage.

      Shoplifters have had this down for years.

      Wires, especially bundled with grounds, longer than a few wavelengths (power cords) or made up of twisted pairs (ethernet cables) make very shitty antennas.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:700MHz... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try explaining that to the man before he is cuffed and his Aunt Miner seized from his Mom's basement

    7. Re:700MHz... by hankwang · · Score: 2

      I have been surprised how hard it is to make a cellphone lose signal. If I wrap it in aluminum foil and leave a hole big enough to see the wifi and cell signal bars, they barely drop. I'm out of aluminum foil, but my phone in a stainles steel cooking vessel with the metal lid just open far enough (1 mm gap) to see the screen shows 4 out of 5 bars for wifi and cell reception. I can even call my phone with the lid closed and it will ring.

      So, you didn't convince me.

    8. Re:700MHz... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      In fact that's *why* the wires I used to run in cable ducts were twisted. To prevent them from acting as antennas. (I *think* we were more worried about noise reception than transmission, but I just ran the wires, I didn't spec them.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    9. Re:700MHz... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Considering you have NO GROUND that can be discerned by the low detail in your post, I'm not surprised you aren't convinced.

      Come back when you can verify a ground for the enclosure which you are testing.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    10. Re:700MHz... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Twisted cabling to prevent inductive interference and radiation. Sometimes makes using an inductive line loop detector fun.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    11. Re:700MHz... by adolf · · Score: 2

      I used to have a small Faraday pouch that was lined with silver-colored conductive fabric. I used it when my employer was tracking me with GPS on my dumb phone, including logging power on/off events. (When I say I'm at lunch, I'm at lunch and that's my business. It's also my business if I've taken a day off.)

      It worked fine, blocking both GPS (easy) and cell signals (less easy).

      I'm not sure what you're doing wrong with your tinfoil pouch, but Faraday cages are pretty well-understood concepts.

      And unlike Shrodinger's Cat, you can actively observe the behavior remotely. Look at signal levels in your wifi access point. Use ping on the device itself. Fire up any of a number of remote-access apps; see how it behaves. You don't need to see the screen in order to see what the device is doing.

    12. Re:700MHz... by adolf · · Score: 1

      A Faraday cage does not require grounding.

      Grounding only serves to help the thing not build a static charge. Grounding has no effect on its ability to block (rather, convert to electricity and then dissipate as heat) radio signals.

    13. Re:700MHz... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Grounding only serves to help the thing not build a static charge"

      If there's no intrusive wiring, which in the post, yet again, is undiscernable.

      You're making a lot of assumptions on very little data. Not wise.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    14. Re:700MHz... by adolf · · Score: 1

      Grounding does not help a Faraday cage even in the event of intrusive wiring.

      You're making shit up. Please stop.

    15. Re:700MHz... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      If you have an ungrounded cage the source of the electric field within the cage will create a charge accumulation on the inside. This, on the other hand, leads to an equally large net charge on the outside of the cage, of the opposite polarity.

      Which when able to discharge, will create interference across a wide goddamned range of frequencies.

      I can tell you've never encountered a spark-gap emitter, let alone know the hundreds of potential sources for one being created, let alone how to do broadband jamming.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    16. Re:700MHz... by adolf · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes indeed. And as it accumulates this charge it still functions fully as a Faraday cage. It also functions as a Faraday cage as it is discharged. It always works as a Faraday cage.

      The sometimes-resultant (though not necessarily inevitable) discharge of this accumulation is indeed a very broadband emitter of RF. It's very bad form, but being bad form does not mean that it is functioning as something other than a Faraday cage.

      As I said before, dissipating this static charge is the only function of a ground connection on a Faraday cage. I will further state that it doesn't even have to be a good (ie, low-impedance at broad frequencies) ground in order do that.

      Dump it through a 10-meg resistor, a huge inductor, and a wet bit of string all in series tied to the handle of a table knife shoved into the barely-conductive earth? Sure, works fine for getting rid of the nuisance of accumulated potential.

  9. Why by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    Why would he have radio emissions while running a bitcoin miner?

    1. Re:Why by BenFranske · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pretty much anything electronic can create RF emissions. See unintentional and incidental radiators at https://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/rfd...

    2. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because computers generate radio waves.

    3. Re:Why by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

      All electronics create radio emissions. It's just that usually, they are too weak, or the wrong frequency, to interfere with anything.

    4. Re:Why by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Either poor equipment design, or he modified it in some way. Miners usually have a buck converter inside, those things are awful for noise - they have a high-current square wave, which includes not only the base frequency but every harmonic of it too. There's supposed to be a filter, but if he is running it beyond design power levels that might not be enough.

    5. Re:Why by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Why would he have radio emissions while running a bitcoin miner?

      Computers emit a LOT of RF, especially when they are not operated in a shielded box.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:Why by hjf · · Score: 1

      I still remember the mid-90s, when 486s and Pentiums ran at 100Mhz. The FM station interference, my god!

    7. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have specifically noted spurious emissions throughout the 700 MHz band that appear to be coming from the GPU in my gaming rig. In my case, it is only strong enough to interfere with devices within a few feet.

      My understanding is that the Antminer is ASIC based, not GPU, so I don't intend to imply that a GPU is the cause here. But I think it still serves to illustrate how easy it is to find things that unintentionally radiate in that band. Also, a proper metal enclosure is important.

      This is also why computer cases with big plastic windows on the sides so you can see all the colored LEDs on your fans and crap are stupid.

    8. Re:Why by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      A DC battery and a resistor don't...

    9. Re:Why by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      A DC battery and a resistor don't...

      As long as you don't either complete the circuit or break the circuit, yes. However, the act of completing the circuit or breaking the circuit will create a pulse of radio frequency energy when current flow starts or stops.

      73's

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    10. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are there moving electrons? Then yes it does. Moving electrons means a magnetic field is present. Magnetic fields are emissions.

    11. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GP wrote:

      All electronics create radio emissions. It's just that usually, they are too weak, or the wrong frequency, to interfere with anything.

      Parent wrote:

      A DC battery and a resistor don't...

      Technically they will if you ever connect or disconnect them, because the voltage step response creates a burst of radio frequencies across the entire EM spectrum.

    12. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That 100Mhz was also really 99.9Mz. Some walkie talkies run on 399.6Mhz, which is a harmonic of 99.9Mhz. I saw some of these old laptops freak out when you keyed up on a walkie on 399.6Mhz. As best as I could tell the CPU tried to run at 4x its clock rate, quickly overheated and shut down. 2 or 3 times in a row and it would shut down forever...

    13. Re:Why by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      True square waves only have odd-order harmonics present. Rectangular waves are missing harmonics related to the duty cycle, which for a square wave with a 50% duty cycle, means all even-order harmonics are missing. A 25% duty cycle wave will have all fourth-order harmonics missing. But they're still noisy. :-)

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    14. Re:Why by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Do you even spark-gap emitter, sonny boy?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    15. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My CRT multi-sync monitor would jam BBC long-wave world radio services at the right screen resolution.

    16. Re:Why by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Even a battery by itself creates emissions. It's a static electric field; it can be calculated and measured.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    17. Re:Why by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      For a while, some manufacturers dithered the CPU frequency in order to pass FCC specs. Dithering didn't make the computer quieter (in fact, it made FM interference worse) but it allowed shoddy makers to save a bit of money versus a good design.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  10. Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You insolent MORON. "Ground" is COMPLETELY ARBITRARY. If he shielded the device thoroughly in foil and took care of the cords in and out, none of the EM would have been able to escape.
     
    Don't bother posting. You have NO IDEA what you're talking about, fool.

    1. Re:Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought you died in 1943.

    2. Re:Mod parent down by thestuckmud · · Score: 1

      There's irony in posting an insulting correction with its own factual error. In this case, aluminum foil is not a reliable shield for cell phones: 1 mil (the thickness of typical Al foil) is too close to the skin depth for those frequencies. Try it yourself. Just be sure to choose a location with decent cell service.

    3. Re:Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's irony in posting an insulting correction with its own factual error. In this case, aluminum foil is not a reliable shield for cell phones: 1 mil (the thickness of typical Al foil) is too close to the skin depth for those frequencies. Try it yourself. Just be sure to choose a location with decent cell service.

      Interesting point, but it seemed very unlikely to me, so I ran the numbers.

      Standard household foil is typically 0.016 mm (0.63 mils) thick

      Skin depth in Al at 700 Mhz is 3.0994 um or 0.0030994.

      So standard foil is over 50 times the skin depth and generally 10 times the skin depth is considered sufficient for shielding.

    4. Re:Mod parent down by sinij · · Score: 1

      I actually tried to construct a Faraday cage out of kitchen use tinfoil. in my first attempt I used a metal lockbox lined with tin foil. It wouldn't completely block cell phone signal and it wouldn't completely prevent keyless entry car keys from operating from within lockbox. I eventually had it working, but it wasn't just one sheet of tinfoil.

      Try following - wrap your smartphone in tinfoil and call it.

    5. Re:Mod parent down by thestuckmud · · Score: 1

      10 time skin depth may be considered generally sufficient, but the fact remains that cell phone signals penetrate aluminum foil. Go and and try it (as I suggested). Your "shielded" phone will ring when you call it.

      I could be mistaken about the skin effect being the cause of the leakage, but you remain wrong in claiming that foil blocks these signals.

    6. Re:Mod parent down by Hetero · · Score: 1

      Inferior troll is inferior. You are mistaken about nothing. You are cackling like a stoned teenager as you posit lies with 75% factual backing. What's your next claim going to be, that lead foil of the same thickness blocks "cell phone signals" better because it is denser?

      How about YOU try it, beam weld all the foil together, and post a video on YouTube with today's datestamp.

    7. Re:Mod parent down by hey! · · Score: 1

      This is a "it depends" question. If you wrap your device in aluminum foil it can become capacitively coupled to the foil. You could fix that by putting it in a room completely lined with foil (increasing the thickness of the dialectric). Or you can connect your foil to a massive electron sink, like a large hunk of metal or the Earth.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re: Mod parent down by kenh · · Score: 1

      n my first attempt I used a metal lockbox lined with tin foil. It wouldn't completely block cell phone signal and it wouldn't completely prevent keyless entry car keys from operating from within lockbox.

      What did you think lining a metal box with aluminum foil would do? How much thicker were the sides of the lock box than the foil?

      --
      Ken
    9. Re:Mod parent down by kevmeister · · Score: 1, Interesting

      To be a bit pedantic, the original post called out "tin foil". While I'm sure he meant aluminum foil and most likely has never actually seen tin foil, it was the predecessor of aluminum foil an it wold have worked much better than aluminum foil. It was far thicker, though probably not enough so to have worked completely.

      To those who have never worked with RF, it is almost magical. Many thing, including skin effect, sound silly and are counter intuitive to those who have experience with DC and low frequencies. I recall an argument with a computer scientist who had added a new 10Base2 drop by inserting a "T" connector into the network line in his office and then dropped an RG58 to another piece of equipment. Transmission lines were WAY beyond his ken and I'm not sure he ever believed me, but I did fix his network.

      Bonus old-timer points to those who know what 10Base2 is (or, more obscure, 10Broad36) without Googling for it.

      --
      Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
    10. Re:Mod parent down by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

      10base2 is thinnet. I have to admit it's been so long I checked that I wasn't mixing it up with base T (T connectors? "T"hinnet base2-pairs?). 10broad36 was news to me though.

    11. Re:Mod parent down by kevmeister · · Score: 1

      10BaseT is "Twisted pair" Ethernet at 10 Mbps. The first digits are the bandwidth followed by "Base" for baseband or "Broad" for Broadband. The final digit(s) were the maximum segment length in hectometers. Of course "T" broke this scheme.

      10Broad36 was 10 Mbps over 36 hectometers or 3600 meters. It was designed for long distances using standard cable TV hardware. We used it at Lawrence Livermore Lab for our first lab-wide LAN. It was, of course, replaced by fiber after about three years.

      --
      Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
    12. Re:Mod parent down by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Would you like to buy some of these magnetic monopoles?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  11. Pinky finger to mouth by SEMLogistics · · Score: 1

    And he was sure to make a MILLION dollars with that mining rig!

  12. I've heard that's why the NEC PC-Engine by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    was turned into the big 'ole beast that was the Turbografx 16. I kinda liked the itty bitty PC Engine, though I've also heard the larger size appealed to Americans.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  13. A little shielding? by eastjesus · · Score: 1

    A little judicious shielding might easily fix the problem, but then there is the heat... I had a friend up north who heated his house with his Bitcoin miner system until his electric bill made it not worth the trouble anymore. Maybe the FCC is doing him a favor.

  14. Faraday Cage Anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It might be simpler for the person in question to build a faraday cage around the Antminer using some brass wire screen and pine slatting. I'm just saying.

    -Casey Annis

  15. Sounds like a headline meant to drive outrage by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    ...I mean, isn't this one of the FCC's core missions?

    They're not chasing him because he's interfering with T-Mobile per se (and honestly, their mentioning of it was stupid). They're chasing him because his device was generating interference, full stop.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Sounds like a headline meant to drive outrage by hjf · · Score: 1

      They are not "chasing" anyone. They just gave him a warning. A notice that he was doing something without knowing.
      And T-mobile is part of this. It's them that filed the complaint. The FCC doesn't have a network of antennas all over the country. They work based on complaints from people with registered frequencies. T-mobile most likely noticed this because of some base station picking up some strange noise floor.

      If you run a miner in the middle of nowhere, you won't be visited by the FCC anytime soon.

    2. Re:Sounds like a headline meant to drive outrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you run a miner in the middle of nowhere, you won't be visited by the FCC anytime soon.

      And since it was T-mobile, you don't even really need to be in the middle of nowhere - just not in a major city.

  16. since they've identified a specific product.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that is uncertified and in violation of fcc emissions standards; can they now go after the manufacturer, the importers and retailers, and even other (especially large-scale) purchasers/users of it? and shut 'em all down?

    1. Re:since they've identified a specific product.. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      They can if they wish..

      They have gone after retailers and importers who dealt in stuff that was radiating RF but didn't meet applicable standards. Problems is they need to know who is importing and selling the stuff. Which for a lot of this stuff isn't an easy nut to crack with the limited manpower of the FCC.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  17. faraday cage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why doesn't he just put it in a faraday cage?

    1. Re:faraday cage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A microwave oven makes a great Faraday cage.

  18. The FCC actually enforced one of it's own rules? by pinkfalcon · · Score: 2

    That's the real story. FCC actually paying attention to it's own rules.

    Now if only we can get them to do something about 7.200Mhz.....

    --
    Real SUV's don't have cupholders
    It's 5:42 A.M., do you know where your stack pointer is?
  19. It's a start by PPH · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now everyone throw out your cheap CFLs and LED bulbs. You are screwing up my ham radio. Come on, FCC. Where is your van when we need it?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:It's a start by sinij · · Score: 1

      Wait until everyone switches to electric cars, and some of these electric motors start to arcing with age.

    2. Re:It's a start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now everyone throw out your cheap CFLs and LED bulbs. You are screwing up my ham radio. Come on, FCC. Where is your van when we need it?

      All you need to do it match T-Mobiles market valuation and the FCC will much more attentive to your complaints. I'm sure you and the radio you setup in your parents basement will accomplish that in no time!

    3. Re:It's a start by PPH · · Score: 1

      Induction motors. Solid state switching generates AC. Nothing to arc.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:It's a start by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Now everyone throw out your cheap CFLs and LED bulbs. You are screwing up my ham radio. Come on, FCC. Where is your van when we need it?

      The van got traded in on a Prius that although has great mileage and a ready made power source, emitted too much RF to be able to make any kind of sensitive measurements within 100yards of it.

      Just kidding...

      Actually, the FCC doesn't have the field agents necessary to actually show up and do the monitoring they used to do. The enforcement bureau just doesn't have the people anymore. They might get around to actually doing something about a Ham complaint in about 10 years.... Consider the K1MAN debacle that went on more than two decades, only ending when the crazy old koot died before they collected the fine.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:It's a start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok einstein tell us how the fuck an ac induction motor with sss is going to arc?

      Some real dumb hunks of cuntcheese posting here. Yes, you're one of them.

    6. Re:It's a start by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Induction motors"

      Still generate a fucking magnetic field and thus generate interference. Do you even know how induction works?

      Lemme give you an Induction lamp and let's see how long your electronics remain happy.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:It's a start by PPH · · Score: 1

      The parent poster mentioned arcing. There are no brushes, hence nothing to arc. Induction motors generate some harmonics when driven by variable frequency drives. But they tend to drop off rapidly at higher harmonics. Usually insignificant by the 15th harmonic. A Tesla motor runs up to about 300 Hz, so that harmonic would be 4.5 kHz. Well short of the ham radio bands.

      Induction lamps run at fundamental frequencies from hundreds of kHz to MHz. A completely different problem than motor drives.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  20. Used by Hackers/Gov't to Takedown Mobile Networks? by niaxilin · · Score: 1

    If a single non-radio'd IoT device can reek havoc to Brooklyn's LTE, could a rouge entity--government or otherwise--use millions of compromised devices to bleed all over the 700MHz channel across the country, perhaps in a coordinated attack? Could our smart thermostats and doorbells take down our mobile communications?

  21. How to fix it by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    This could really be fixed with aluminum foil and a few ferrite toroids. Of course a nice metal box would be neater and better ventilated.

    1. Re:How to fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This could really be fixed with aluminum foil and a few ferrite toroids. Of course a nice metal box would be neater and better ventilated.

      He should just put it up for sale on ebay. He'd probably make more money with it that way anyhow.

  22. Well we'll eel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    USA well on its way to becoming a police state(country?), didn't even recuperate the guys losses.

    America! Fuck yeah! Land of the enslaved!

    1. Re:Well we'll eel by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      They guy was damaging the performance of a lawful entity with his illegal equipment. He was degrading the service to T-Mobile's customers. He should be out there apologizing to T-Moblile's customers and paying them damages.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  23. uhh, no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we turn off the fcc since they're interfering with the internet?

  24. Smart by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "When the interfering device was turned off the interference ceased,"

    It's always that way in these cases.

    I guess the FCC is represented by lawyers from No, Shit & Sherlock.

    1. Re:Smart by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I think that that statement was included as definitive evidence that they had identified the correct source of interference. It's not complete proof, but it's as near as you can usually get.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  25. Shielding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put a Faraday Cage around it....

  26. Clickbait by SPopulisQR · · Score: 1

    Place the miner in faraday cage: wrap miner in the foil, or properly shield it. Using that metric every single electric engine may become the source of interference.

  27. So many things wrong by albeit+unknown · · Score: 1
    There are several plausible sources of 700MHz in such a device. The third harmonic of DDR4 clocked at 233MHz could be an example, or the seventh of something at 100MHz.

    This is basically a bench-top prototype. I LOL at the CE Mark visible on the PCB.

    First, the open enclosure top. Really? The panels are all painted with no way to connect each other electrically. Even if you masked the screw heads from paint, and still have some long seams, it would be a significant improvement at 700MHz.

    Connecting modules together with unshielded, unfiltered harnesses. This is almost certainly emitting most of the noise. Clamping a ferrite bead around each one would help tremendously.

    Given the rest of the sloppiness, I'm sure the PCB design is junk also.

  28. Go take a look at the device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As purchased, it's pretty much open to the outside air and it's gonna be transmitting. The person most likely purchased the miner, a power supply, and then connected them together without bothering to purchase a case to install both items. So you have a naked PCB without shielding connected to a power supply. Yup, it's gonna be giving off radio emissions.

  29. WTF by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    I used to have 6 of these S5's. It didn't interfere with my smartphone even at point blank.
    Btw S5's aren't remotely profitable at the moment so no big loss there.

  30. Still do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    OEM vendors have to, and small computer dealers building their own are supposed to.

    However, each individual component has FCC certification and due to the FCC kit rules, so long as the end-user assembled it, and it doesn't cause harmful interference, it AFAIK falls under the 'up to 5 identical device' personal guidelines which allow you to build up to 5 identical electronics devices *NOT INTENDED FOR RESALE* and use them so long as they cause no harmful interference without the device being FCC certified.

    Since computers are normally required to have their cases open during FCC certification, the individual components are generally well shielded enough to make personal assembly not cause interference with outside sources, and when combined with a properly grounded case effectively reduce that below background noise.

    The above is also why most small computer manufacturers have you buy the parts individually and then charge you an assembly fee instead of giving you a flat price for the system itself. It allows them to avoid FCC sanctions/recalls since they were only hired to assemble the device and did not 'manufacture' it themselves. Hackaday or Adafruit or some other places discussed this a few years back.

  31. Re:The FCC actually enforced one of it's own rules by bobbied · · Score: 1

    That's the real story. FCC actually paying attention to it's own rules.

    Now if only we can get them to do something about 7.200Mhz.....

    Yea.. The "man" died who started that AM broadcasting mess down there before they could extract their fines from him. Took them almost 20 years to actually pull his ticket and get him off the air, even after his making a name doing daily broadcasts... Shesh...

    The FCC doesn't have the manpower to fix what ails 7.200Mhz at this point so I guess they are choosing to wait for all the geezers like me to die and vacate the frequencies so they can auction them off for some coin.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  32. Big money complains, fcc acts by ThePhish · · Score: 1

    If that complaint came from anywhere other than a hugely deep pocket, it'd have gone no where.

    If a consumer complained about TMobile affecting his TV.... He'd die of natural causes before TMobile was made to fix it.

  33. If it is ethernet not power... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just put an ethernet to fiber adapter inside the newly installed faraday cage and run some SMF/MMF through the case into an identical fiber adapter.

    Gigabit media converters are only 100-200 bucks now, a pair, if you buy them from china/amazon. And fiber would eliminate interference possibly caused by it. Now if the power lines are radiating, that sounds like a PSU whose caps have failed, although I have never seen hardware continue running reliably in that situation. Maybe with one of those 1kw-2.3kw Chinese mining PSUs it is possible though.

  34. Faraday cage by RandomMonkey · · Score: 0

    Can't he just build a Faraday cage or something around his rig to alter his RF transmissions?