Slashdot Mirror


EU's Plan To Ban Sale of User-Moddable RF Devices Draws Widespread Condemnation (theregister.co.uk)

Reader simpz writes: The Register is reporting that the EU is looking to block users from tinkering the firmware/software of their RF devices. This seems to have been very under reported, with a fairly short consultation period that has now expired. It could force manufacturers to lock down phones and routers etc to stop you from installing the likes of Lineage OS or OpenWRT. The way this is written it could stop devices like laptops or Raspberry Pi's having their software changed. From the report: The controversy centres on Article 3(3)(i) of the EU Radio Equipment Directive, which was passed into law back in 2014. However, an EU working group is now about to define precisely which devices will be subject to the directive -- and academics, researchers, individual "makers" and software companies are worried that their activities and business models will be outlawed. Article 3(3)(i) states that RF gear sold in the EU must support "certain features in order to ensure that software can only be loaded into the radio equipment where the compliance of the combination of the radio equipment and software has been demonstrated." If the law is implemented in its most potentially harmful form, no third-party firmware could be installed onto something like a home router, for example.

142 comments

  1. Why not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just lock it down to the point that it will never transmit on licensed bands. What's the problem?

    1. Re:Why not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then it would not be useful as it could not inter-operate with anything else? Laws like this - and the similar regulation that went through the US about 2 years back are the result of too many a*holes flouting the regulations and either Tim Tayloring (more power) their transmitters or having them transmit on other bands which they are not supposed to. If people wouldn't do that crap, rules like this wouldn't be needed. Just like you wouldn't need "do not touch" signs in museums if people could keep their grimy hands off of things. But they can't. So we can't have nice things. Because people.

    2. Re:Why not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The device it inter-operates with is also required to be on an unlicensed band. It is not even legal to transmit on licensed band. Why would illegal operation be needed to inter-operate with "anything else"?

    3. Re:Why not by Lord_Byron · · Score: 1

      Among other reasons, because you can't do that with a general purpose computer. A Raspberry Pi, even without it's WiFi and Bluetooth radios, can transmit just about anywhere on the radio spectrum it pleases by manipulating the GPIO pins just via software - no specialist radio hardware or software required.

      Now, that's not a very powerful transmission, but regulating transmitters just en total is naive.

    4. Re:Why not by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1
      Quote from Jim Jeffries

      We have to play to the 1% that are such fuckwits they ruin it for the rest of us. We have to walk as slow as our slowest person to keep society fucking moving, right? I take drugs like a fucking champion, right? [Audience cheering] We should all be allowed to take fucking drugs, but we can’t, can we? Because Sarah took drugs and she stabbed her fucking kids. Oh! “Oh, thanks, Sarah. You fucked it up for everyone.” Right? Everyone should be allowed to drive their car as fast as they can do it, right? But we can’t because Jonathan got drunk and ran over a family. “Thanks, Jonathan! Now I have to drive at 30, you fucking idiot!”

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  2. Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Every week the EU plans something that draws widespread condemnation (usually because it's tyrannical). Glad I don't live there.

    1. Re:Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If only it was just the EU, but it's the same in USA, same in Russia, same in China, same everywhere. Once again comes the time where even trivial shit is considered to be limited for regular folks, because that's just the next step. The common sense is lost and the goal post keeps on crawlin forward to ban shit from people, because "they need to be protected from themselves" and because power can't be shared.

    2. Re:Every week by jwymanm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This right here. But parent is correct also since EU is really reallllly tightening the noose. It's like they are combing through every damn freedom one by one and removing it explicitly. The other countries just look and watch and like wow ok you got that passed? wow, um our turn! This is why we need to keep voting for shitheads like orange man because we're forced to if we want stuff like 1:3 law reduction, lower taxes, shrinkage of departments. Unfortunately even he passes more laws against freedom. We're all screwed for now until uprisings like in France happen everywhere.

    3. Re:Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not sure why this was modded down. More often then not peoples' rights have been taken away across the globe over the past 2 decades. In the 90's things were looking as though we were progressing in the right direction. Since "9-11", this has been reversed not just in the USA but all over the world.

    4. Re:Every week by jythie · · Score: 1

      I think the idea here is protecting us from each other. Radio generating devices are regulated because they interfere with everything around them via a shared medium.

    5. Re:Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My taxes were lowered. The only ways yours weren't is if you don't pay taxes to begin with.

    6. Re:Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am a tax preparer in a small "blue collar" town in the USA. And I can state for the record that Trump did indeed cut taxes for an overwhelming majority of Americans. Over 95% of our clients paid less federal income tax in 2018 than they did in 2017.

    7. Re:Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trump didn't lower taxes, moron

      According to my tax bracket and refund, yes - my taxes was reduced by 3% in 2018

      Put your misleading Trump hate down you moron.

    8. Re:Every week by Luckyo · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Your taxes didn't go down because news said otherwise. Regardless of what your tax return shows. News said otherwise."

      Trump Derangement Syndrome at its finest.

    9. Re:Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But - were your taxes REALLY lowered? Or did you get more money in each paycheck? The only way you'll know is after you file your taxes.

      What you're probably going to find is that your withholding was changed to give you more cash each week. To make you THINK your taxes were lowered.

      Let me know how you feel about it AFTER you figure out this year's taxes.

    10. Re:Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit, your taxes got moved around. They got lowered for super-rich corporate owners, everyone else got dust. It was a tax cut for corporations, and the shareholders just pocketed it. Read more kid.

    11. Re:Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Until she found out her refund was $800. Previously it had been around $2,500."

      Why was your friend stupid enough to give the government an interest-free loan?

      Dumbass should have put that $200 a month into ANY KIND of interest-bearing account, and actually made money, instead of just letting Uncle Sam use it for free. God, the world is rife with dumbasses!

    12. Re:Every week by rnturn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ``Glad I don't live there.''

      I surely hope I'm not being too paranoid but I'm guessing that the damage won't be limited to the EU countries. Anything that's sold in the EU will probably be the same version that's sold elsewhere just to avoid the hassle and potential legal problems with making two different versions and, say, one of the naughty R-Pis getting into an EU country by mistake. So, potentially, no more Raspberry Pis for anyone (well not any that are all that useful for DiYers), locked down laptops that can't run anything but the OS that came with it for fear of violating the new EU law, the list goes on. Another step down the road to banning user programmable devices and allowing only "appliances" to be sold to consumers.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    13. Re:Every week by suutar · · Score: 1

      "some folks who pay taxes did not wind up with lower taxes, so your statement is incorrect", more like.

    14. Re:Every week by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1
      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    15. Re:Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vast majority of the tax lowering was on the corporate owners, multi-million multi-billion dollar holdings. The deficit is skyrocketing as a result of Trump's theft, as is the trade imbalance as a result of his feckless trade policy.

      His latest budget "idea" is a complete joke. He'll die in prison either way.

    16. Re:Every week by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, it's better to live in the US where...they've had similar laws for years now...shit...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    17. Re: Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, I prefer the U.S. method of passing it in a rider while dumbass voters are busy talking about what happened on Twitter that week. God bless the United States of retards!

    18. Re:Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since these laws have been in affect in the US for at least 10 years now, it does not look like your Orange Man is doing anything at all here.

    19. Re:Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, how many people actually fuck around with the radio part?

    20. Re:Every week by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      As with the freakouts in the US, it doesn't mean you can't alter the device as a whole, it just means that the OS isn't supposed to mess with certain parts of the radio; eg, the radio has its own control chip that implements the restrictions, and the application processor still tells it what to do.

      Compliant devices still work fine with third party OSes.

      Just a giant nuthingburder.

    21. Re:Every week by Pyramid · · Score: 1

      Receiving devices generate no interference. As a licensed amateur radio operator, why shouldn't I be able to modify equipment to work on the frequencies I'm allocated?

      Or as a "tech enthusiast", why should I be able to put a better firmware on my router/access point if I so desire?

      In the United States, I am. In the EU, not so much, apparently...

      --
      ~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
    22. Re:Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you? https://www.wired.com/2016/03/way-go-fcc-now-manufacturers-locking-routers/

    23. Re:Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean he didn't steal as much from the super rich, they did earn that money first.

    24. Re:Every week by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This isn't the big bad government trying to take away your freedoms. I fully support the FCC on this (and I'm pretty close to Libertarian so that means something coming from me).

      The issue is weather radar. Shortly after the FCC opened up the 5 GHz band for unlicensed use, terminal doppler weather radar was invented in response to several airliner crashes due to adverse weather conditions. Unfortunately, it relies on frequencies smack dab in the middle of the open 5 GHz band. So the FCC took the unusual step of revising their rules which opened up those frequencies

      The intermediate 5 GHz channels were reclassified as DFS - dynamic frequency selection. Devices are allowed to use those frequencies, but they have to monitor for TDWR. If they detected weather radar in use, they had to switch to a different channel. A few devices actually do this and check to see if weather radar is in use. Most manufacturers just took the easy way out and blocked out channels 50-144 entirely in the firmware. That's why many 5 GHz devices only support channels 36-48 and 149-165. (This can cause the mysterious situation you might have encountered, where some devices can see your 5 GHz network while others can't. Your router supports DFS and has picked a channel between 50-144. Devices which support DFS can see the router. Devices which have blocked off channels 50-144 cannot.)

      Early open source router firmwares completely ignored DFS. They would spam over the DFS frequencies, interfering with weather radar at airports if someone nearby happened to load the firmware onto their router. DD-WRT added support for DFS (it's the "weather radar" checkbox in the 5 GHz wireless settings, although it really should be checked by default).. If you install third party firmware and use the 5 GHz band, do the responsible thing and enable this functionality if you're going to enable channels 50-144. Unfortunately, some idiots didn't do this, degrading the effectiveness of hundreds of millions of dollars invested into TDWR equipment. It was enough of a concern that the FCC began investigating the need to regulate or ban third party firmware. That's what this is all about. The government doesn't hate you running third party firmware on your router, they're just trying to protect people flying in airplanes from needlessly being killed.

      This is why we can't have nice things - a few idiots ruin it for everyone else. I had lots of fun with lawn darts as a kid, but we always treated the target area as if it were a shooting range. Here's an example of what happens to TDWR when an idiot blasts their router in the TDWR frequencies. The unauthorized broadcast shows up as a wedge-shaped area spanning a few degrees and extending to the edge of the radar image, completely obscuring any weather in the wedge. Multiply that by a few dozen open source routers near the airport and it becomes a major impediment.

      The cleaner solution would've been for the FCC to simply close the 5 GHz band and reserve it entirely for TDWR. But that would've made billions of dollars of wireless equipment obsolete. So the FCC tried their best to find a compromise between the needs of people who already owned 5 GHz wireless equipment, and the flying public. It's the open source firmware authors who were (initially) acting like jerks here, not the FCC.

    25. Re:Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what the "uprising in France" is about, right? Probably not.

      Slashdot has these kinds of articles about the EU, Russia, and China quite frequently. They also often tell us what kind of crap the FCC in the US is up to.

      Many of the larger industrial nations and union of nations seem to have gone nuts lately if you can believe Slashdot articles. It's almost like Slashdot doesn't have a national agenda, but pushes an agenda that is concerned about anyone who might introduce legislation that undermines the freedoms we nerds were able to enjoy with our technology. I hope this is something most of us nerds can agree upon no matter where we live.
      The EU is no exception of course. Brussels frequently comes up with their share of nonsense. But pretending that it is especially limited to them does show your national bias.

    26. Re:Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, tax revenues went up thanks to the Trump tax bill:

      https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-federal-revenues-deficits/

      Sadly, spending went up even more. It's like Reagan all over again.

    27. Re:Every week by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      But - were your taxes REALLY lowered? Or did you get more money in each paycheck?

      Err..Yes.

      It is the SAME thing. They withheld less taxes from your check, and therefore, you got MORE in each paycheck.

      Lowering withholding needed to be publicized as that people did need to adjust it a bit.

      But it is best at the EOY to NOT have a big refund. Why should you give the US feds an interest free loan all year when you could be using same money and saving it and earning interest on it, or investing it?

      At EOY your' best bet is to either get a little refund or own a little bit.

      The IRS even has an online calculator for you to calculate your withholdings.....

      But yes, I got a tax cut.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    28. Re: Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use my router as a weapon to directionally fire rf out the window to repel radio sensitive navigating insects. It is a an armament of convenience against them. I don't cate of they built an airport long after my ancestors built this house. We were here first.

      The second amendment absolutely protects my right to fire off any and all radio armaments I want, wherever I want. The constitution doesn't restrict my right to bear arms to single shot black powder rifles or just non-RF arms.

    29. Re:Every week by chiefcrash · · Score: 1

      You mean that news report that said how the average tax refund was lower than expected?

      The one that they came back a week and two later and said "oh, wait, now that the IRS has caught up after the shutdown, the average tax refund is slightly higher"?

      Or the one that forgot that your tax refund has absolutely no impact on what your tax burden is?

      --
      Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
    30. Re:Every week by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      User modded RF devices are legal in the US, though if you want to do something like add frequency hopping and crypto to a walkie talkie without making the keys publicly available the FCC will have you raped.

    31. Re:Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tax revenues did not go up except due to the regular 3% market growth resulting from Obama's recovery and linear time, and that's an editorial. Tax % collections from corporations went down by ~35%.

    32. Re:Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit, your taxes got moved around. They got lowered for super-rich corporate owners, everyone else got dust. It was a tax cut for corporations, and the shareholders just pocketed it. Read more kid.

      Funny thing: if you're capable of doing math, you can determine the total number of dollars you owe in taxes vs the total number of dollars earned over the year.

      Another funny thing: the number of dollars I owed was lower this year than previous years. Which means my taxes were lowered. And I'm not a super rich corporate owner....

      My withholdings changed, and as a result my refund changed. Instead of a small standard deduction and a bunch of additional credits, I'm getting a larger standard deduction and less additional credits. So you're right: they did move the taxes around.... while lowering them...

    33. Re:Every week by Miamicanes · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The thing about DFS that REALLY sucks is the stupid way it ends up getting implemented... when it's time to do the DFS check, the access point just goes dark without warning for a minute, leaving everything that was connected without connectivity in the meantime.

      Why can't 802.11 have an optional extension that allows the AP to tell connected clients, "hey, I'm about to go dark for a minute to do a required DFS check... in the meantime, if you really NEED continuous connectivity, temporarily switch over to 2.4GHz channel {n} at SSID="xxx" using the same credentials you used to connect to me on channel 122, and I'll let you know when it's safe to switch back"?

      I mean, even the cheapest piece of shit access point that's capable of using a DFS-protected channel is almost guaranteed to have 2.4GHz 802.11n, so why not provide a way to automatically (and rapidly) fail over to it during the DFS check? Even if 2.4GHz wifi sucks, connectivity that temporarily SUCKS for a minute is still a net improvement over connectivity that DOESN'T EXIST AT ALL for a minute.

      Likewise, if 802.11 had a way to communicate that upcoming DFS check to wifi-connected clients, they could try to do a better job of anticipating it. For example, if Netflix has been sustaining 6mbps buffered ahead by 5 seconds, it could attempt to crank things up to pre-buffer enough content to get you through that dry minute without glitches if it knew the disruption was coming and had time to prepare.

      DFS is important, but the way it was IMPLEMENTED needlessly sucks more than it HAS to.

    34. Re: Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do not need any of those stupid "freedoms". You need purpose and guidance. You need to know your place. Or are you an euroskeptic nazi?

    35. Re: Every week by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Good one! Right up there with "The Right to Bare Arms" or "The Right to Arm Bears".

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    36. Re:Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every week the EU plans something that draws widespread condemnation (usually because it's tyrannical). Glad I don't live there.

      Very soon, the Brits will also be glad they no longer live there

    37. Re:Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My taxes were lowered. The only ways yours weren't is if you don't pay taxes to begin with.

      Whoa wait, I was all on board with lower taxes, but if everyone is paying less, how are we supposed to buy more wall or go to war with Venezuela? What if the EU attacks first? What we need to do is tax the unemployed, lazy freeloaders.

    38. Re:Every week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, his taxes were likely lowered.

      That is the thing. The tax lowering was made mostly across the board leading to an increased deficit.
      The only way it went through was that the tax decrease for the middle and lower class only was temporary.
      Once time runs out they will be back to paying the old taxes but the upper class will keep the decreased taxes.

      Of course the duration is timed so that returning to the old taxation will be during the next administration who will already be in deep shit trying to grab a hold of the deficit.

      People who don't pay attention falls for it so it works.

    39. Re:Every week by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Every week the EU plans something that draws widespread condemnation (usually because it's tyrannical). Glad I don't live there.

      Every week a slashdot user casts the *hyperbole* spell. It's not very effective. It's hilarious that you think the EU plans anything "every week" much less that it consistently draws condemnation.

    40. Re:Every week by shess · · Score: 1

      Here's an example of what happens to TDWR when an idiot blasts their router in the TDWR frequencies. The unauthorized broadcast shows up as a wedge-shaped area spanning a few degrees and extending to the edge of the radar image, completely obscuring any weather in the wedge. Multiply that by a few dozen open source routers near the airport and it becomes a major impediment.

      It feels like these people are basically painting an arrow pointed at their house on their lawn. I'm not saying it isn't hard to track them down, but one would think that after this has happened a few times, by nature of this being open source someone would log a bug in the bug tracker, and now it would be a known problem and the authors would fix it either by restricting those frequencies or forcing a config option where you acknowledge understanding of the problem (as opposed "I have to know the necessary magic before starting").

      I guess that if that's not how it works, I still don't see how changing the law will materially affect how people operate who are not aware of what the law says about something. This seems obscure enough that people will keep doing whatever they are doing, and probably with the same results.

  3. Move the control closer to HW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    as it is effectively done in phones, where the radio is controlled by a separate processor.
    The radio part of a router could also be implemented in a hard-to-update chip+firmware.

  4. What law will they pass next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A law against murder? Nazis? Being a Nazi murderer?

    1. Re:What law will they pass next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be silly. The unaccountable, corporatist EU would never pass a law against themselves.

  5. SDRs are out of the bag. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given all the other pervasive surveillance in the EU, UK, and US, why don't they just put up a bunch of fucking wide-spectrum antennas with their own SDRs and watch for signals running outside of legal specifications, while leaving us to use our hardware however we like?

    This may not be a popular opinion, but the SDR genie is out of the bag and rather than inhibiting law abiding citizens from benefitting from them, perhaps they could instead work on detecting and catching intentional violators of the laws, as well as hacked equipment. It will be necessary in the long run anyways, and it doesn't restrict the average person's rights, responsibilities, or licensed ability to transmit in any way. The average person doesn't know how to upload illegal firmware anyways, so the barrier to entry is already high enough.

  6. Uh, that's insane. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Everyone can see that this is an obvious tyrannical move correct?

    Destroy any modifications that can disable snooping and control apparatus

    1. Re:Uh, that's insane. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Everyone can see that this is an obvious tyrannical move correct?

      Nope, it is just clickbait that you didn't understand.

  7. This sounds like it may just govern radion control by kalpol · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It sounds like it's just meant to not allow users to control the radio tranmissions, similar to how in the US the radio device has to be FCC-approved, and you can't for instance boost your CB power to 50 watts. If software allows you to turn your router radio up to 11 (like DD-WRT) does, perhaps it is just that component of it they want to control?

    --
    12:50 - press return.
  8. Won't they ever learn? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

    Won't this just create a market for mail-order devices from other countries, just like the DVD region lockdowns did?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Won't they ever learn? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Indeed, they've learned exactly that lesson; they can control what gets sold in the local stores, and only rare people will go through the hassle to go around it.

      This isn't about stopping anything, it is about controlling what the norm is.

    2. Re:Won't they ever learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. But if customs stop your parcel, and you go to pick it up and accept it, you are fined if any electronics inside do not bear the required logos (heard of CE?), and the electronics get crushed for a fee. Yup, that's EU law already.

      Add to this that the EU plans to tax each and every shipment into the EU. (At the moment, shipments whose value* is €22 or less are considered not worth customs' time to be taxed. This will change soonish.) This means the sender needs to correctly declare the contents of any shipments into the EU, and customs can simply go sifting for routers. Or work out how much the tax is on a 40 sensor for your Arduino.

      *Postage counts towards the value. Go figure.

  9. So.... by x0ra · · Score: 1

    are they also banning ADC ? That's really all you need to generate a radio signal with software...

    1. Re:So.... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      You mean DAC?

    2. Re:So.... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      I once coded an FM radio transmitter on an FPGA, using plain 1-bit digital output and ideas such as PWM. The quality was pretty atrocious, but you could basically hear the music and speech on a radio receiver. So no DAC needed.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  10. Re:This sounds like it may just govern radion cont by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    It sounds like it's just meant to not allow users to control the radio tranmissions

    You mean the transmission amplitude? That's what the rest of your comment implies. But they want to ban people from loading any new firmware, not just from controlling amplitude.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Translation by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Translation: baseband will be locked, OS won't be.

  12. Re:This sounds like it may just govern radion cont by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It sounds like it's just meant to not allow users to control the radio tranmissions, similar to how in the US the radio device has to be FCC-approved, and you can't for instance boost your CB power to 50 watts. If software allows you to turn your router radio up to 11 (like DD-WRT) does, perhaps it is just that component of it they want to control?

    There is a difference between "type accepted" and the sort of power I have as an amateur or professional. A Citizens band radio is a low powered unlicensed service. I an allowed to modify or build anything. But hey - if the EU says this is a great thing, the good citizens will comply.

    Sounds like the Volksradio is coming back, as the EU starts to demand and enforce complete conformity, and obedience to their benevolent governance. And sure enough, they are out defending this in the threads.

    So go ahead and mod me down, good compliant citizens. Differing opinions are dangerous.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  13. Correct what now? by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, it's overly dramatic bullshit that has no effect on the elections, where people can prevent this crap,

    That's the difference between the EU and other places - no amount of elections can "correct" what the EU chooses to do.

    It's cruel dictatorship by committee, so no one person is actually responsible for the suffering the machine generates.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re: Correct what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did they abduct thousands of children to sell them as sex slaves like Donald Trump?

      Donald Trump is a sex slave now? It's getting difficult to keep up with leftist delusions.

    2. Re: Correct what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Donald Trump is a sex slave now?" MELANIA, obviously. Are you thick or what, comrade?

    3. Re: Correct what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we talking about the real MELANIA or the body double?

    4. Re:Correct what now? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      How does "no amounts of elections can "correct" what the EU chooses to do" actually work? As a EU citizen I vote for who will represent my country in the EU Parliament in the upcoming EU elections and in the last national election I voted on who will represent me locally in our local government which is the same people that constitutes my country:s part of the EU Council.

      That is the two decision making powers within the EU, one of which I as a EU member can vote on directly and one that I can vote on indirectly. So how does this play out with your delusional notion that it's some kind of dictatorship?

    5. Re: Correct what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irrelevant. You're assuming he didn't kidnap or buy both.

    6. Re:Correct what now? by Pyramid · · Score: 1, Informative

      You're a citizen of the EU? How is that possible? There's no country called, "European Union". No, you are a citizen (or subject) of your own country. Your country has a representative who is on the council.

      If the EU passes rules that you object to or blatantly supersede your country's laws and social mores, what is your recourse? Tell me what safeguards are built into the EU to prevent tyranny of the masses - the "masses" being the council.

      --
      ~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
    7. Re:Correct what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ah, the aspergerati strikes again.

    8. Re:Correct what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a technocratic bureaucracy with legislative initiative, coupled with a large (and therefore weak) parliament forced into unlikely bedfellowship so it almost always follows the predicted middle course.

    9. Re:Correct what now? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      If the EU passes rules that you object to or blatantly supersede your country's laws and social mores,

      You mean if your elected representative votes to pass a law you don't like...?

      Well, do the usual thing, vote for the other lizard next time.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re: Correct what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can vote all you want, what Germany and France want is what will happen. If your not-Germany and not-France country voted otherwise, you get to vote again. And again. And again. Until you align with France and Germany. Verstanden?

    11. Re:Correct what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quit making excuses dammit! They vote for their parliaments, which "trickles down" to the EU. Plain and simple, the voters have to become a bit more active. Everything about this "Commission" is a reflection on them. Just like that goddamned Trump is our reflection right now... UGH! All this bullshit is self inflicted! And Europe, please! That Nazi shit is alive and well! Fascism always was popular, by definition.

    12. Re:Correct what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's overly dramatic bullshit that has no effect on the elections, where people can prevent this crap,

      That's the difference between the EU and other places - no amount of elections can "correct" what the EU chooses to do.

      It's cruel dictatorship by committee, so no one person is actually responsible for the suffering the machine generates.

      Get back to your basement and put the lotion on Ken Doll, I'm hungry.

    13. Re: Correct what now? by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      France and Germany have less than a quarter of the voting power.

      Try again.

    14. Re:Correct what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? On Bannon's payroll? Does he pay well?

    15. Re:Correct what now? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2
      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    16. Re:Correct what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the Russian shill!

    17. Re:Correct what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's the theory. In reality, you're voting for the parties that have the resources, backing and recognition to actually get anywhere, i.e the established ones. Upsets are very, very rare. Significant ones with actual impact are practically unheard of.

      These parties in turn are managed in an extremely top-down manner, with extremely limited influence by the grassroots. It takes a serious upset to put someone somewhere where the party leadership doesn't want them. Basically it takes an uprising by their chums in the caucus, which rarely happens if they know what's best for their careers.

      Ad to that the fact that the EU is specifically designed to eliminate the influence of the common man as much as possible. After all it was created as a "peace project" right after Big Mistake Mk II, and as everyone in the elite knew, both Mk I and II were caused by democracy, so clearly the influence of the common man had to be minimized while keeping up the pretenses.

      So, no the EU isn't a dictatorship as such, but it's also clearly not a particularly democratic structure with huge gaps in both how democratic control is exercised and corruption is countered. The EU is very much an elite project, for the elite. Being able to vote in a couple of mostly meaningless elections where the elite in the end get to "interpret" the results and split the booty among themselves according to their own internal agreements in the end neither make much of a democracy nor create a whole heck of a lot of legitimacy.

    18. Re:Correct what now? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It's cruel dictatorship by committee,

      Oh is that why I had the option to elect people who are responsible for voting on the very legislation being discussed? I'm constantly surprised. Until now I thought you Americans didn't know what socialism or communism is. Now it turns out you don't know dictatorships either and generally have no political clue at all.

    19. Re:Correct what now? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Not the OP, but I too am a citizen of the EU. How is that possible? Good question. First you have to define what it means to be a "citizen". The key part is to be covered legally by a sovereign juridical entity, kind of like the EU which through a treaty has laws, legal frame works, judicial systems, governments, and rights that span the entire geographical area it covers.

      Now a bigger question would be is Austria still a country given that it doesn't have complete and total sovereignty over it's land and laws while part of the EU. In many ways, the EU is more of a country than it's member nations, and being a citizens of an EU member nation makes you a citizen of the EU complete with rights, laws, and legal systems afforded by the EU.

      That and it says "European Union" on my passport, *above* that irrelevant little country name where I was born. After all as far as boarders go, the only thing people care about when entering or leaving is if I'm going in and out of that meganation known as the EU.

      Anyway to the rest of your comment:

      Your country has a representative who is on the council.

      Council yes. Parliament no. As an EU citizen I directly elect members of the EU parliament and the country in which I live of in which I am a citizen of has no say in the matter.

      If the EU passes rules that you object to or blatantly supersede your country's laws and social mores, what is your recourse?

      What's yours? The EU is a representative democracy just like that of many other countries. Don't like who your representative is, don't vote for them next time around. Think they passed something that doesn't pass legal mustard, take them to the European Court.

      Tell me what safeguards are built into the EU to prevent tyranny of the masses - the "masses" being the council.

      I think you should do what a lot of the Brits did the day after the brexit vote and start by typing into Google: "What is the European Union"

  14. As an old Radio Amateur, I can sort of get it... by MindPrison · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...because if everyone can "mod" the devices to let's say "outside" their designated frequency range, we're in for real trouble on the airwaves.

    Before the non-radio amateur crowd thinks I'm on the "powers that be" side here, then I've got to tell you where I come from on this. I've been building and modifying radio transmission equipment pretty much all my life as an hobby, and a wet dream of mine as a kid, was to freely be able to build any kind of transmitter and receiver I wanted to, regardless of laws and regulations, but that's not very practical in the real world, the only way to do this legally (and even know what you're actually doing) is to become an electrical engineer with a degree in RF technology, or become an licensed radio amateur, why is that you might ask, you might even ask what the relevancy here is, well, it's not simple to explain - but I'll try my darnedest to explain it:

    Imagine you have a piece of equipment that CAN go outside its designated range, and you mod it so you can transmit on a broader range, say - increasing the bandwidth so you can get more throughput and cover more frequency "ground" so to speak.

    This can and will create all kinds of hell for existing communication devices, maybe even those used for emergency, alarm systems, medical equipment and much more.

    The reason there's an requirement for a technical license to even be able to operate in certain bands (especially with modified devices, modified by you and other experimenters) is that through that technical knowledge you'll gain by becoming a licensed radio amateur, you'll learn how to deal with making filters to prohibit spurious emissions to leak through your own equipment, you'll also learn respect for design and how to avoid making serious mistakes on the airwaves, whether this is digital or simply as in the olden days "analog" with speech / Morse-code (which is very similar to digital transmissions, except, very slow and ..old), you'll respect the band-plans already put aside for experimental use (which you're free to use, under respect for the rules, as long as you actually know what you're doing).

    Now, imagine you modified a transmitter to cover so much of the bands that you interfere with medical equipment in a nearby band (frequency), now we have a real problem on our hands that can actually cause lives to be in danger, even if you don't notice anything yourself. You'll be creating all kinds of confusion for those using this equipment, and eventually get caught by your country's FCC team who constantly monitor all frequencies for unauthorized traffic, interference etc. It's hard to explain this to laymen who doesn't know the technology behind this, it's no joke - there are entire careers made out of understanding RF spurious / parasitic emissions, especially those designed in SOHO devices that has to meet the strictest FCC rules in order to be released to the market. Even small modifications can create equipment to misbehave, and you'll have equipment that no longer meets the criteria for acceptable spurious emissions into our wide spectrum of band-plans.

    Radio amateurs have for the longest time, been the pioneers of such technology, and there's a reason we're allowed to do experiments like this, because we're qualified to do so (not everyone of course, some I've met, sadly - doesn't even understand the basics, but - at least they had to go through a long course learning about the basics, so they'll at least keep within the legal boundaries of what they CAN and CAN NOT do on the air).

    Now - modify the software of your routers ALL you want, this isn't the issue, the issue is when you start modifying your hardware (especially the RF part) to go beyond what it was designed to do, even if you're good at coding - doesn't qualify you to be a RF technician that fully understands this, and this can be a dangerous combo).

    RF interference is a real thing, and it's dangerous - only proper knowledge can remedy this, and there must be certain requirements met to ha

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  15. "EU Bad - Anglo good" rhetoric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This was a post by TheRegister .CO.UK which right now, with the UK parliament voting tomorrow on Brexit, should be taken as another anti-EU flame.
    The EU has occasionally, over the decades, come up with some really dumb shit but so far only the EU has done anything to protect citizens privacy rights online.

    The way this is written it could stop devices like laptops or Raspberry Pi's having their software changed.

    No, it isn't.
    Its intention is to lock down the frequency and power output of any radio transmission within the parameters that the device passed RF EU approval for.
    But spin it a certain way and you can upset a lot of people.

    1. Re:"EU Bad - Anglo good" rhetoric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      only the EU has done anything to protect citizens privacy rights online.

      You mean they increased the barrier for entry to protect established tech companies and sold it to dimwits as protecting privacy?

      Its intention is to lock down the frequency and power output of any radio transmission within the parameters that the device passed RF EU approval for.

      There's a long road from product development to certification.

    2. Re:"EU Bad - Anglo good" rhetoric by Cederic · · Score: 3, Informative

      El Reg has never shown a pro or EU bias in its entire existence.

      It tends not to show any biases at all, if you ignore the more recent occasional anti-male article from its San Francisco office.

      Basically they hate everybody and operate with all of the cynicism you'd expected and desire from anybody in journalism or IT.

  16. Seems reasonable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The FCC did something recently in the US as well and there was drama over it. If you read into it carefully it made sense. They want to ensure the RADIO part is as the device was sold as. If radio and Firmware are separate (like Android and co) no problems. If there is no separation ... well you will need to demonstrate you still pass EMI .

    the radiowaves are sparse. You cannot impose on your neighbour a fingerprint which causes them outage or even more serious mess with pacemakers or medical band.
    Now if a piece of hardware doesn't have separate radio then yes this pretty much stops such devices being moddable.

  17. It's not like they haven't tried that before. by devslash0 · · Score: 2

    It's the same old story, just a different scope. There are billions of already locked down devices on the market today. Yet, creative souls keep finding ways to break all those devices free. Worst case scenario, you can buy some old, easily breakable devices on eBay or from a pawn shop. It's not like they all area going to disappear from the market any time soon.

  18. You just got caught obfuscating, I doubt your cred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm actually a certified CPA. Paying a ~half percent less in one tax regime does not offset the fact that the vast majority of the money went to the biggest corporate owners, not 95% of Americans who got basically chicken scratch.

    Taxes got moved around, calling it a significant tax cut for the middle class is a flat-out lie.

  19. Re:You just got caught obfuscating, I doubt your c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is nothing wrong with letting people keep more of their own money.

  20. #Educating the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "taxes was reduced by 3%" - Nope. Your state tax burden went up accordingly, no more writeoff there, so they simply shifted. Calling it a significant tax cut for the middle class is a flat-out lie from a Trumptard who can't do math.

    Also, taxes is plural, so you say were, not was. #Educating the Republicans

    1. Re: #Educating the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Your state tax burden went up accordingly, no more writeoff there

      Unless you are referring to the salt deduction (which should have been capped anyway) in California I would still say you are still full of shit. Please enlighten me on this magical writeoff my CPA missed?

      A simple examination of the tax schedules for my bracket are nominal, at best. Far less than the 3% I ended up saving at the Federal level. By simply comparing my 2017 and 2018 tax returns it's obvious that I ended up paying less overall.

      https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2017-California-Tax-Rates-and-Exemptions.shtml#sd
      https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2018-california-tax-rates-and-exemptions.shtml#sd

      Also, taxes is plural, so you say were, not was. #Educating the Republicans

      Anyone that disagrees with you is a Republican. Got it.

    2. Re: #Educating the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      State tax laws vary by state, sorry your CPA sucks! Better luck next time. Try not to vote for traitors who lie to you about the "bigly" tax cut they promise you, but actually give to the richest multi-billionaires.

      You got peanuts, and you're eating them out of a shit sandwich pretending this is totally great. You're a moron. Your tax burden was not significantly lowered.

      When you faggots lie, your penises get a little smaller - eventually you become a Trumplike eunuch and die in prison, a traitor. The system works.

    3. Re: #Educating the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      State tax laws vary by state, sorry your CPA sucks! Better luck next time. Try not to vote for traitors who lie to you about the "bigly" tax cut they promise you, but actually give to the richest multi-billionaires.

      You got peanuts, and you're eating them out of a shit sandwich pretending this is totally great. You're a moron. Your tax burden was not significantly lowered.

      When you faggots lie, your penises get a little smaller - eventually you become a Trumplike eunuch and die in prison, a traitor. The system works.

      Says the person that paid no taxes and assumes that people didn't get a tax cut.

      Got it. You're just a trolling asshat.

  21. Re:As an old Radio Amateur, I can sort of get it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Good comment.

    You'd better hope there is an exception for amateurs, otherwise that hobby will pretty much be dead.

  22. Re:You just got caught obfuscating, I doubt your c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are a CPA you are full of shit. Comparison of the 2017 to 2018 standard deduction states otherwise.

    https://www.kdpllp.com/2017-vs-2018-federal-income-tax-brackets

    My god the TDS at Slashdot is astounding. And I didn't even vote for the asshole.

  23. Only Chinese Firmware Allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing could possibly go Wong.

  24. It was a giveaway for multi-billionaires. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope. Your state tax burden went up accordingly, no more writeoff there, so they simply shifted. Calling it a significant tax cut for the middle class is a flat-out lie from a Trumptard who can't do math.

    Almost all of the tax cut went to the multi-billion dollar corporate owner / inheritance class. And Trump caused the deficit to skyrocket in the process, so it's doubly retarded.

    1. Re:It was a giveaway for multi-billionaires. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      State tax burden? Give me a break. My state has no income tax!

    2. Re:It was a giveaway for multi-billionaires. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you're not the 95% of Americans who we were talking about, good for you. The vast majority of Americans did not get a significant tax cut, just the rich dick-holders like Drumpf the traitor.

      Getting less than 1% of the benefit while you're paying for the entire 100% ongoing is Republican-level economic study. You might miss it.

    3. Re:It was a giveaway for multi-billionaires. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For loving taxes so much you liberals sure do hate paying tax to your own state or country. You literally just complained about helping your state out. But you only said that because your whole statement was bullshit to begin with. Please keep acting the way you are. People are starting to wake up to the bullshit on both sides. We need you Martyr's to Make America Great Again. Thank you for your service.

    4. Re:It was a giveaway for multi-billionaires. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      95% of those who live in the Bay Area or NYC maybe. Maybe everyone else was tired of subsidizing your states' and cities' stupid expenditures.

  25. Re:You just got caught obfuscating, I doubt your c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem for you is that didn't actually happen significantly. Trump simply gave the richest who pay the least % in taxes more of your money.

  26. Re:As an old Radio Amateur, I can sort of get it.. by mrwireless · · Score: 1

    It's all a big "what if".

    The reality is there's very little motive for wide-spread abuse. People just don't do it.

    The few that do operate outside the allow frequency, well there are already laws to deal with that.

    Look at the downside though: suddenly vast amounts of citizen/civic-born innovation are hindered.

    It's the RF equivalent of "think of the children".

  27. Kendall doesn't appreciate representative gov't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "so no one person is actually responsible for the suffering the machine generates." = Representative Government. We know, fangirl, you prefer a retarded Dick-tater like Donald Drumpf who can't even lie competently. Too bad, faggot.

  28. Weather Radar? by PPH · · Score: 1

    Did this originate with the morons who developed Doppler weather radar? The ones that were too f*king stupid to get their own dedicated frequency for an important life safety service and used the 5 GHz ISM band instead? So WiFi screws with it?

    ISM has been a garbage band for decades, what with police radar, door openers, radio controlled toys, etc.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Weather Radar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like the German idiots forced to sell weather radar overseas because it's completely fucked up in their home country?

  29. KENDALL YOU CRYBABY FAGGOT LOL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Help, I'm being oppressed by Europe's government!" -Uh, no, you're crying from your mother's house in Incel, Colorado...

  30. Over my dead router... by foxalopex · · Score: 1

    Over the years I've exclusively used opensource projects such as "Tomato" to run on my routers because not only are they extremely stable but they're also extremely useful too often having more features than you normally need. And in the case of Tomato firmware (and it's sucessors) often a much nicer interface to boot too. I specifically won't buy any router that isn't supported. My last major router which handles all the traffic in my household is a monster dual 1Ghz ARM Netgear R 7000 router which I hopefully won't need to replace anytime soon.

  31. Re:This sounds like it may just govern radion cont by Aighearach · · Score: 2

    Except, they don't. You're presuming that Chicken Little is correct about the basic premises of the situation. He isn't.

    The radio IC already has its own firmware, separate from the application controller. That is true even if you buy them on the same chip, as with many of the offerings from Nordic Semi. This is about the firmware that controls the radio itself; the part that already is a binary blob you install that allows the radio to work. It isn't about the ARM processor that runs the application firmware that you, as a consumer, think of as "the firmware."

  32. Re:As an old Radio Amateur, I can sort of get it.. by Pyramid · · Score: 3, Informative

    Of course you know that as a licensed amateur radio operator in the United States, one has frequency privileges near and inside the 2.4 GHz ISM band. You can quite legally modify a home router for Amateur Radio use.

    As long as you aren't in a country where that wasn't suddenly rendered illegal, that is.

    --
    ~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
  33. Receiving devices by Ozoner · · Score: 3, Informative

    As a Licensed Radio Amateur you should know that even a Receiving device can generate spurious products if you mess with the firmware.

    And no, a Router is not a receiving device.

    1. Re:Receiving devices by BranMan · · Score: 1

      Sure as shootin' is a receiving device - if it didn't receive it wouldn't be routing nothin'

      I do, of course, assume y'all are talking about wireless routers..

  34. Re:As an old Radio Amateur, I can sort of get it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Thankyou for an extremely good response - anyone messing about with RF for educational purposes is great, but, as you consider, interference is a real concern and some way to introduce that person to bandplans, licensing, and all the regulated stuff that makes it slightly less fun, but still worthwhile would be good.

    Unfortunately I suspect short of a 'want to mess with this and learn stuff? become a ham!' labels on everything, it will be an uphill struggle!!

    I remember radio theory in high school (early 90's) was very limited to a simple microwave demonstration with a low power waveguide and some metal rods which you could rotate to demonstrate polarisation (etc). 1 lesson. It's a shame, but there's a lot to cram in in the curriculum.

    73'

  35. Non-compliant gear... by Ozoner · · Score: 2

    People are making a fuss out of nothing..

    Since day one, if you wanted to use radio equipment it had to be Compliant.
    And if you modified it, it was no longer Compliant.

    So if you want to modify compliant equipment, it is up to you to have it re-certified.

    Unless you are a licensed Radio Amateur. Then you can self-certify the continuing Compliance of your Ham gear.

  36. Re:This sounds like it may just govern radion cont by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The radio IC already has its own firmware, separate from the application controller.

    There's nothing in there called an "application controller". Did you mean the CPU?

    This is about the firmware that controls the radio itself;

    Yes, that's the firmware I'm talking about. I know I didn't specify, but an intelligent person could have determined that from context.

    It isn't about the ARM processor that runs the application firmware that you, as a consumer, think of as "the firmware."

    You obviously don't know what I'm thinking of. Next time confirm before coming on like a hard-on. Since I used to hack and tweak some of the old Motorola phones, I'm quite well-acquainted with radio firmware, thanks. I used to flash different ones on the regular.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  37. Re:As an old Radio Amateur, I can sort of get it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't think the objection is to the lockdown of the radio devices themselves. The worry is when these laws come into effect, the manufacturer's response is to lock down everything, including non RF related components. TP-Link responded in this fashion to the FCC passing similar regulation, and Linksys did so as well for all but their flagship WRT series. I think it was resolved a while ago and I think the FCC decided to play ball and clarify the the ruling was only to be in regards to emitting equipment only, not the user interfaces and non emitting equipment but the scare was real for a while.

  38. Re:As an old Radio Amateur, I can sort of get it.. by r2kordmaa · · Score: 1

    While a lot of trouble could be made by a dedicated hacker out to cause harm and some potentially self made radio equipment, is there really an issue in need of a fix and does it in any way get solved by forcing compliance on consumer tech? Honestly I'm not seeing it. It's a problem that doesn't really exist and a solution that doesn't really work.

  39. Re:You just got caught obfuscating, I doubt your c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It isn't "their" money. Why do you keep saying things like that?

    I will agree that there are too many tax loopholes that let the investor class pay far less than the top marginal rate on a regular basis. That could stand some correction.

  40. Re:You just got caught obfuscating, I doubt your c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Trump simply gave the richest who pay the least % in taxes more of YOUR money." - Verbatim. Trump isn't closing any loopholes he isn't opening elsewhere.

  41. Re:This sounds like it may just govern radion cont by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    Old phones (esp. pre-2008) were "single processor" -- they used the same CPU for BOTH the radio AND running general software. That hasn't been the case for YEARS, especially since multi-core CPUs and ARM TrustZone became the norm. For all intents and purposes, the "radio" functions now run on their own virtually-isolated CPU that "regular" software (including the OS itself) can't touch.

  42. Re:This sounds like it may just govern radion cont by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Old phones (esp. pre-2008) were "single processor" -- they used the same CPU for BOTH the radio AND running general software.

    Not those Motorola phones. They absolutely had a separate radio processor, which did have its own firmware. It was just technician-flashable, and the technician tools were readily available on the internets.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  43. US freedom vs EU laws by AHuxley · · Score: 1, Insightful

    In the USA you have some freedom to work with science and share your results.
    That person in the USA gets smarter and can even educate people with their results.
    Innovation spreads all over the US and more people build and share results.

    In the EU laws stop science and nobody smart gets to have the freedom to experiment.
    The EU educates people about laws.
    People buy a product in the EU and are told how it will be used under EU laws.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:US freedom vs EU laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You've got some pretty weird ideas about Europe and some fanciful ideas about your own country.
      Silicon valley continues to import smart people from Europe on H1Bs in their thousands because the US makes education the privilege of the wealthy instead of streaming and funding the education of intelligent kids like the EU does.
      Who's smarter? Not the USA from where I'm standing.

    2. Re:US freedom vs EU laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AHuxley is a paid troll.

    3. Re:US freedom vs EU laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh look, another Russian shill/swivel-eyed libertard. Yes, EU laws stop science being done, so CERN and the Large Hadron Collider are figments of my imagination are they? Try harder for your rubles, comrade.

    4. Re:US freedom vs EU laws by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      For some things; I've not read up on the status of things recently, but as I understand it, you get raided pretty often if you're selling decent chemistry experiment sets for students to the general public here in the US.

  44. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -1, nice. How much are you guys getting paid?

  45. Bandplans, broseph. by Chrontius · · Score: 1

    Why is this a problem? Because bandplans change.

  46. This is what ISM is for...sort of. by Chrontius · · Score: 2

    The problem with frequency hopping is it’s hard to keep it from stepping all over someone else’s allocation.

    The problem with crypto is it’s hard to tell it from jamming signals.

    Why is this a bad combo? Because you’re jamming the radio gear used by lots of deep-pocketed companies at once. Someone will be able to make life unpleasant enough for the FCC to motivate them to track you down.

    If you’re going to do FHSS and encryption, don’t be an idiot - keep it in an ISM band.

    1. Re:This is what ISM is for...sort of. by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      The problem with frequency hopping is it’s hard to keep it from stepping all over someone else’s allocation.

      No, it actually increases available spectrum. There's lots of band for free use by civilians, and the hopping takes place within that band. When the hops are on the order of a millisecond you can get a lot more overlap than you could fit into the band otherwise and it just sounds a little distorted instead of two people talking at the same time.

      The problem with crypto is it’s hard to tell it from jamming signals.

      No it's not. Jamming signals are much more powerful than communications traffic.

      Why is this a bad combo? Because you’re jamming the radio gear used by lots of deep-pocketed companies at once. Someone will be able to make life unpleasant enough for the FCC to motivate them to track you down.

      This stuff is illegal even on the civilian bands open for literal walkie-talkies.

      If you’re going to do FHSS and encryption, don’t be an idiot - keep it in an ISM band.

      Again, also illegal. The frequency hopping part isn't outright illegal, but the crypto part is. The FCC forbids civilians who aren't police to use any form of crypto radio which doesn't have a published key.

  47. Re:As an old Radio Amateur, I can sort of get it.. by Slayer · · Score: 1

    Of course you know that as a licensed amateur radio operator in the United States, one has frequency privileges near and inside the 2.4 GHz ISM band. You can quite legally modify a home router for Amateur Radio use.

    As long as you aren't in a country where that wasn't suddenly rendered illegal, that is.

    You still have power limits with this equipment. Since spurious emissions are typically a constant fraction of (and sometimes grow more than proportionally with) actual power output, you may well end up causing interferences with your equipment that the original configuration did not.

    And at least in my country amateur radio transmissions have to be of trivial matter, not the transfer of important files from point A to point B. I live in a small European country, which most likely did not come up with this rule by itself, therefore I would assume that a similar rule applies to most radio amateurs worldwide.

    Therefore even with a full amateur radio license, you can not modify your random ISM device to transmit at 10W without having a solid handle on your spurious emissions, you can not use a modified ISM device to extend your home network to some distant building, and you can not make methods&processes for modifying existing ISM equipment by unskilled people available.

  48. Re:As an old Radio Amateur, I can sort of get it.. by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

    A number of years ago my neighbor asked me if I was a HAM radio operator. I wasn't, neither was he, although he was an EE of some stripe. His garage door had been opening and closing on its own. I had noticed some weird WiFi issues. Eventually everything calmed down again but the best we could figure out from the variety of weird stuff going on was that one of the other neighbors has playing with radio equipment. I imagine when the population gets more dense there's even more opportunity for chaos even when everything is behaving mostly in spec.

  49. Not to worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the EU takes away, China will provide at a fraction of the cost.
    Still, why the hell does the EU want so badly to fuck every freedom their member countries have?
    I know why of course, money and power, lots of it! Fuck the EU and all other states wanting to rule, death is their only salvation.

  50. Re:You just got caught obfuscating, I doubt your c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paying less taxes is not having money going to you. You mean that the biggest tax reduction went to corporations? Also, what's the problem with that since companies will typically pass along costs through increased prices?

  51. No SDR, no GNU Radio folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    open source SDR radio software stacks, and to a lesser extent the firmware for SDR transmitters if it is open source or has knobs for tweaking output power, would run afoul of this.

    Which means this is a direct assault on open source effectively. Normally I would hesitate to do this, but perhaps it's time to call in RMS and the EFF to deal with this?