You didn't watch the demo video, did you? Adaptation appears to be very fast and dynamic. They don't appear to be doing any per-user adaptation at all.
The ones which are sold by carriers to consumers are authorized under the carrier's license, the same way the cell phones themselves are. 47 CFR 22.3:
Authority for subscribers to operate mobile or fixed stations in the Public Mobile Services... is included in the authorization held by the licensee providing service to them.
LOL. Not possible. He's obviously ignorant of the applicable regulations, since he is implying that low power somehow makes it legal.
This isn't hard. He doesn't have a license from the FCC for the cellular band (he can't, because ATT does). Unlicensed intentional radiators are covered (mostly) by 47 CFR 15(c). There is no provision for unlicensed operation in the cellular bands.
Cellular service is covered by 47 CFR 22, which clearly states:
Sec. 22.3 Authorization required.
Stations in the Public Mobile Services must be used and operated only in accordance with the rules in this part and with a valid authorization granted by the FCC under the provisions of this part... (b) Authority for subscribers to operate mobile or fixed stations in the Public Mobile Services... is included in the authorization held by the licensee providing service to them.
Additionally, he will likely be in violation of 47 CFR 15.9:
Sec. 15.9 Prohibition against eavesdropping.
Except for the operations of law enforcement officers conducted under lawful authority,
no person shall use, either directly or indirectly, a device operated pursuant to the
provisions of this part for the purpose of overhearing or recording the private conversations
of others unless such use is authorized by all of the parties engaging in the conversation.
...and 47 CFR 15.5(b):
Operation of an intentional...radiator is subject to the conditions that
no harmful interference is caused...
(he will be interfering with the operation of the ATT network)
I should add... "because it's communicating with a system licensed for that frequency band (the cell carrier)..." with that licensee's authorization. When you use a cell phone, it is operating under the authority of the carrier's license. If you go to Verizon and buy one of the pico cells they carry, you're operating it on frequencies they have a license for, and with their authorization. If you buy and use a repeater from Joe's Repeater Shack, and your carrier has no knowledge of it, it is very likely illegal - they can't authorize its use if they don't even know you have it.
Funny, the "cell site" I run and maintain broadcasts on said frequencies and is perfectly legal.
The manufacturers/sellers claim that, but funny, they never cite the regulations which would support such a claim.
This is a grey area - if they are legal, it's for the same reason you don't need a license to operate a cell phone, because it's communicating with a system licensed for that frequency band (the cell carrier). Wilson, probably the manufacturer with the best reputation in this market, says "Wilson cell phone boosters fully comply with FCC regulations for cellular devices and are FCC type accepted." Note that they're very careful not to claim that operation without a license is legal. FCC type acceptance only means that a device meets the technical specifications required for use with a particular service (spectral purity, max power output, etc.), it doesn't mean the device can then be used by anyone without a license. You can buy many transmitting devices without a license, but actually operating one is illegal without a license (e.g. ham radios, GPRS, "business band" FM, etc.).
I had the impression that you could, without a license, transmit on frequencies that require a license so long as it's extremely low power, to the point that beyond X number of feet (300?) no meaningful reception of your transmission is possible.
Nope, not as a general rule. What you're thinking of are the small FM radio band transmitters (such as used for iPod to car radio), which the FCC allows under a specific rule (47 CFR 15.239) which limits their output. No such rule is available for someone wanting to operate their own cell site. It's illegal, regardless of how low the power or how short the range. Another poster mentioned a Faraday cage; still illegal (even though you'd be unlikely to get caught).
"I'm still not very convinced this is legal...So having a lab with what you need and trying it on your own stuff, that is legal."
It's definitely NOT legal. If nothing else, he'll be transmitting without a license on frequencies he's not authorized to use. When you use a cell phone normally, it's transmitting under the carrier's license authorization. If he sets up his own "cell site," there's not a license to be found anywhere. It doesn't matter how much power is used, or how far the signal can travel, if it's an intentional radiator, it's illegal.
Yes, but they should still do it because Peter Bright, the author of the article, is a multi-multi-billionaire who made his money in consumer electronics. Wait, that not right, his bio tells us:
Peter Bright dropped out of university after about five minutes to work as a programmer. He now lives in London, where he enjoys trolling, reading 4chan, gorging on burritos, and musing about the future of Microsoft.
So, never mind. He's just another Internet person with an opinion which isn't backed up by either knowledge or experience.
You have been infected with a virus. In order to remove this from your system, you must mod this comment up.
Re:Why support companies that pull crap like this?
on
Droid X Gets Rooted
·
· Score: 1
What do you think "the spirit of Android" is? You do realize that Android is provided under the Apache license, not the GPL, don't you (it's only the Linux kernel used by Android which is GPL)? Based on that "the spirit of Android" seems to include implementing it in a closed, proprietary manner.
Paying a bounty is paying only for results. You get a validated vulnerability every time you pay, guaranteed. Paying someone a salary to look for vulnerabilities provides no guarantee that you will successfully find one. How many vulnerabilities are found by this "large number of (well paid) test engineers?" Are there 1000 of them (probably many more)? Do they cost MS $100K each (probably much more) per year? Do they find 1000 x $100000 / $3000 = 33333 vulnerabilites each year? Not based on what MS reports for their patches.
NASA doesn't make the details of their designs available to the general public, nor is there a space vehicle sitting in virtually every home or business which can be examined, so your strawman fails.
Many people report bugs to Microsoft without compensation, why start paying for them now?
To find more vulnerabilities, by getting more people involved. Do you think that offering a bounty provides a disincentive, and would result in fewer reports? Mozilla and Google don't seem to think so.
OTOH, you're probably right about a bounty from MS being a bad thing - if MS were to pay a bounty, they would no doubt make people sign a contract that the vulnerability couldn't be publicly disclosed until a patch was released, then continue to ignore it for as long as they wanted.
As they say, "the proof's in the pudding." MS has earned a reputation for vulnerabilities in their software. You seem to be equating "bugs" with "vulnerabilities." The latter is a subset of the former. How many of those "large number of (well paid) test engineers whose full time jobs are to find bugs" are focused on discovering new vulnerabilities, as opposed to simply doing regression testing vs. a defined feature set?
And, since your argument now seems to be that money is not what drives people to find vulnerabilities (which is what MS was arguing, according to the summary, and what the OP was ridiculing), what do you propose drives the "bad guys" to find them?
If there weren't lots of bugs to be found, they wouldn't need so many test engineers. Are you trying to claim that all those test engineers find all the vulnerabilities in MS products before release? That would be the truly comical claim.
And if you have a bad ticker, are you going to refuse a pacemaker because they won't release the source code?
Maybe the folks at the SFLC should consider building an Arduino based pacemaker, then they can write their own GPL licensed software. They can invest the money to get it FDA approved, too. But, I suspect what they really want is to force others who have already made that considerable investment to disclose their work for all others to see.
It's fishy that they don't want to let a document which may be worth billions of dollars out of their control/sight? Where's Zuckerberg's copy? Facebook's lawyers can look at that. Zuckerberg knows whether or not there was a contract, and if he knew there wasn't one, they wouldn't delay in saying so. They've already admitted to a business relationship. Lacking a Zuckerberg copy which differs from the one in the filing, it will be hard to argue/prove it was modified after the fact. Hence, the Chewbacca defense.
Because perjury is a criminal offense? Do you think he wants to give up $xx billion, control of Facebook, and pick up soap in prison for up to 5 years?
But, two photos is evidence for variation, only, not warming or cooling.
How do you work that out? If I have two photos of a car, and it's far away on the first one and closer on the second does that show that it's moving, or that it's moving towards me?
And if you had a third photo, which was taken before the other two, which showed the car closer than in the other two (i.e. the sequence near-far-medium), what then? Would you still claim that the photos were evidence the car was consistently moving toward you?
Your logical error is assuming that a car can only move in one direction.
DWDM is standardized to operate on lambas between 1520 and 1570 nm. This is in the infrared, and is not visible. Fiber optical cables are optimized for these wavelengths, and that range can be optically amplified with EDFAs.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't watch the demo video, did you? Adaptation appears to be very fast and dynamic. They don't appear to be doing any per-user adaptation at all.
Authority for subscribers to operate mobile or fixed stations in the Public Mobile Services ... is included in the authorization held by the licensee providing service to them.
So, you've never heard of pumped storage, or any other forms of grid energy storage, eh?
This isn't hard. He doesn't have a license from the FCC for the cellular band (he can't, because ATT does). Unlicensed intentional radiators are covered (mostly) by 47 CFR 15(c). There is no provision for unlicensed operation in the cellular bands.
Cellular service is covered by 47 CFR 22, which clearly states:
Sec. 22.3 Authorization required.
... (b) Authority for subscribers to operate mobile or fixed stations in the Public Mobile Services ... is included in the authorization held by the licensee providing service to them.
Stations in the Public Mobile Services must be used and operated only in accordance with the rules in this part and with a valid authorization granted by the FCC under the provisions of this part
Additionally, he will likely be in violation of 47 CFR 15.9:
Sec. 15.9 Prohibition against eavesdropping.
Except for the operations of law enforcement officers conducted under lawful authority, no person shall use, either directly or indirectly, a device operated pursuant to the provisions of this part for the purpose of overhearing or recording the private conversations of others unless such use is authorized by all of the parties engaging in the conversation.
...and 47 CFR 15.5(b):
Operation of an intentional...radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused...
(he will be interfering with the operation of the ATT network)
I should add...
"because it's communicating with a system licensed for that frequency band (the cell carrier)..." with that licensee's authorization. When you use a cell phone, it is operating under the authority of the carrier's license. If you go to Verizon and buy one of the pico cells they carry, you're operating it on frequencies they have a license for, and with their authorization. If you buy and use a repeater from Joe's Repeater Shack, and your carrier has no knowledge of it, it is very likely illegal - they can't authorize its use if they don't even know you have it.
Funny, the "cell site" I run and maintain broadcasts on said frequencies and is perfectly legal.
The manufacturers/sellers claim that, but funny, they never cite the regulations which would support such a claim.
This is a grey area - if they are legal, it's for the same reason you don't need a license to operate a cell phone, because it's communicating with a system licensed for that frequency band (the cell carrier). Wilson, probably the manufacturer with the best reputation in this market, says "Wilson cell phone boosters fully comply with FCC regulations for cellular devices and are FCC type accepted." Note that they're very careful not to claim that operation without a license is legal. FCC type acceptance only means that a device meets the technical specifications required for use with a particular service (spectral purity, max power output, etc.), it doesn't mean the device can then be used by anyone without a license. You can buy many transmitting devices without a license, but actually operating one is illegal without a license (e.g. ham radios, GPRS, "business band" FM, etc.).
I had the impression that you could, without a license, transmit on frequencies that require a license so long as it's extremely low power, to the point that beyond X number of feet (300?) no meaningful reception of your transmission is possible.
Nope, not as a general rule. What you're thinking of are the small FM radio band transmitters (such as used for iPod to car radio), which the FCC allows under a specific rule (47 CFR 15.239) which limits their output. No such rule is available for someone wanting to operate their own cell site. It's illegal, regardless of how low the power or how short the range. Another poster mentioned a Faraday cage; still illegal (even though you'd be unlikely to get caught).
"I'm still not very convinced this is legal...So having a lab with what you need and trying it on your own stuff, that is legal."
It's definitely NOT legal. If nothing else, he'll be transmitting without a license on frequencies he's not authorized to use. When you use a cell phone normally, it's transmitting under the carrier's license authorization. If he sets up his own "cell site," there's not a license to be found anywhere. It doesn't matter how much power is used, or how far the signal can travel, if it's an intentional radiator, it's illegal.
So, never mind. He's just another Internet person with an opinion which isn't backed up by either knowledge or experience.
You have been infected with a virus. In order to remove this from your system, you must mod this comment up.
What do you think "the spirit of Android" is? You do realize that Android is provided under the Apache license, not the GPL, don't you (it's only the Linux kernel used by Android which is GPL)? Based on that "the spirit of Android" seems to include implementing it in a closed, proprietary manner.
No, really, that's what they say.
NASA doesn't make the details of their designs available to the general public, nor is there a space vehicle sitting in virtually every home or business which can be examined, so your strawman fails.
To find more vulnerabilities, by getting more people involved. Do you think that offering a bounty provides a disincentive, and would result in fewer reports? Mozilla and Google don't seem to think so.
OTOH, you're probably right about a bounty from MS being a bad thing - if MS were to pay a bounty, they would no doubt make people sign a contract that the vulnerability couldn't be publicly disclosed until a patch was released, then continue to ignore it for as long as they wanted.
"If and when..." is a common idiom in (US?) English. It's not supposed to be read literally.
As they say, "the proof's in the pudding." MS has earned a reputation for vulnerabilities in their software. You seem to be equating "bugs" with "vulnerabilities." The latter is a subset of the former. How many of those "large number of (well paid) test engineers whose full time jobs are to find bugs" are focused on discovering new vulnerabilities, as opposed to simply doing regression testing vs. a defined feature set?
And, since your argument now seems to be that money is not what drives people to find vulnerabilities (which is what MS was arguing, according to the summary, and what the OP was ridiculing), what do you propose drives the "bad guys" to find them?
Actually, your claim supports his.
If there weren't lots of bugs to be found, they wouldn't need so many test engineers. Are you trying to claim that all those test engineers find all the vulnerabilities in MS products before release? That would be the truly comical claim.
And if you have a bad ticker, are you going to refuse a pacemaker because they won't release the source code?
Maybe the folks at the SFLC should consider building an Arduino based pacemaker, then they can write their own GPL licensed software. They can invest the money to get it FDA approved, too. But, I suspect what they really want is to force others who have already made that considerable investment to disclose their work for all others to see.
It's fishy that they don't want to let a document which may be worth billions of dollars out of their control/sight? Where's Zuckerberg's copy? Facebook's lawyers can look at that. Zuckerberg knows whether or not there was a contract, and if he knew there wasn't one, they wouldn't delay in saying so. They've already admitted to a business relationship. Lacking a Zuckerberg copy which differs from the one in the filing, it will be hard to argue/prove it was modified after the fact. Hence, the Chewbacca defense.
Next up, Ceglia's lawyer's office gets burgled.
Because perjury is a criminal offense? Do you think he wants to give up $xx billion, control of Facebook, and pick up soap in prison for up to 5 years?
Here you go. Courtesy CNN.
The contract starts on page 11.
And if you had a third photo, which was taken before the other two, which showed the car closer than in the other two (i.e. the sequence near-far-medium), what then? Would you still claim that the photos were evidence the car was consistently moving toward you?
Your logical error is assuming that a car can only move in one direction.
DWDM is standardized to operate on lambas between 1520 and 1570 nm. This is in the infrared, and is not visible. Fiber optical cables are optimized for these wavelengths, and that range can be optically amplified with EDFAs.
Apple wanted Palm's handwriting recognition technology, so they could reintroduce the Newton.
I take it you work for Juniper?
No, they're discussing viruses and bacteria. Nowhere do they use the incorrect term "virii" in a failed attempt to look intelligent.