<story><title>The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems</title><url>http://prpl.works/2015/09/21/yes-the-fcc-might-ban-your-operating-system/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>lexicalscope</author><text>This title is kind of click-bait - they aren&amp;#x27;t prohibiting operating systems, they _might_ be prohibiting installation of operating systems that are not approved on certain types of devices that allow software defined radio - that is, transceivers that can be tweaked easily by software.&lt;p&gt;That is not at all the same thing as banning an operating system.&lt;p&gt;This is already present insofar as hardware requirements in radios - radios cannot be permitted to listen on frequencies reserved for cell phones, and must not be restricted in such way as they can be easily modified to enable it (e.g., a header&amp;#x2F;jumper). This really just extends this requirement that it is non-trivial to enable illegal broadcasting or reception on software defined radios.&lt;p&gt;Now - insofar as if this should impact open source operating systems, we have a good question. I don&amp;#x27;t think it does that - my interpretation, potentially wrong of course, just as the article&amp;#x27;s could be wrong, is that you would have to restrict the actual firmware in question to a blob that communicates with the hardware in a secure way. This would prevent open&amp;#x2F;free components insofar as the actual driver, but would not permit the operating system itself from being installed. They mention this, but only at the end of the article.&lt;p&gt;I also doubt the impact of this for non software-defined&amp;#x2F;modular radio systems. I don&amp;#x27;t see a way this would really impact everyday wifi or non-modular systems in a way most people would care about. That isn&amp;#x27;t to say it isn&amp;#x27;t _bad_ but once again, it just seems super misleading and alarmist.&lt;p&gt;Whether or not the FCC should or shouldn&amp;#x27;t do this is a different question, but the link&amp;#x27;s title seems intentionally misleading.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>kazinator</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;they aren&amp;#x27;t prohibiting operating systems, they _might_ be prohibiting installation of operating systems that are not approved on certain types of devices that ...&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;&amp;quot;prohibit installation&amp;quot;&lt;/i&gt; means to ban.&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;&amp;quot;operating systems that are not approved on certain types of devices that ...&amp;quot;&lt;/i&gt; means specific operating systems.&lt;p&gt;So, the FCC &amp;quot;might ban specific operating systems&amp;quot;; you&amp;#x27;ve paraphrased what the title says.</text></comment>
<story><title>The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems</title><url>http://prpl.works/2015/09/21/yes-the-fcc-might-ban-your-operating-system/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>lexicalscope</author><text>This title is kind of click-bait - they aren&amp;#x27;t prohibiting operating systems, they _might_ be prohibiting installation of operating systems that are not approved on certain types of devices that allow software defined radio - that is, transceivers that can be tweaked easily by software.&lt;p&gt;That is not at all the same thing as banning an operating system.&lt;p&gt;This is already present insofar as hardware requirements in radios - radios cannot be permitted to listen on frequencies reserved for cell phones, and must not be restricted in such way as they can be easily modified to enable it (e.g., a header&amp;#x2F;jumper). This really just extends this requirement that it is non-trivial to enable illegal broadcasting or reception on software defined radios.&lt;p&gt;Now - insofar as if this should impact open source operating systems, we have a good question. I don&amp;#x27;t think it does that - my interpretation, potentially wrong of course, just as the article&amp;#x27;s could be wrong, is that you would have to restrict the actual firmware in question to a blob that communicates with the hardware in a secure way. This would prevent open&amp;#x2F;free components insofar as the actual driver, but would not permit the operating system itself from being installed. They mention this, but only at the end of the article.&lt;p&gt;I also doubt the impact of this for non software-defined&amp;#x2F;modular radio systems. I don&amp;#x27;t see a way this would really impact everyday wifi or non-modular systems in a way most people would care about. That isn&amp;#x27;t to say it isn&amp;#x27;t _bad_ but once again, it just seems super misleading and alarmist.&lt;p&gt;Whether or not the FCC should or shouldn&amp;#x27;t do this is a different question, but the link&amp;#x27;s title seems intentionally misleading.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>archimedespi</author><text>&amp;gt; This is already present insofar as hardware requirements in radios - radios cannot be permitted to listen on frequencies reserved for cell phones, and must not be restricted in such way as they can be easily modified to enable it (e.g., a header&amp;#x2F;jumper). This really just extends this requirement that it is non-trivial to enable illegal broadcasting or reception on software defined radios.&lt;p&gt;Cough, cough, HackRF(&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;greatscottgadgets.com&amp;#x2F;hackrf&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;greatscottgadgets.com&amp;#x2F;hackrf&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;) + GNURadio(&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;gnuradio.org&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;gnuradio.org&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;) don&amp;#x27;t seem to have these limitations.</text></comment>