[hpsdr] FCC rules Open-source SDR less secure

[Robert McGwier]

Gerald Youngblood and I went to the F.C.C. and we gave a talk and 
discussed their proposed rule making.  I believe you can see the impact 
we had throughout this document thought I don't claim we wrote any piece 
of it.  We pleaded for them to not get in the way of a successful move 
of amateur radio into the almost inevitable future where larger pieces 
of it were done digitally with software and cognitive radios.  We proved 
then, and we have continued to supply them and the ARRL CTO with 
information (ammunition) that shows amateur radio operators are doing 
INNOVATIVE development that is simply not being done elsewhere and much 
of it in SDR and CDR.  One of the best papers you can find anywhere on 
the foundations for CDR (the mathematical tools) is in QEX and written 
by Frank Brickle, AB2KT!

In the end,  they told us that if amateur radio SDR's did not self 
police and provide transmit frequency protection, and removal of 
completely automatic scanning outside of amateur bands that we were 
likely to face serious certification of a type that would not be 
affordable.  Now I know that faced with this,  we could come up with 
open source means of authentication that would pass, but the expense 
would be onerous.  I personally might personally be in serious trouble 
if I attempted to provide this.  In the end, I think we are simply going 
to have to live with small pieces of firmware at a minimum that prevent 
unauthorized use of amateur SDR equipment outside of the amateur bands.

Yes, we argued strongly that almost all amateur radio equipment could be 
easily modified to transmit out of band.  I offered to bring in an 
unmodified transceiver  and modify it in less than five minutes to show 
how easy it typically was.  I was told that I should not volunteer to 
commit a crime on federal property and that they were aware of this. 
The F.C.C. is responding to external pressure from all sorts of quarters 
from the White House to commercial entities like Cisco to NTIS, and the 
intelligence community as well as D.O.D.  The schizophrenic aspects of 
this are almost ludicrous.  You find one D.O.D. office wanting to 
support you, buy yours toys, help you help them,  and another wanting to 
kill the entire effort.  It is bewildering.

Given this order, which is now enforceable law since it was placed in 
the Federal Register, I expect more radio manufacturers to look at this 
order and jump into the SDR world more completely.

I think that, overall, with these competing pressures,  the F.C.C. 
struck a reasonable balance between the hysteria on the parts of some 
and the desires to reinvigorate amateur radio in particular but radio 
development in general in the U.S.  One only has to visit places like 
the Wireless group at V.P.I. and other places to realize that S.D.R. and 
C.D.R. are having a major impact on the new engineers and communications 
scientists being trained at many universities.

When Frank Brickle and I gave our S.D.R. course last fall, we had HALF 
of the entire senior electrical engineering class take the course and 
they did not know us from Adam's house cat and many were graduating, so 
it was a risk.  That was impressive, not to mention a fantastic time.



http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/01/24/101/?nc=1


73's
Bob
N4HY

jim wrote:
> ***** High Performance Software Defined Radio Discussion List *****
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> It appears to me there is a lot of  speculation as to what the FCC 
> posted into the Federal Register on June 6, 2007.  I would suggest going 
> to this site 
> http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/07-2684.htm 
>  and reading it.
> 
>  
> 
> Below are two excerpts from the FCC ruling.   
> 
>  
> 
> 6. In regard to MSS' request for clarification about the regulatory 
> 
> treatment of amateur radio equipment, the Commission did not intend to 
> 
> impose any new certification requirements for amateur radio equipment 
> 
> in the Cognitive Report and Order. External RF amplifiers that operate 
> 
> below 144 MHz that are marketed for use with amateur stations will 
> 
> continue to require certification before they can be marketed. Other 
> 
> amateur radio equipment, including equipment that meets the definition 
> 
> of a software defined radio and that has software that is designed or 
> 
> expected to be modified by a party other than the manufacturer, will 
> 
> continue to be exempt from a certification requirement. However, as the 
> 
> Commission noted in the Cognitive Report and Order, certain 
> 
> unauthorized modifications of amateur transmitters are unlawful. It may 
> 
> revisit the issue of the certification of amateur equipment with 
> 
> software modifiable features as identified above in the future if 
> 
> misuse of such devices results in significant interference to 
> 
> authorized spectrum users.
> 
>  
> 
>  

-- 
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"If you're going to be crazy, you have to get paid for it or
else you're going to be locked up." Hunter S. Thompson

 1183994039.0