I guess i'm not familiar with all the issues.

It's an undue cost for manufacturers to certify software/security as long as # 2 is met. It seems like the manufacturers would have a vested interest to fight this. The public can claim a benefit from CPE running open software as it provides enhanced functionality, allows important experimentation, etc.

I would be happy to support a rules change effort though I don't have the fire in the belly to organize a petition group. The rules change process is well documented on the FCC web page. I belong to a club that has gotten other rules changed before so I know it can be done.

I'm a ham and have bigger beefs with the FCC right now. I'm currently trying to get an experimental license for low frequency operation and probably won't get it due to rules. (The issue is proximity to power transportation lines and interfering with PG&E power line communications. I'd like to think that PG&E would prefer to fix their vulnerabilities.)

--Martin

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:

On 28 July 2015 at 13:46, Martin <dcmk1mr2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Ok I just actually read it. Quote:
>>
>> "An applicant must describe the overall security measures and systems that
>> ensure that:
>>
>> 1. only properly authenticated software is loaded and operating the
>> device; and
>> 2. the device is not easily modified to operate with RF parameters
>> outside of the authorization."
>>
> # 1 is insane for the FCC to have any purview over - not their turf.
> Given the fact that these are Part 15 devices operating in the ISM bands #2
> isn't to bad to certify.
>
> I would ask the FCC for a rules change to reflect that. The FCC regulates
> the public spectrum not software.

This is because there are some vendors that .. haven't been playing by
the rules. This didn't come out of nowhere.

They've been asking for a while for vendors to play ball, and there
are a couple of CPE vendors that haven't been, and.. this is what
happens.

So if you disagree with this, you should get together with a group,
formulate a /constructive/ reply to the FCC, and file it with them.

-adrian