it may smell like it, but the fact is, that it is likely true. I have already checked with a retired engineer type (a good friend of mine in fact) and what he tells me is even more frightening. The way these changes might be instituted in 47 USC, its likely to cause a great many problems not having anything to do with security.

He also told me (and he should know) that there are several very good implementations that would offer the same level of security without having to completely redesign these products. One such is a simple hardware jumper that would allow the end users to install or update the firmware on various devices and the only way the device would work normally is when its in "secured mode. That secured mode would basically not allow any modification. THis would allow the end user to upgrade/update without causing undue security headaches.

There are some other implementation schemes that are a bit more detailed than I am willing to write about here. All of them have their good points as well and would offer a good alternative to the "one size fits all" scheme that the Fcc wants to have. Also, the Fcc lumped in the amateur radio service with commercial stuff and their idea on this would severely cripple our ability to innovate the hobby and offer help in emergency relief situations.

SO far, the Fcc (and the general public) are under the impression that the cell phone network can handle an emergency situation. If history is any teacher here, it won't. Case in point: Katrina. Nearly all of the cell sites were knocked offline in the affected areas for as much as 3 weeks and none of the back haul systems were operational for much of that time. You either had sat phones (and not many of them) or ham radio. Now imagine the next emergency of such a large scale (say the cascade earthquake zone lets go). You are talking an area affecting everything west of I-5 from the northern border of california to the canadian border. WIth this regulation in force, there would be no ad-hoc mesh nets carrying emergency traffic to an available working internet point. There would also be severely impaired amateur radio operations because SDR radios wouldn't be able to do some of the modes that their unlocked cosignss could do (high speed broadband HF traffic for instance). And this is only a small (and directly related to ham radio) example.

There are a lot of other effects this proposed rule change would have. Increased cost to the end user, limited innovation, limited capability and no user choice.

Believe me, this is not another "the sky is falling" announcement. THis has been coming for a while and the recent data breaches have forced this into the Fcc's mind. The problem here is that the Fcc will use a sledge hammer approach that should actually have the use of a velvet glove. History is replete with similar situations that caused extremely negative consequences. SOme of these include: Prohibition, gun control, controlled substances act and others. A small amount of properly applied regulation works far more effectively than a mass strike of all or nothing regulation. I can see a situation where a lot of electronics manufacturers are simply going to sell the good stuff overseas and send us the costlier and more limited products. Some won't even bother to sell here and this will create an impetus for a black market in better electronics. The same things have already happened with the Hollstead Act, the machine-gun act, the controlled substances act and the clean water act (take a look at the latest fiasco with the EPA and tell me I am wrong).

IMHO, there is a better way than this. The Fcc needs to be told this.

73's DE n7zzt Eric

On Aug 31, 2015, at 8:12 PM, Martin McCormick wrote:

> 	First, thank you for posting this. I am not criticizing
> anyone on this list but this article has a certain familiar smell
> to it.
> 
> 	I call stories like this and others Chicken Little
> stories. Remember Chicken Little who got bonked on the noggin with
> a falling nut or acorn and ran through the streets screaming that
> the sky is falling.
> 
> 	Remember the modem tax scare of years ago and other
> similar conspiracy stories that basically said that the party is
> over and now terrible things are about to happen.
> 
> 	This story sounds like a Chicken Little event for a
> couple of reasons. Firstly, the article only says that the FCC is
> considering a proposal to lock down all the stuff we use to
> communicate with. Probably some yo-yo in an expensive suit
> working for a large business interest had a team of lawyers write
> up a proposal and submit it to the FCC. When this happens and the
> submission passes the physical rules such as number of copies and
> the physical format of the document, it has to be heard/read even
> if it is a stupid idea. That's how America works.
> 
> 	If you run a huge company or work for 1 and have deep
> pockets, they listen to you longer than they might listen to the
> average Joe or Jane but eventually, the FCC must put the proposal
> out for public comment.
> 
> 	They are looking for thoughtful discussion so emails in
> all caps with half the words misspelled and maybe a period at the
> end of the last sentence are not given much weight.
> 
> 	So what is a SDR? It's a computer program that runs on a
> DSP or Digital Signal Processor. A digital signal processor is
> similar to the CPU's in your computer except it is usually built
> for speed so that it can process video, audio and images as fast
> as possible.
> 
> 	The CPU in your computer could be a SDR if you fed it the
> right program. It might not run as fast as a dedicated DSP chip
> set, but it could do all the math and spit out numbers just like
> the dedicated DSP's do, just not as efficiently.
> 
> 	What will probably happen is that after a lot of discussion,
> the FCC may decide to do nothing because there is no way to
> enforce any kind of lock-down without interfering with
> legitimate design interests.
> 
> 	I doubt that GNU Linux or any other operating system will
> be crippled simply because the howl and cries of "foul!" would
> be ever present.
> 
> 	There have been previous odious proposals before the FCC
> or other agencies that were backed by business interests with
> lots of dough and still fell flat.
> 
> 	Several years ago, the recording industry spent lots of
> money trying to foist some technology on to us that would thwart
> copying of audio. It was sophisticated for it's day and placed
> notches in the audio spectrum at around 4 KHZ. A
> copyright-compliant audio recorder would have detected these
> notches and refused to record or maybe would have produced a
> mangled recording that was unusable.
> 
> 	There were double-blind scientific tests in which
> subjects listened to music that sometimes had been doctored with
> the copy-prevention technology and other times was okay and had
> not been de-horned, so to speak.
> 
> 	The whole plan was scrapped when the test subjects could
> hear an audible reduction in sound quality on the doctored
> recordings.
> 
> 	I doubt that much bad is going to happen here but you
> never know.
> 
> Again, thanks for posting the article and links. Just remember to
> make your comments intelligent and not a rant. They really can't
> do much with a rant unless you have a good idea, anyway. Nobody
> here is ranting except possibly me, but if you do want to
> perticipate, be nice and logical.
> 
> Martin WB5AGZ
> 
> Ron Canazzi <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>> Hi Group,
>> 
>> Here is the link so it works without the equal signs prevalent on this 
>> list.
>> http://www.southgatearc.org/news/2015/august/fcc_proposes_ban_on_sdr_radios_and_more.htm#.VeN4mJcnqzL
>> 
>> Here is the text of the full article on it's originating website.
>> https://libreplanet.org/