[duskwuff]

> IIRC these switches were not user accessible.

They were definitely user accessible in at least some of the products. Here are a couple of the devices named in the FCC complaint which obviously had exposed DIP switches:

https://hobbyking.com/en_us/aomway-700tvl-cmos-hd-camera-nts...

https://hobbyking.com/en_us/1-2ghz-mg-500mw-8ch-a-v-wireless...

https://hobbyking.com/en_us/x40-l-25mw-tx-cnc-alloy-cas.html

There were undoubtedly a number of others which could be switched between frequencies in other ways, like with a pushbutton.

[R0b0t1]

I still don't feel great about this. It should be up to the end user to not break the law.

[fencepost]

My initial thought was also that it sounded excessive, until I got to the parts about interfering with assorted Air Traffic Control frequencies, only 1 of the 7 possible selectable bands being legal for use, broadcasting (in reserved bands!) at higher power than allowed for the device type, selling 65 other noncompliant products, claiming that the constitution protected them from having to respond and refusing to agree to more than "We'll try not to do it again but no promises."

After that, throw the book at them. I'm amazed they didn't claim that the FCC had no jurisdiction because they only recognize county sheriffs as authorities.

After all, what could possibly go wrong with remote controlled flying transmitters that interfere with GPS AND ATC navigation systems?

[R0b0t1]

> After all, what could possibly go wrong with remote controlled flying transmitters that interfere with GPS AND ATC navigation systems?

Do you think the people who operate or use these things are completely helpless and have no contingency plans?

The people in here saying the sky is falling are insane. People who operate disruptive devices are caught, and then educated and/or fined all the time.

[fencepost]

Absolutely they have contingency plans and it's unlikely something with these would cause a jet crash, but in a scenario with instrument flight due to weather, taking out one of two additional positioning systems adds noticeable risk.

Low visibility. No GPS. Impaired ATC. How many additional separate systems have to be affected to be a real problem?

[R0b0t1]

Looks like you're moving.

[netr0ute]

> until I got to the parts about interfering with assorted Air Traffic Control frequencies

I'm ok with this.

[jlarocco]

It is up to the end user to not break the law. But...

> In its earlier Forfeiture Order, the FCC said it had made clear that “[d]evices used in the Amateur Radio Service do not require authorization prior to being imported into the United States, but “if such equipment can operate in amateur and non-amateur frequencies, it must be certified prior to marketing and operation.” The FCC investigation found that 65 models of devices marketed by HobbyKing did not have the required FCC certification.

It's also up to the equipment manufacturer or importer to make sure the equipment they sell in the United States is certified by the FCC.

[tdeck]

Just to add more context to this - it's easy to create a radio device that outputs RF on frequencies outside the intended range. This is one of the main reasons we have the certification requirements to begin with. It would be bad enough to do it by mistake, but these things do it by design.

[rthomas6]

GPS signals from the satellites are extremely weak, and actually are below the noise floor. GPS uses processing gain tricks in order to see the signals at all. This means that a terrestrial based transmitter doesn't have to put out a ton of power to break GPS in a large area. Like, many square miles. It makes sense to me to outlaw the sale of RF electronics that are made to transmit on that frequency.

Usually I would agree with you, but it's sort of like selling a laser pointer with a user-accessible switch that would make it a powerful directed energy weapon.

[moftz]

I went to a GnuRadio conference a few years ago where a lot of presentations were on directional tracking of signals. One huge issue is that truckers are using GPS jammers that plug into the cigarette lighter socket to block the truck tracking systems from knowing that they are driving outside of their legal time limits. One trucker has left his jammer plugged in for a day or two. The nearby port was entirely shutdown until authorities found the jammer because the massive ships couldn't navigate the tight quarters of the port without GPS. One project was using cameras along with multiple antennas to attempt to track who was driving past a particular overpass with a jammer turned on. A cigarette lighter socket has the potential to put out tens of watts out RF power which can almost certainly jam anyone that can't use the military anti-jam GPS channels.

[salawat]

>but it's sort of like selling a laser pointer with a user-accessible switch that would make it a powerful directed energy weapon.

...I see no problem with this. In fact, I'll take 5.

[underwater]

You're proving his point?

People will buy this with the intent of misusing it, therefore the government should stop people selling it.

[TeMPOraL]

Sure. Can you afford to pay damages after you inadvertently blind yourself, and everyone else in a hundred meter radius around you, with diffuse reflections off whatever you point the laser at?

[ziml77]

That's a selfish framing, though for that poster it's probably a good choice. However the thing that they really should worry about is harming others in the first place. If I was blinded by them, money would be great to get but no amount is going to make up for the fact that I'm blind.

[R0b0t1]

I'm aware. Have you not seen the occasional news articles where someone with a cell/GPS jammer gets caught and fined for it? Last one I remember was a trucker jamming his company's GPS to prevent speed tracking.

It's reasonable to expect the end user to not break the law because enforcement is possible. Even if enforcement was impossible, prior restraint of natural rights to just do stuff should not be on the table. Should we ban CNCs because you can use CNCs to build things that kill people?

[FPGAhacker]

I think the obvious difference is design intent.

[nucleardog]

It's just not realistic to enforce at scale.

As an example of this, look at the explosion of cheap handheld radios that can operate across all different parts of the spectrum flooding in from China, enforcement has been... more or less non-existent except in the most egregious of cases. Generally the range on these things is only a few miles, and trying to pinpoint a single intermittent transmission even if it's static within that few miles can be _extremely_ time consuming.

And we're talking about a very limited shared resource that we rely on for many aspects of day-to-day life.

Where it _is_ possible to enforce at scale is at importation/sale.

Yes, any random yahoo can get the parts to put together an illegal transmitter. But the scale of that problem is a hell of a lot different than a product being mass marketed online for $50 with no indication that it's illegal to operate.

The simple fact is if the market gets flooded with cheap devices that don't follow the spectrum allocations, large swathes of the spectrum will very quickly become useless. It's pretty a straightforward example of the tragedy of the commons.

[azernik]

EM spectrum is something sovereign states take Very Seriously, and if that requires hardware makers to lock their hardware in to approved frequencies so be it (from a state perspective).

[labster]

If it were a product for licensed radio operators, sure it’s up to the user. But for the general public, it’s really not appropriate for them to be able to flip a switch that breaks international law, and have an elite Dutch police team haul them off for trial in The Hague. Even if that does sound awesome.

[briandear]

I’m not going to trust aircraft safety to one jackass who might not care about the law — or might not even be aware of the consequences of what they are messing with.

[betaclass]

This goes beyond just breaking the law. This endangers others' lives.

[Robotbeat]

I agree. Is SDR gonna be made illegal? Same idea.

[paranoidrobot]

I believe most of the SDR community is about receiving, which is by and large, legal.

The bits I've seen involving SDR transmission has been very clear that it's only to be done if you're a licensed operator.

[desine]

Technically, you’re not allowed to “operate” on bands you’re not licensed for, including rx, but enforcement is difficult, of course.

Edit: If your device has any transmit ability, it falls under above. If your device ONLY has rx capability, it does not. Many of the USB SDR dongles DO have the capability to tx, albeit at only ~0.5 watts. This is generally not advertised in the device, but their chip does technically hav an amplifier capable of sending out signals, though usually you would also need an antenna with a shunt. I'm quite certain on this.

Again, in real life, it does not matter.

[vel0city]

This is incorrect at least in the US. You are allowed to receive practically everything. There's only really a carve out for analog cellphone frequencies, but that's about it.

[oceanghost]

You just jogged a weird memory out of my head. In the early days of the internet there were sites that had pirate audio streams from analog cell phones. It was pretty sporadic but a very interesting sort of slice of life thing.

[tzs]

That’s under federal law. A few states add some restrictions. 5 of them disallow listening to police frequencies on portable radios without a license (but a ham license is acceptable). Florida and New York are the biggest states with this restriction.

[paranoidrobot]

My understanding is that operating on a frequency requires that you be transmitting on it, not whether the device is capable of transmitting on it.

For instance, you can own one of those cheap handheld Baofeng radios that is capable of transmitting on all sorts of frequencies, so long as you never transmit (and you don't listen to any forbidden frequencies)

Happy to be corrected, but all the resources I've dug up say that it doesn't matter whether the device is capable of transmitting or not.

[jimktrains2]

In the us you're allowed to receive everything but the cellular phone spectrum without a license. You or the device needs to be licensed to transmit, however.

Note that this isn't the case everywhere. I believe in the uk it's illegal to listen to air traffic, but I would need to look up the specifics to give anymore detail.

[R0b0t1]

Receiving of certain bands is prohibited, from memory the ones used on cordless phones and something else. All devices sold, say frequency analyzers, have to have a bandgap for them to pass FCC validation. It is common to remove these bandgaps and ignore the law because everyone seems to accept they are really dumb and they wreck the sensitivity of the instrument.

[Johnythree]

None of the cheap USB SDR dongles have transmit ability.

The reason being that they are based on a cheap Receive Only chip set.

Those that do have TX are much more complex and expensive.

BTW, you've pretty much discredited your own post by talking about a "antenna with a shunt". Whatever you think that is.

[fortran77]

Certainly untrue in the United States, though there are some bands that are prohibited to listen to — the old 800 MHz analog cell phone bands. And you won’t get 500mw transmit out of usb SDR dongles.

> I’m quite certain of this.

Hmmmmm

> shunt

LOL

[himinlomax]

TX SDR is already illegal, unless you have the appropriate license. If you don't stop the sale of cheap illegal transmission devices, there will be millions of instance of illegal transmission, most unintentional, which would make enforcement impossible and ruin the spectrum.

[himinlomax]

Even if you're a hardcore libertarian, you have to be somewhat pragmatic here. The freedom to do whatever the fuck you want is nice, but being able to board a flight without fearing that it could be endangered by any random fuckwit who doesn't know what they're doing is a bit nicer. While it's not that hard to cobble together some electronics that would have the same effect, this is about limiting it happening because some idiots flipped the wrong switch, or making it just hard enough to stop most evildoers who would do it on purpose from actually doing it.

[colechristensen]

With generic equipment like an SDR which requires one to specifically do many things to break the law.

However having a piece of unlicensed radio equipment for use with unlicensed operators which has essentially a “flip this switch to break the law” the situation is quite different.

[homero]

Then people would buy phone jammers if they could easily be sold

[R0b0t1]

Kits are already easy to buy. People don't bother buying the kits because if you use the jammer generally you are found. Occasionally pops up in the news.

[djmips]

" if you use the jammer generally you are found. Occasionally pops up in the news." - only people who are found pop up in the news. Your logic looks faulty.

[Johnythree]

The thing with phone jammers is that they actively flag "I am here" and are easy to locate.

Because phone jammers cause serious problems to the phone companies, they have teams in the field actively tracking them down. And the phone base stations run software which automatically flag that they are present and log the co-ordinates.

The FCC doesn't even need to get involved.

[homero]

Easily like preassembled on amazon prime and many more would try it