|
|
|
|
|
|
by giantrobot
1054 days ago
|
|
|
> You're essentially arguing not that the device can't include a potentiometer, but that the case has to be sealed so the user can't install one. No I'm literally saying a company can't literally include a potentiometer that boosts power above the licensed levels. It doesn't matter if the case is sealed or screwed shut. The design will not get a Part 15 license and can't be sold. User modifiable firmware is the same thing as the power boosting potentiometer. If the user can boost the power the device is no longer a Part 15 device and needs a different license for sale and the user will require a license of their own to operate it. It doesn't matter what you think the law should be that's what the law is. The FCC as a regulatory body doesn't care about FOSS, they care about keeping an easy to over exploit shared resource continue to have significant and extremely profitable use. If licensing keeps the system working but makes FOSS inconvenient they're going to err on the side of a working system. The FCC is far from perfect and title 47 regulations are far from perfect. But they don't exist for no reason and didn't just appear overnight to inconvenience FOSS enthusiasts. |
|
|
It's a third party modification to the device. Why is it any different than any other modification to the device that could make it non-compliant? Why does the OEM have to prevent the user from modifying the device in this way -- notably by also preventing them from modifying it in many ways that aren't a compliance issue, which is by far the more common reason to modify the firmware -- but not prevent them from modifying it with a screw driver or a soldering iron?
> It doesn't matter what you think the law should be
It matters what people think the law should be because when regulators set policy that causes widespread security vulnerabilities in common consumer devices, we get to apply pressure to them using every means at our disposal until they do better.
> The FCC as a regulatory body doesn't care about FOSS
Regulatory bodies have to care about anyone they negatively impact who can marshal enough support to make them feel pressure. "Open source" is a lot of people, and a lot of major companies. Right to repair has seen some significant legislative support.
> they care about keeping an easy to over exploit shared resource continue to have significant and extremely profitable use.
Which user-modifiable firmware is no more a threat to than any other modification the user might make to the hardware, or for that matter the widespread availability of hardware you're intended to need a license to operate even though anybody who doesn't care about breaking the law can still buy it and use it.
> But they don't exist for no reason and didn't just appear overnight to inconvenience FOSS enthusiasts.
I don't think they exist for no reason. I think the OEMs like rules like that because they can point to it as the fig leaf for not allowing users to continue to maintain their own devices after the OEM stops supporting them, or add software features they would otherwise reserve to a more expensive model, because the OEMs would prefer that you buy a new one instead, or pay more. And that kind of regulatory capture causes me to advocate for its removal.