FCC Proposing Bad Rule!

[Charles L. Cotton]

I realize this is hardly a hot topic with gun owners, but it is very important nonetheless.

The FCC is proposing a rule to require manufacturers of certain WiFi devices to ensure that their firmware cannot be changed. This is potentially a huge problem for altering equipment to legitimate use, especially older equipment that is no longer in service. For example, Linksys routers are being used by ham operators to create the HSMM-MESH network. It is essentially an Internet system that uses radio frequencies (RF) and is not dependent on the cable/fiber optic infrastructure. It is not merely an interesting or entertaining system; it is a critical piece of a disaster recovery communications system. Many hams are setting up these systems to link hospitals with other emergency responders to use as back-ups in case of mass communication and/or Internet failure. Let's face it, it would also be nice to have an alternative to the Internet if those in power decide to destroy it by regulation.

Comments close on Sept. 8, so please consider posting a comment against the proposed rule. Here is an article on the issue. CLICK HERE to post a comment.

Please take the time to comment. You may not be a ham, but you or your loved ones may one day need this valuable back-up communication system. (The rule could possibly stymie development of apps for cell phones and other devices, per the article, but I have no knowledge in this area.)

Thanks,
Chas.

[Glockster]

Wow, the article says that this would also impact cell phones. Wonder what the heck their logic is for thinking there is a need for this rule?

The link on that page for comments doesn't seem to lead to an actual electronic comment page (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/) and instead goes to a FCC blog page.

[SA_Steve]

Any guidance from the ARRL on this yet ? I did a quick look

[puma guy]

I hope the campaign to keep this from happening is successful. All too often the people making decisions to alter or eliminate programs have no notion of what the real details are and the effects that occur. My older brother was involved in Civil Defense as a Ham and they maintained a repeater as part of the communication system. He presented to our city council and the LEPC the importance of Ham radio and their response to him was we have cell phones. As we discovered in Alison when the entire Sprint system went down ---we DON'T always have cell phones. The system was dismantled. RF is always available as long as there's a power source and someone to key a mic.

[K5GU]

Remember the "broadband-over-power lines" controversies a few year back? It turned out that the FCC wizards promoting that had no clue what evaluation, studies and testing needed to be done. I think it eventually died.

Re this proposal on RF devices, changes, etc. - BOHICA (bend over here it comes again). Here's a direct link to the federal register document paragraph showing how and who to contact.

https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... evices#p-4

It's rather lengthy but has a pretty good TOC. If you scroll up to the Table of Contents, under Procedural Matters there's a link to the "A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules" section. I didn't see any citations related to complaints or problems which generated these proposed rule changes.

[LabRat]

Comments submitted.
The proposed rules and associated documentation was a grind to get through (typical government doublespeak) but I did.

[K5GU]

I haven't read the whole proposal yet, but it appears to mainly apply to the evaluation and certification of new equipment. And it looks like their rules would vary a little based on whether the new devices are revisions to existing one's versus complete new technology.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I haven't read the whole proposal yet, but it appears to mainly apply to the evaluation and certification of new equipment. And it looks like their rules would vary a little based on whether the new devices are revisions to existing one's versus complete new technology.

Correct, but all electrical equipment has a finite lifespan. The WRT54 I have to use on HSMM-MESH will one day die and if this rule is adopted, I won't be able to modify any router that was manufactured after the effective date of the rule. It also hits the 5GHz band, precisely where HSMM-MESH works. The folks on the HSMM-MESH sites are very worried.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I updated the link directly to the comment page.

Chas.

[Glockster]

Thanks, that helped! Just sent mine.

[RHenriksen]

What a terrible idea. I've uploaded a comment to the FCC.

[ghostrider]

I realize this is hardly a hot topic with gun owners, but it is very important nonetheless.

I agree.
thanks for posting this

[K5GU]

Does anyone know if there's a way to confirm the FCC electronic comments are getting to them? I read on their Official Blog page, https://www.fcc.gov/blog/modernizing-fcc-s-it "...These web applications will include our Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS), Universal Licensing System (ULS), National Broadband Map, and other public-facing applications....". Their shutdown period ends at 8am ET on 9-8, same day as the comment deadline. It says the down time will apply to "interactive" pages and not static pages. But unless I'm more ignorant than I thought, isn't an electronic web form page considered 'interactive'?

[K5GU]

I haven't read the whole proposal yet, but it appears to mainly apply to the evaluation and certification of new equipment. And it looks like their rules would vary a little based on whether the new devices are revisions to existing one's versus complete new technology.

Correct, but all electrical equipment has a finite lifespan. The WRT54 I have to use on HSMM-MESH will one day die and if this rule is adopted, I won't be able to modify any router that was manufactured after the effective date of the rule. It also hits the 5GHz band, precisely where HSMM-MESH works. The folks on the HSMM-MESH sites are very worried.

Chas.

Exactly. I also just saw on the QSL site a post that indicates the DoD also does mods to commercial off-the-shelf devices such as this. I wonder if the FCC techies know this, and what if any, exceptions there will be for the DoD.