On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 07:10:02PM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
> >> [... the FCC ...]
> > [...], but [the FCC] probably can say that running the wireless card
> > with a modified driver is an uncertified configuration, and hence
> > illegal.
> 
> That seems odd to me, to say not that broadcasting too much power or in
> the wrong frequency range is illegal, but rather that using a
> configuration that hasn't been certified not to is.

Well, too much power or the wrong frequency range is illegal, also. =)
People will disagree, but I think that certification of these consumer
devices for the unlicensed bands is appropriate.  "Part 15" of the FCC
rules, which govern the marketing and sale of devices such as WiFi NICs,
are designed to protect consumers from unwittingly causing interference
to other users of the spectrum or from unwittingly injuring themselves
or others (i.e., causing burns, blindness, sterilization).

> Is there anyone here who has actually read the relevant regulations and
> who thus can put the uninformed speculation to rest?  I know I haven't
> (though in my case it wouldn't be the FCC...).

Someone at Atheros tells me that radios built from the
Atheros chip are Software-Defined Radio under these FCC rules,
<http://che.ojctech.com/~dyoung/public/fcc-sdr.pdf>. I can only surmise
that either Atheros or its customers certify the radios under those rules,
which somewhat relax the conditions (and the costs) to recertify a radio
with new software, but you have to take measures to keep end-users from
rolling their own software.

My interpretation is that the FCC does not prohibit a WiFi chipmaker
from publishing the specs for their chip's radio/frequency knobs unless
they certify under the SDR rules.  That is why, so far, Taiwanese WiFi
chipmakers have not used the SDR rules, so we have really low-level
control of power and frequency on WiFi cards with ADMtek and Realtek
chips.

Dave

-- 
David Young             OJC Technologies
dyoung@ojctech.com      Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933