Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:26:32 -0400 (EDT) | | From | "Richard B. Johnson" <> | | Subject | Re: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support |
| |
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
> Citat Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.kernel.2003@gmx.net>: > > > > So don't blame the vendors on this one, several of them would love > > > to publish drivers public for their cards, but simply cannot with > > > upsetting federal regulators. > > > > /me wants binary only driver for these cards to build opensource driver > > with ability to set "interesting" frequency range. > > > > It's there for Windows :) So ...
Contrary to popular opinion, there is no FCC regulation prohibiting one from receiving some particular frequency. There is, however, a federal law prohibiting the disclosure of a radio message by a third party. This means that the media, or even law enforcement can't listen to a private radio (cell phone) conversation and then disclose its content. At one time, cell phones used FM at 960 MHz. This could be readily received by receivers designed for Amateur Radio use. For a time, the FCC refused to Type Approve receivers that cover these frequencies. However, most Hams know how to fix their receivers so they can receive whatever they want and Type Approval was only required for receivers that were designed to be sold. You could build anything you want for yourself. This refusal to Type Approve receivers was a trick to make the usual receiver owner think that there was some dumb regulation when, in fact, under the Communications Act of 1934 (as amended), there can't be such a regulation without creating a new public law, which hasn't happened and probably will not.
Recently, some broadcast satellite companies have tried to get the FCC to declare that their transmissions are private and unauthorized reception should be unlawful. The FCC has continually postponed any such declaration because, if once broadcast, a radio signal doesn't become public, then anybody could sue every radio transmitter operator to prevent the trespass of "their" signals onto private property. You can't have it both ways, either radio signals are public and, therefore cannot commit a trespass, or they are private and can.
But, unlike some other countries regulators, the FCC has steadfastly refused to allow broadcasters, even satellite broadcasters, to pursue such extortion. Basically, once a signal leaves an antenna, it becomes public property.
The same is not true for cable and "guided waves". Satellite broadcasters have not been able to convince the FCC that their transmissions are "guided waves". However, some private RF link companies signals, including some that use satellites, are considered "guided waves" and cannot be used without permission.
Various commercial interests have convinced governments of many other countries that they "own" their radio signals and therefore different regulations exist in many other countries. In the UK, for instance, one has to purchase a license to use a receiver (you know, some Sony Walkman). This is, in my opinion, extremely repressive. It would be nice for somebody to start suing the BBC (and others) to recover damages for the criminal trespass of "their" radio signals onto private property. After a few such lawsuits, the ownership of such broadcast signals would revert to the public, just like in the US.
Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips). Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |