Open-Source Advocates Say Proposed FCC Rules Will Stifle Innovation

The FCC isn't taking into account “the actual nature of how the software and hardware actually interacts right now,” Schultz told us. “The way they define the term transmitter includes anyplace where the software can control the radio frequency.” Now, that is done in most cases inside the Linux kernel of the router driver, Schultz said. When one prevents modification of the Linux kernel, “you prevent modification of pretty much the entire device,” Schultz said.

As a sign of potential problems, Schultz pointed to recent comments filed by Jack Matejka, a member of the U.S. military, complaining that proposed changes to the transmitter rules will keep him from modifying his router when he is overseas. “That’s not really what we should be doing,” Schultz said. “We should encourage people to obey the rules of the country they’re in and work to see how we can work together with the FCC and the open-source community and the hardware community.”

Schultz earlier raised the issue in a blog post. “The FCC … says their proposal has no effect on open source operating systems or open source in general,” Schultz wrote. “The FCC is undoubtedly wrong.” The FCC has the best of intentions in the proposed rules, he wrote. “I believe they want to protect the radio spectrum and implement the [Enhance Labeling, Accessing, and Branding of Electronic Licenses] Act as required by Congress,” he said. “I believe they want to protect innovation in the technology industry. I also believe that their proposal harms innovation, endangers the free, libre and open source community and is generally anti-user.”

The issue the group raises has been around for years, said Richard Bennett, network engineer and founder of the High Tech Forum. “Unlicensed spectrum is made available to the public on the condition that devices using the spectrum must be certified by the FCC for conformance with the power limits that apply to the various frequency channels within the unlicensed space." Traditionally, open source routers have used special device drivers including the MadWifi driver from Atheros that allowed developers freedom but protected the spectrum by blocking access to the power-level knobs in the Atheros chipset, he said. “That project has been phased out, so now it’s necessary for open source Wi-Fi developers to submit their entire software systems for certification to ensure that they conform with regulations,” he said. “Restrictions on software freedom are the price we pay for unlicensed spectrum.”

Bennett said the FCC could create a streamlined process for the approval of open source experiments, or approve them under its experimental licensing regime. “But it can’t abandon regulation of unlicensed spectrum altogether,” he said. “Perhaps the best way forward is for the FCC to recognize trusted developers and fine violators.”

The prpl Foundation needs to participate in the proceeding and make its concerns clear to the FCC, said Harold Feld, senior vice president at Public Knowledge. “It is important for stakeholders to make sure the agency has all the facts,” Feld told us. “I hope that the open source community will participate in this proceeding and see it as an opportunity to foster working relationships between the FCC, the open source community, and the hardware community. I think the FCC also welcomes this participation.”

The FCC doesn't want to shut down innovation in the unlicensed bands, Feld said. “Open source and open hardware are major drivers of that innovation,” he said. “I think folks outside the Beltway often underestimate the desire within the FCC to get new perspectives, and the willingness to reflect those perspectives when rules are actually adopted.”