About getting a free software 4g or 5g chip
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben
It has been said,getting a
free software 4g or 5g chip usable
in consumer hardware like
notebooks or phones is
impossible either because of
technical obstacles or license
or patent matters.
I do not know if there are 4g or 5g
chips which do not require signed
non free software to work? And
if such chips exist, can they be
reverse engineered? If there are,
then in europe you are allowed
to reverse engineer such 4g and
5g chips. I do not know if you
are allowed to distribute the
reverse engineered software. And
if you are, do you have to pay
licenses?
The following goes for europe.
About usa I do not know.
The documentation about 4g and
5g is public available. Anybody has a right to develop a free software
4g or 5g chip utilizing the
public documentation. In order to
build a working 4g or 5g chip, you
will have to utilize certain
algorithms. You have a right to
utilize those algorithms. But
you are required to pay fees. The
fees are regulated by a fair prize
standard. If you start selling
a free software 4g or 5g
chip you have made,
then you are required to undergo the
same authorization schemes
as any other
non free software 4g or 5g chip
manufacturer. My point is, if free
software people accumulated
the required money for
building a free software 4g or
5g chip then no rules,
regulations or patents can deny
such an enterprise.
I am aware of 2 free software
4g efforts.
https://github.com/OPENAIRINTERFACE
https://github.com/srsLTE/srsLTE
None of them are ready for
manufacturing.
Unlike WLAN adapters, most modems don't require non-free firmware. If your notebook has WWAN antennae, using an internal modem (either Micro PCIe or M.2 NGFF) is recommended. Of course, you'll first need to remove the white-list restrictions (e.g. via flashing coreboot).
Patents may indeed be a problem but there are also regulatory matters, at least in the United States. This part is about the U.S.
The United States has a regulatory body that governs broadcasting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission
See "Using modified phones on carrier networks":
http://osmocom.org/projects/baseband/wiki/LegalAspects#Usingmodifiedphonesoncarriernetworks
One of the problems is that the FCC's approval is lost once other radio firmware is installed, and using a device that isn't FCC approved is very likely illegal. Even if the free software community were somehow able to partner with a cell phone manufacturer and have them use the free replacement from the start, along with FCC approval, being free means that the user has the ability to install modified versions, and this then takes us back to the beginning where the FCC's approval is then lost once a modified version of the software is installed.
The law needs to change. It shouldn't be illegal to use your own stuff once you've installed your own software into it.
I don't know what the situation would be like in Europe but does Europe have some regulatory body that governs who and what is allowed to broadcast or can just anyone go and broadcast anything they want, wherever they want, on whatever frequency they want in Europe?
> Patents may indeed be a problem but there are also regulatory matters, at least in the United States
My post was about countering this claim. In
terms of europe. There are no patents stopping
a free software 4g or 5g card getting
made. It is about getting the funds required
to build the 4g or 5g card.
> FCC's approval is lost once other radio firmware is installed
If the 4g5g card comes with free software
to start with, then you are not putting new
software on the 4g5g card. It is not about taking
a 4g5g card already having non free software on
it and then swap the non free software
with free software. It is about providing a usable
4g5g chip. Make free software for it and put
the free software on it. Then
run the required authorization procedures.
The case you are thinking about is probably, let us
take a phone, apple, samsung, lg and so on, having
a 4g5g card running non free software and put
free software on the 4g5g card. That is not what
I am describing. Instead make a 4g5g chip running free
software. Get it approved. Then build it
into various consumer hardware. Notebooks, tablets
phones, and so on. Will samsung an the likes
utilize the free software 4g5g card? Maybe not. Will pinephone make it an option to buy one having
the free software 4g5g card? It might.
I understand why fcc will not allow people to
to put their own software on the 4g5g cards if
it might cause errors on the working of
the network.
> isn't FCC approved is very likely illegal
Do you think, usa would be able
to stop a free software 4g5g card
approved in europe from getting
on the market in usa?
> Europe have some regulatory body that governs who and what is allowed to broadcast or can just anyone go and broadcast anything they want, wherever they want, on whatever frequency they want in Europe?
I expect it to be regulated by european law.
For law to change, we first need to get a freesw modem.
You all thought it's the other way around, didn't You?
The thing is, mere existence of a 4G/5G device that makes it easy to modify its firmware would create more interest in the matter. If any kid could download an alternative firmware for their phone's modem and analyze BTS traffic without being noticed, it would make the legal system undeniably dumb. It would be like when EFF made DES cracker to force obsolescence of that algorithm. Once someone shows given countermeasure (in this case - broadcasting regulations) doesn't fulfill its purpose, that countermeasure is more likely to go away.
And hopefully the new one that comes will be better for our cause...
Btw, I think it would be possible to legally create free firmware for a modem and even host sources. Regulations prohibit *usage* of non-approved firmware. There's little that can be done to You for hacking some source code. Similarly, selling software-defined radios isn't illegal by any means. In other words - it is illegal to sell a hamburger or to eat a hamburger, but it is ok to sell bun, tomatoe, lattice and steak, together with a recipe for hamburger ;)
Also, there surely is *some* state without such regulations. Once we have a prototype, why not walk into the hall of that state's embassy in your country and start playing with the device?
As to patents - that is a bit of an issue. However, as long as such thing remains a community project, patent trolls won't be able nor willing to do much harm to it.
Also, China. Chinese are well-known for knowing some black magic that can make any non-certified device into a certified one. Perhaps we could pay them to do that.
On the other hand - the entire struggle seems like trying to make a free software client for Skype. Even if we ever get one, the underlying technology will still be proprietary and freedom-denying. Working towards a completely different solution would be better use of our time. Think about SIP. Think about mesh networks :)
As you've already seen, "the entire struggle" involves some political movement (also said by RMS).
I am a translator!
I agree with "For law to change, we first need to get a freesw modem." but I think some parts of the law may be for legitimate technical reasons.
If you plug a device on your ethernet network and that device has such an ethernet implementation that will create troubles to other ethernet devices connected to the same ethernet medium, the affected devices are only those on that medium and it is easy to find the guilty device as people can't plug themselves if they don't have physical access.
If you have a wifi device that takes advantage of the wifi protocol in a way that is severely detrimental to others (or to certain others), this could affect anyone around and it is extremely difficult to find the guilty device. I am not familiar with wifi but I guess you need to show some minimum conformance to wifi specifications in order to be able to sell a device.
Supposing you have a wifi device with purely free software, if you modify the software, how to ensure that this device still won't prevent other wifi devices in the neighbourhood from working, wherever this device is used and whatever the other wifi devices? I guess some mandatory compliance testing would be a way.
With 4G/5G, I guess the issue is the same, perhaps more dfficult though due to wider range, more complex protocols, and use of "licensed spectrum" (mobile operators are paying to have the exclusive right to install base stations using a given spectrum range). For 4G/5G user devices, conformance testing is much more costly, so this may make it even more difficult than wifi.
What I mean is that this is not only a matter of law, if you want to convince anyone with your free software radio implementation, you also need to show how to avoid that it creates problems when people modify the code.
> If you have a wifi device that takes advantage of the
> wifi protocol in a way that is severely detrimental to
> others (or to certain others), this could affect anyone
> around and it is extremely difficult to find the guilty
> device. I am not familiar with wifi but I guess you
> need to show some minimum conformance to wifi
> specifications in order to be able to sell a device.
Actually there exist Atheros chips with free, OS-loaded firmware and I haven't heard of any problems with selling/purchasing them. In fact, I am right now using one to post this reply.
What's interesting is that I mostly hear of wifi devices with proprietary firmware being used in a way detrimental to others. One classmate in secondary school (7 years ago or more) ran wifi-killer on his phone while in a shopping center. By this he kicked a few dozens of people from the network. On another occasion I heard from a friend that when his house was to be connected to the internet via some wireless bridge, the 2.4 GHz frequency band in the neighborhood was bloated by other devices - so the firm configured the bridge for 2.6 GHz which is not really legal. It would also be technically possible to exceed the power limitations imposed by law to e.g. increase one's wifi network's range. But neither of these things seems to be actively monitored here right now... Also, consider how many devices (both wifi and GSM-enabled) on the EU market come from China where bypassing various certification requirements and the like is easy and widely practiced. I see no reason to think freesw radio devices could create *additional* danger.
> if you want to convince anyone with your free software
> radio implementation, you also need to show how to
> avoid that it creates problems when people modify
> the code.
I don't think most people think in terms of avoiding problems. Well, they should. If all people were reasonable in their technological choices, the world would be a better place with much less influence from proprietary software vendors. But I mostly just see people blindly swallow everything thrown at them, no matter whether it is a good and beneficial technology or not. Politicians who prepare bills are no exception to this. This means in practice few people will care whether I have a way of avoiding problems.
Given that wifi is being widely used and in practice somehow works despite the hacks I mentioned, I don't think it would be significantly different with 4G/5G.
Also, it is probably more beneficial to spend time not on proving our libre technologies can solve problems (which are not really solvable btw) but rather on showing proprietary technologies fail to solve them. Someone could as well hack a proprietary modem to meddle with GSM traffic. Sure, proprietary stuff is theoretically hard to modify - but in practice people do that too (think about PinebookPro's keyboard firmware, jailbreaking of Apple devices and Warez, just to name a few).
Also, I think what can make a network more robust is not regulations concerning devices that access it but rather the design of its protocol. Perhaps 4G/5G protocols also have holes similar to those in wifi? If so - I believe exposing them would a good thing - just as exposing the weakness of DES by the EFF was a good thing that led to AES contest :)
I am a translator!
> But neither of these things seems to be actively monitored here right now...
In the country where I live, there was a news that after 1 year of investigation on interference that randomly affected some airport, it was found out that the source was a guy working for a maintenance company who sometimes did not want to be tracked by the boss so was switching a jammer on so that the GPS receiver in the car is jammed. That was also jamming the airport communications when the guy was not far from it but the guy probaby had no clue about that.
That kind of investigation is very difficult, it will be done only when some serious problem repeatedly occurs, and it is a lot of work.
> Also, consider how many devices (both wifi and GSM-enabled) on the EU market come from China where bypassing various certification requirements and the like is easy and widely practiced. I see no reason to think freesw radio devices could create *additional* danger.
I may be wrong but I think that most of the 4G/5G mobile devices "from China" are using modem chips from a very small number of vendors that do the testing themselves and the only ones "from China" are designed by Huawei or MediaTek so there is not such diversity actually.
I am not saying that freesw radio devices could create danger that proprietary device cannot create, I am saying that if freesw radio devices are used wrongly (and I think using 2.6 GHz for wifi is a very bad idea), that will be an easy argument against them.
> and I think using 2.6 GHz for wifi is a very bad idea
You know what they say - if something is a bad idea and it works then it is not a bad idea.
> if freesw radio devices are used wrongly that will
> be an easy argument against them
Someone could indeed attempt to present it as an argument against free software. The truth is, someone who decides to use a radio device in a malicious way is likely already committed to break the law and in particular - to break any regulation that forbids that particular malicious activity (be it packet sniffing, hacking into others' devices, causing of interference, etc.). Once a freesw radio implementation shows up, maintaining a regulation requiring radio software to be proprietary is not going to stop a malicious actor who is already determined to break the law.
The point you made here is good - if we ever get to the point such argument is drawn against us, we need to have a response ready. And the response is that the problem lies in people using a device wrongly, not with the device itself. Just as a knife can be used to slice bread and can also be used to murder someone
I am a translator!
> Just as a knife can be used to slice bread and can also be used to murder someone
Perhaps the guy who jammed his car's GPS had no clue about the other consequences. Same with the 2.6 GHz: it works for some people but perhaps they are destroying somebody else's system but they don't know. Using spectrum not for the usage for which it is officially allocated is not only breaking the law, it can have really bad consequences for others.
I am not aware of any regulation requiring radio software to be proprietary. Regulations just require devices to follow behaviour requirements and give some evidence of that. The requirements are not even against "malicious activity", they are mostly for interoperability and coexistence.
> Perhaps the guy who jammed his car's GPS had no clue
> about the other consequences. Same with the 2.6 GHz:
> it works for some people but perhaps they are
> destroying somebody else's system but they don't know.
> Using spectrum not for the usage for which it is
> officially allocated is not only breaking the law,
> it can have really bad consequences for others.
You're right, there is some danger. As to my friend's internet connection, he always knew this stuff better than me - I hope he and his service provider know what they are doing.
Back to knife analogy - it is also possible to hurt oneself or someone else when attempting to juggle knifes. I think this kind of resembles what you are warning about. And it still doesn't make knifes bad by themselves :)
> I am not aware of any regulation requiring radio
> software to be proprietary.
There is no *direct* requirement for it to be proprietary - it results *indirectly* from other requirements. For example: as of now a hypothetical modification to the code that handles digital signal processing would require the entire device to be certified again. That makes it impossible to execute software freedom legally, even if one manages to find a modem with free firmware.
> The requirements are not even against "malicious
> activity", they are mostly for interoperability
> and coexistence.
I thought a malicious thing like sniffing GSM traffic was also forbidden by radio regulations. O something like IMEI spoofing. I might have been wrong here, though
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben