Hacker News Reader

Comment by tantalor | Hacker News Reader

This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.

View on HN

That's not what the FCC means by interference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_47_CFR_Part_15

Yes, this is not what FCC means by interference, and no Part 15 regulation is violated here. But there's no need to downvote. If we review the terms of Part 15,

> (1) This device may not cause harmful interference

> (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.

You'll see it's actually a general, universal principle of good communication, and applies to many cases other than RF spectrum. Internet pioneer Jon Postel once said TCP implementations should follow a general principle of robustness:

> (1) Be conservative in what you send

> (2) Be liberal in what you accept.

It's almost identical to the principles of Part 15.

A few years ago, when the Mirai botnet launched its massive DDoS attack, a HN user used Part 15 as an analogy of the future directions of IoT's security model. And in this example of protocol conflict between Pokemon and Roku, it also applies.

So, is the Switch (in certain circumstances caused primarily/only by this game) breaking 1, or is the Roku breaking 2? Neither seem to have broken either until this particular interaction.

Neither the FCC literally means radio interference not random protocol clashes [0] like seems to be happening here. That rule basically means 'don't pollute the radio spectrum' and 'you have to accept the spectrum you receive'.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/dy0p86/how...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com