Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:01:14 -0400 From: Gary Palmer <gpalmer@freebsd.org> To: Matthias Apitz <guru@unixarea.de> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Broadcom Docs Message-ID: <20111004140114.GA38162@in-addr.com> In-Reply-To: <20111004083710.GA1054@tiny> References: <1317656199.15510.5.camel@hitfishpass-lx.corp.yahoo.com> <CACqU3MUN0eG_WFPatO-gNQwohcWy9psncsHuU1V5KwY6CKtn3w@mail.gmail.com> <20111004054444.GA10311@tinyCurrent> <CAJ-VmomWYL0ABx%2BsQzJzYOD5hUPDQ0BtwUPfTgZrp4X2md5rZA@mail.gmail.com> <20111004083710.GA1054@tiny>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 10:37:10AM +0200, Matthias Apitz wrote: > El d?a Tuesday, October 04, 2011 a las 03:34:46PM +0800, Adrian Chadd escribi?: > > > That's because it's a wifi chip, not an ethernet chip. > > Yes, I know and I looked around in their pages; there are no Wifi chips; > so my question was: why is this? Most radios in WiFi chips are software based these days and companies are using the FCC regulations as a reason to prevent their release since if you had the programming information for the radios you could operate the device outside its licensed range, and they claim that the FCC would hold them responsible. Without a test case we'll never know if that is is the case or not Gary
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111004140114.GA38162>