Perhaps I should have qualified my "anyone could have figured out whilst fiddling" with a "anyone that ever used a BBS system or 2400bps modem, or are over the general age of 25...
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It also takes a hell of a lot more than just fiddling to figure out these commands.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I classify what I did as "fiddling", since it took me about 15 minutes of "fiddling", but I guess that classification depends on one's personal definition of fiddling. It took nroets a couple of minutes of surfing to find the <b>publically available</b> information via etsi.org
I'm saying that it's not "sooper" secret stuff. In fact, the first lead is there when you go to the modem diagnostics, and dig a bit through the inf files, and do a "strings" through the wireless dialler, or use UsbSnoopy.
Why a modem is damageable through AT commands (with the specific one ProAsm has mentioned before) is ludicrous. Hell, this could happen the first time I started up HyperTerminal, or fax software, and accidentally selected the wrong COM port. Many communications programs send initialisation strings, and may of them could quite possibly ask for DCD to be on permanently, or send it as part of a default initialisation string.
I'm willing to bet that the modem dying due to the DCD command is a bug in the firmware, or possibly something that's just not well documented (seeing as there is ZERO documentation in any case). If there is a damaging command then it's in Sentech's and it's users' interest to get the firmware fixed.
According to the contract, Sentech owns the modem, during the contract period, so I can agree that if Sentech says "You're not allowed to send AT commands to it on your own" I'll have to comply.
Yet, ProAsm did this, and distributes a piece of software that is not endorsed by Sentech. You have done the userbase a great service ProAsm, and I applaud you for that. But what people do to the hardware is entirely not your fault, whether you disclosed the information or not. It's clear that the information is readily available in any case, so I really believe there's no reason to fear ProAsm getting into "trouble"... He also didn't post this information so I fail to see where, or why he would get into trouble. He just wrote a signal utility.
His writing the signal utility didn't magically make me, or nroets discover the modem commands. I looked at the Wireless dialler the first day I got my modem and reckoned "hmmm must be done thru some commands" and got hold of the strings as I've explained.
When nowire.co.za starts selling the modems retail, I could get one from them, and I would own it myself. I would then be legally allowed to send these commands to the modem, in fact I would be legally allowed to fry the thing in my Microwave if I so wish.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
IT IS NOT for you, me or anyone else to decide what other companies should or should not do.If IPWireless or anyone else decides not to publish the information then that is their perogative.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
In essence, that's what you do every day, when you support a product. You choose, and hence influence a company's way of doing business. You're right. IPWireless doesn't need to do squat in term of releasing information. But when the next manufacturer of a UMTS modem comes around that _does_ provide technical information, I can guarantee you what I will buy. I will vote with my money. IPWireless won't remain a monopoly in the market of UMTS.
Once again, I disagree that the device can be "broken" irreparably using a bad modem command. Possibly the worst may be that it needs to be flashed again. If it can be irreparably damaged, then it's a design flaw, and as I've illustrated it is then a dangerous design flaw, since there are many accidental ways in which those commands could reach the modem. Knowledge about the flaw in that situation is better for everyone rather than hiding the flaw.
The chances of software damaging the modem by accident is quite possibly higher, than the chances are the few interested forumites here will willingly and wantonly send "damaging commands" to their modems just to see if it really gets damaged.
Back to the legal edge:
The contract states that I need to "comply with Sentech's instructions which concern the use of the service, apparatus, or connected matters". That is the only obligation I have regards the modem, or its periphery (which interestingly enough will then include my PC too, as a "connected matter")
Sentech has NOT issued a "Don't send AT commands to the modem" instruction and neither have they issued a "Don't use/reverse engineer it under linux" instruction. Until such time as they do, I believe that continuing sharing of information about the technology is _not_ illegal, since this is pretty much a free country.
If they do issue such an instruction, I will laugh loudly, since as I've reiterated a few times now, it's quite possible for damaging commands to reach the modem purely by accident, and the fact that the device openly emulates a well defined standard (RS232 Hayes compatible modem) would make it even more laughable.
<i>It would be the ludicrous equivalent of MWeb telling you that you're not allowed to send DCD modem commands when connecting to one of their POPs.</i>
RPM, you haven't sensored any of the technical information about ADSL in the ADSL forums (that I'm aware of, I could be wrong) so I don't understand why you would do it in this case, unless ProAsm politely asked in his Sentech capacity, which I doubt he did...
I understand that it's a sensitive issue, but my point is that if ProAsm is allowed to have the information, why shouldn't anyone else? The information is readily available on another public website... Are you going to delete links to that site?
How about the antennae that have been discussed here? Surely they're not approved by Sentech, since they're not provided by their vendors. Are we going to sensor information about them too?
I'm not trying to be an a**hole here, I'm just questioning whether sensoring technical information about a modem device is worth it, or even required. And I'm stating my own "liberal-ish" opensource views, which is typically the kind of thing one would expect to happen on a discussion forum.
Still, this is your house rpm, and you are free to do what you need. I agreed to those terms. If it's going to stay sensored, then so be it. It's not going to stop me from running a small MyWireless technical information site without sensorship, pretty much the same as ProAsm is doing, and advertising it in my signature.
]
