From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F12CE21FE4D; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 07:45:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E982009E; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:45:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 51CF863B18; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:45:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3826963AEC; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:45:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Mikael Abrahamsson In-Reply-To: References: <3622_1441530152_55EC0128_3622_12857_1_trq0v99audwl95cwathr8odm.1441530143942@email.android.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: "make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net" , cerowrt-devel , bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] RE : Save WiFi from the FCC - DEADLINE is in 3 days *September* 8 X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 14:45:32 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > So I think a constructive approach would be to try to say how the FCC > concern can be solved or at least mitigated in a FOSS world. Do we have > any ideas? The FCC needs to think bigger: restricting who can make/design/update (fundamentally: 'own') wifi devices leads to millions of compromised devices attacking the Internet. If you think of the wifi spectrum as a small component of a bigger "Internet" spectrum, and that FCC really cares about all of it, then it makes no sense to manage each part in isolation. Or to put it differently: if company X's locked down wifi device is attacking the Internet, then maybe their wifi license should be revoked. > Because I can understand that regulators whose job it is to make sure > devices follow the rules have a problem with FOSS code that lets people > do whatever they want. Manufacturer devices that have security holes in them let black hats do whatever they want with the device. > Do we really want for regulators to bring back the vans who might roll > around and impose a fine because you were running OpenWRT and happened > to set the output power too high for whatever local regulation was in > place? Yes, actually, I do. I'm starting to be convinced that the Bell FIBE "wireless TV" eats more than it's fair share of wifi. I have no way to prove it without that Van. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBVe70bICLcPvd0N1lAQL86Qf/Qc/GQnSGyjyXhOCWkwjXv7/mFsv7tTQx kenG0eYtbO9bJh8RIjPB0i7mArG5bTQe3fJ9aeOVvdAJGhCuRLpsebGiZ49aad8u NLi7y+FZTRrXY1evTeRHE+sJYFVttYy08FFsvKTOXC+QTX63KhdpFMdnLi6tDNL8 CuO1bWtW+PPNz5HQUrUt51PN4/rOf2NDKER5aHFQPQqCUVzM/jaMPTr7qHhGNTFR 6/TaKhrTS8wqf/Tv7+gPyOGGPKQMgs6Y2armPLgrG0yW3+SqBxyEPLCRTVFUKEH0 gHkeSm+6T+9FrJUNhksKs3vF4aVsOcdR5RMeqBscj0ZTmVKtyfJZWQ== =gdKp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--