From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nm20-vm7.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm20-vm7.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [216.109.115.118]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6048521F31E for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 13:12:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rogers.com; s=s2048; t=1444335119; bh=Eeoxxg2bFyl06dONXzWxYAFOOQkuyjO6OOv8iU9LWrU=; h=From:Subject:To:Reply-To:Date:From:Subject; b=Ri3DepsclqiUS8J6DrjJPszYOU2ustuR9RUfoChvU4nd3B8Vdc6e2qDGDYOt+5Cn3kQIgUx7RU1U7gWAo2OwWqNVIZiGmrD8S9pX4DWarzBoW3wMXdhlVe702veyay7WTxs3Xn3z4cZulKPETDpB3oi71zFI1N2bdiVWLCwHJOD+XHyo1KWkeUTb93aKnR29nEPiWUVCvuNPqB21Bvn55ZPQTw0qjdRC4HUcmCpJyP6Vp1K1SfrQWCCcBSPK7nsLuFjFqlyDQ7PYYQShdtVnozh/A002gfXUxWg/UcdrV+Iw1EPlH8GyCsgtxwGuMd6KwBSLQqsBE7vszqPelyqYqg== Received: from [66.196.81.161] by nm20.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Oct 2015 20:11:59 -0000 Received: from [98.138.226.244] by tm7.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Oct 2015 20:11:59 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp115.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Oct 2015 20:11:59 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 11054.88908.bm@smtp115.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: wNGS8CYVM1lQh4LwRx5.utO9l7EGtDJtj3U3AV1a6_Scslf 1BQbWR.kSW9qYh3mYG43ZXspS5of78QLULSUgwBN3FZb4Jq4CKm85Eq.Pc8g vuG72.SQ4pGj4jNUJPJRdx70LV.CmycnJhbwnd6WnsE49pG9SzEKUKcwEpcy ivQTy6zwZfJpqE1_3fAENAFW0PZeiXW82FVwtzuJsDj_u91ZszUY4GYTBEpm sf5ZAAWKxyDIdj8ydFeRHtz6p8lakn6qD9uUkz.0NyPdmDHsCbvlHCGvwlb_ IBDWhCZ8L9m9SggREo_.J9uRvCVjJMSTU8ZopymC.kRIqEhWixpk99tM4Eq6 9KrprSPeiWDUgJY8LIgObzSIIEU1qzpGFwr3PYKJU_EiszULdhwiob0mGJwn sX.QcjnhTo.gLl8FKmVg8uQIIzWh.OKNuQCkca1c8gWGUuCv3OOkzrLJw.p5 l8LVFjx7ZsBpdnhihiDtiEgrH9v_mNA9TwWAPi3cKQD3AtFFCrQNw.W5DhX. rdZ82M5NLicEKf.KS3RxVCITBeTUwnqTV09eechFm.1g- X-Yahoo-SMTP: sltvjZWswBCRD.ElTuB1l9j6s9wRYPpuyTNWOE5oEg-- From: David Collier-Brown To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Message-ID: <5616CE0D.1060309@rogers.com> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:11:57 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080209040708090104020802" Subject: [Bloat] Another comment re FTC and weather radar from /. X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list Reply-To: davecb@spamcop.net List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:12:22 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080209040708090104020802 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From tlkingan at http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8141531&cid=50686561 And that's what the FCC really wants The problem the FCC is seeing right now is the modified firmware allows access to frequencies that aren't allowed to be used for WiFI in the US. This is more than just channels 12 and 13 on 2.4GHz, but also on the complex 5GHz band. The FCC has many complaints already from airports and other entities whose radar is being interfered with by 5GHz WiFi (the band plan is complex enough that channels are "locked out" because they're used by higher priority services like radar). And you really can't blame the open firmware guys either - mostly because they don't know any better and they only build one binary that works for all devices worldwide. (the available channels on 5GHz vary per country - depending on the radar in use). All the FCC really wants (and they've clarified it in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) is the steps wifi manufacturers are taking to prevent people from loading on firmware that does not comply with FCC regulations - i.e., allows transmissions on frequencies they are not allowed to transmit on. It can either take place as hardware (filters blocking out the frequencies), or software that cannot be modified by the open firmware (e.g., firmware on wifi chip reads a EEPROM or something and locks out those frequencies). The thing it cannot be is rely on "goodwill" or firmware that respects the band plan - i.e., you cannot rely on "blessed" open firmware that only uses the right frequencies (because anyone can modify it to interfere). The FCC has all the powers to enforce compliance right now - users of open firmware who are caught creating interference with higher priority services can already be fined, equipment seized and all that stuff (and that would not include just the WiFi router - any WiFi device like PCs can be seized if they attach to that network). That's the heavy handed legal approach they have. However, they don't want to do that, because most users probably don't realize the problem, and the FCC really doesn't want to destroy all that stuff. So instead, the FCC is working with manufacturers to fix the issue at the source. The problem lies in the fact that most manufacturers are cheap and will not spend a penny more, so instead of locking out the radio from interfering, they'll lock out the entire firmware. The FCC mentions DD-WRT and all that by name because their investigations revealed that when they investigate interference, the offending routers run that firmware (and which doesn't lock out frequencies that they aren't supposed to transmit on). -- David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest davecb@spamcop.net | -- Mark Twain --------------080209040708090104020802 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From tlkingan at http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8141531&cid=50686561


And that's what the FCC really wants The problem the FCC is seeing right now is the modified firmware allows access to frequencies that aren't allowed to be used for WiFI in the US. This is more than just channels 12 and 13 on 2.4GHz, but also on the complex 5GHz band.

The FCC has many complaints already from airports and other entities whose radar is being interfered with by 5GHz WiFi (the band plan is complex enough that channels are "locked out" because they're used by higher priority services like radar).

And you really can't blame the open firmware guys either - mostly because they don't know any better and they only build one binary that works for all devices worldwide. (the available channels on 5GHz vary per country - depending on the radar in use).

All the FCC really wants (and they've clarified it in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) is the steps wifi manufacturers are taking to prevent people from loading on firmware that does not comply with FCC regulations - i.e., allows transmissions on frequencies they are not allowed to transmit on.

It can either take place as hardware (filters blocking out the frequencies), or software that cannot be modified by the open firmware (e.g., firmware on wifi chip reads a EEPROM or something and locks out those frequencies).

The thing it cannot be is rely on "goodwill" or firmware that respects the band plan - i.e., you cannot rely on "blessed" open firmware that only uses the right frequencies (because anyone can modify it to interfere).

The FCC has all the powers to enforce compliance right now - users of open firmware who are caught creating interference with higher priority services can already be fined, equipment seized and all that stuff (and that would not include just the WiFi router - any WiFi device like PCs can be seized if they attach to that network). That's the heavy handed legal approach they have. However, they don't want to do that, because most users probably don't realize the problem, and the FCC really doesn't want to destroy all that stuff. So instead, the FCC is working with manufacturers to fix the issue at the source.

The problem lies in the fact that most manufacturers are cheap and will not spend a penny more, so instead of locking out the radio from interfering, they'll lock out the entire firmware.

The FCC mentions DD-WRT and all that by name because their investigations revealed that when they investigate interference, the offending routers run that firmware (and which doesn't lock out frequencies that they aren't supposed to transmit on).


 
-- 
David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
davecb@spamcop.net           |                      -- Mark Twain
--------------080209040708090104020802--