Re: [Bloat] Another comment re FTC and weather radar from /.

[David Collier-Brown <davec-b@rogers.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3868 bytes --]

Anyone who's an American citizen want to write a short to-the-point 
response suggesting that this was vendor error, caused by not using the 
database that linux uses for wi-fi cards?

I want them to have a public "out" from the current scheme of telling 
the vendors to protect their code.

I prefer to give the FCC the option of telling the vendors to stop 
messing up their code, like a regulatory agency would like to be seen 
doing (;-))

About one page!

--dave


On 08/10/15 04:11 PM, David Collier-Brown wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat


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


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5543 bytes --]