From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nm17-vm7.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm17-vm7.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [216.109.115.70]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65D8C21FB32 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 13:20:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rogers.com; s=s2048; t=1444335623; bh=Tbdz+ccHL2lH+AfPicpw6ck+U7Ia5WWb3MOofMVlkik=; h=Reply-To:Subject:References:To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject; b=mCOT6DVo5z5d5JoTLa/UgqlNwYwS9ydbWWyKHFv8XsH2G5ehQa+E4UkiIbInAy4wrgHuXJdkKcpYoXgeB2x/fVKFS+OG4wiKoPccEvesFP98pqBcdVv/J1ptJdAV/cseC2nPNSUVH6sxtrzdOZfgzGd96IYLNgcxS1zC32Z6HnXGUVlnsI5lD9rYA8dRJvwospb7IaXlcV4th2ABJ0By4ibtVhrlI8dL8wiErLZctu2M5mHTl4o+R/xHAeRxNGVsgiZqyi4R8vJV20S+etoaiROLTOcr4AKBA/Z01xs6Vm0QQt626ybsPuU2lU6kSLu6Wt8VAtinhWXeV+frI/9VFQ== Received: from [66.196.81.166] by nm17.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Oct 2015 20:20:23 -0000 Received: from [98.138.226.243] by tm12.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Oct 2015 20:20:23 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp114.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Oct 2015 20:20:23 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 446208.89756.bm@smtp114.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: D4wmzxUVM1lm0sYPgfJh4DAQBehAHfkLL7h8yDCmpZm6XbO S.oGBL0kOLZ_XkOK1C7H3GTqCGFeVya8isRdhKd5UhTCgsTuKIsdTpiZ0H2Q pDN6.sxditM3Ytiw46Aexl8JBaxbhx5cNNo8KF929ygFSb_4uq1MR2.flFVG _OKU5YxA2QKx.U5vJDBwVymbTD189.REN6xcqFMD1NM_.RI9D9J8gdI.KS0M oFsKYe0Lz83p5ZH.VMqYL86RZOwFePwsD0ls_OuLVk2drw7JuH5sxAdJBErg TBUZ5h1zbgHJ6ouBxMY61b9N3VTcqAneaAKw4HOhn5Zm6fkN5tXlXMMQBhIt 06KBj6wI_2q5Df0DBi9rBvO3eu0vuAH6055ZqcV0uhMcQH9z4sQP.pZSzAjM SwX4OQIPNm8ZK0Dtr.B1nPoMK0E9r0vHKbI64cvndkkAkmTI84RWzd75Os_e 2TGionU2ZfFvoLItB3WfxluAFXV18SqC0BL6zrAu4gNkPSA4Ikv4bxbqOPg5 xBB2.Qa6u6SZ6NVtxhWBBTUz4TmJnxrGtvCKO1ClzQuBihzj7ctZw70ohkSE ujKe.nXQ- X-Yahoo-SMTP: sltvjZWswBCRD.ElTuB1l9j6s9wRYPpuyTNWOE5oEg-- References: <5616CE0D.1060309@rogers.com> To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net From: David Collier-Brown Message-ID: <5616D005.9080404@rogers.com> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:20:21 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5616CE0D.1060309@rogers.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060401000303070302090208" Subject: Re: [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 20:20:47 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060401000303070302090208 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 --------------060401000303070302090208 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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
--------------060401000303070302090208--