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

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5275 bytes --]

Radar returns are very weak, and a nearby device operating on a channel 
that is reserved (in Canada and the US) for the radar can in principle 
look like the echo from quite a large storm.

--dave

On 08/10/15 05:36 PM, Rosen Penev wrote:
>
> How does a router that transmits at milliwatts interfere with airport 
> equipment? This seems like such an isolated case. At the very least 
> would it not require the routers to be relatively close?
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015, 13:20 David Collier-Brown <davec-b@rogers.com 
> <mailto:davec-b@rogers.com>> wrote:
>
>     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 <mailto:davecb@spamcop.net>            |                      -- Mark Twain
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Bloat mailing list
>>     Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto: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 <mailto:davecb@spamcop.net>            |                      -- Mark Twain
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Bloat mailing list
>     Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto: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: 8349 bytes --]