Sounds like DD-WRT should add some IP geo-location code quickly, and let the FCC know that they have done so! Simon On 10/8/2015 1:11 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