From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mout.gmx.net", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E0A021F6D8 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:13:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.10.21.139] ([40.134.113.250]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MfRnb-1aD4HF15op-00P6Gw; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 01:13:50 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:13:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <665F3603-6339-4A1C-9FE5-00DDEE4C1434@gmx.de> References: <5616CE0D.1060309@rogers.com> <561D2CA1.7040705@superduper.net> To: Sebastian Moeller X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:AlcOZluWT1GDx83LJCQA11Q9rtqaUDRr1zSkvJ4S450RWwlpKC/ IA0VZkXfW3SnpWqDW+75y634pNvC5iDdKnHmIatvEcyKtgcbZ4wtshX7MiiXvHdSSsXDA7L RLiqPE3luVbnG4wDvZp1WyIPU/VKwrxT0ilZJZvRi7o6kQFRWPhDkYTl1cCW/pfQ5f5lD0r xijn+bjKb6CeARFUiMhBg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:lmXd2wS2zeY=:RQoarDCT18j2xXRKJMJoet tIjdPYsb6iaccabVsDyt8WPtBLYj1ycsvgET6Uws8MpeQSIRWGCWNmY4h9dzT6gwLR4bVm5TB EVJVrHSuUSI9EVZxhRD7dfjaQB/5ypIZ7GD5hCQ9/ibM1aBWvNoEl0P0q2BN7ykC5I6H/v4OZ erLoA8ghb/t7v5W5R9At+Fos3h5jhdD7JUEcZPNwpJ4LCI/37lcpKEFsSwoOXa9O5S/afrqDS HzLD3u3+mO9dpELu5m/nhZaidc2yA1OGt1+H0WkA1zs+btfOewPYmEP98upEj9xV5tfdGMvzF p8sytS9S/1mBTDZI20T8pbjpeoHr6+Vg2q9WdqHC8cWIdwy4/DR9E/P6YW3KXKrVppqJPpGJt gt39EBXSIhIwqvZPwYgs8/fVTLHOZcs/540UQ7t/tscFphQnHvcJEgUejMFuQQiksb5vkXlhg u/gA5Q/1x0+/GROWnqvL5CqSqtneko0Kah1BeCbofqX+NnGynqjVg2jgI7M1Kc/zmbhmM0Z8/ HN1TXIQNaX1fHEE6tXQXnuGP0ciZ0Y4XMaD2joXu/ytxqdwdJuYFvA9ct4geA8RR4vQh8ZuZP n0dq5HSHbCbhBQAvERCJobZrcbvzDEV4qWneqdNzx4H+7odHBCMMncQy3Z8HVMU9ylgEcRxIV 0KaYEtj9HxQqjuCXMjInwfW/4RHukOgIbg6nz3pCmcekZFp5l7sizHOoG6jLcNMdFeQaqc07C 1vUThs/G9CmyG4IUZYCAxMSLvycq3TJq9QXpDHIBn4poe30Llgzevtqk5tm0gC9e3jR6QTx2K Fwqhsf2 Cc: bloat 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 List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 23:14:17 -0000 To follow up on myself here... On Oct 13, 2015, at 13:19 , Sebastian Moeller wrote: > On Oct 13, 2015, at 19:29 , Matt Mathis wrote: >=20 >> I'm wondering if some of these conflicting uses are important enough = to blank them out everywhere, in spite legal use in some areas? Doppler = radar may be wanted everywhere some day. >=20 > As much as I dislike to be the bringer of bad news, but geo IP = inherently is not suited for regulatory compliance, at least that is my = take from = http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~steve/papers/geolocation-ccr-11.pdf . That = might be a bit dated, but that is all I could find quickly. GPS might = work, except it is also not safe from spoofing, see = https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/files/6489/gps.pdf. This = http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/10/navy-navigation-sextant-cyber= -threats/122853/ seems relevant, in short the US navy started to teach = celestial navigation again (after stopping it in the 90s) to allow for = the fact that GPS is not totally reliable. Best Regards >=20 >>=20 >> Also create an "unknown" geo for default use, which only uses = channels that are globally approved. >=20 > This I believe is the current openwrt default intention. It = defaults to US regulatory domain I believe, but according to = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels that is not really = the intersection of permitted channels in all regulatory domains (also = even permitted channel come with different strings attached). For = example even channel 36 has interesting strings attached: US: Yes, = Canada: Indoors. So all that is needed for leaving compliance is to move = an AP outdoors on the Canadian side of the US-Canada border, while the = neighbor on the other side of the border can cause effectively the same = amount of interference in Canadian airspace, yet be in total compliance = ;) . > Changing openwrt to actually interpret other regulation domains = than US (one can set them in the GUI, they just don=92t enable any = channel not available in the US) involves a building your own firmware = (including manual patching of sources). In an ideal world one would just = go and harmonize all regulations and end up with the same setoff = permitted channels. >=20 > Personally, I believe this is a bit of a red herring as in the = end the owner of a interfering device is liable (to some degree) and = there will always be interfering devices (say, broken ones that used to = be compliant before). So the regulation will need controls and = reinforcement, aka RF-interference measurement teams.=20 > But I have not seen any data, so there might be a strong = increase in interference incidents that warrant stricter rules=85=20 >=20 >=20 > Best Regards > Sebastian >=20 >>=20 >> Thanks, >> --MM-- >> The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay >>=20 >> Privacy matters! We know from recent events that people are using = our services to speak in defiance of unjust governments. We treat = privacy and security as matters of life and death, because for some = users, they are. >>=20 >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Simon Barber = wrote: >> Sounds like DD-WRT should add some IP geo-location code quickly, and = let the FCC know that they have done so! >>=20 >> Simon >>=20 >>=20 >> On 10/8/2015 1:11 PM, David Collier-Brown wrote: >>> =46rom tlkingan at = http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3D8141531&cid=3D50686561 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> 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). >>>=20 >>> 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). >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> 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). >>>=20 >>> 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). >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> 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). >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> --=20 >>> David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify >>> System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest >>>=20 >>> davecb@spamcop.net >>> | -- Mark Twain >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bloat mailing list >>>=20 >>> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Bloat mailing list >> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Bloat mailing list >> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat