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

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

[David Collier-Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2886 bytes --]

 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


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3707 bytes --]

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

[David Collier-Brown]

[-- 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 --]

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

[Rosen Penev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4280 bytes --]

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> 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 restdavecb@spamcop.net           |                      -- Mark Twain
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing listBloat@lists.bufferbloat.nethttps://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>
>
>
> --
> David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
> System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the restdavecb@spamcop.net           |                      -- Mark Twain
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6195 bytes --]

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

[David Collier-Brown]

[-- 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 --]

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

[David Collier-Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4563 bytes --]

Here's a draft, below.

Also at 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-HSewmPustGmV00E8u7KZ_8srNhKX_jMSSZxGcyuTaI/edit?usp=sharing

On 08/10/15 04:20 PM, David Collier-Brown 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!
>
*

Before the

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20554


In the Matter of)

)

Amendment of Part 0, 1, 2, 15 and 18 of the) ET Docket No. 15-170

Commission’s Rules regarding Authorization)

Of Radio frequency Equipment)

)

Request for the Allowance of Optional)RM-11673

Electronic Labelling for Wireless Devices)


      Summary

There is a significant likelihood that the problem addressed by this 
rulemaking may have been caused by a wi-fi vendor failing to realize 
that they needed to set the location to the United States when adapting 
laptop and personal-computer software to work on a smaller, less capable 
single-board computer for use as a home router.

If so, and in any case, the FCC should require the vendor to certify 
that they have set their system to the correct table of 
standards-conformance parameters for operation in the United States, 
require a basic test of that operation, and penalize vendors who have 
not taken those basic measures.


      Introduction

The academic, open source and IETF communities have been concerned about 
the above rulemaking, especially

  *

    in light of the absence of an example of a failure to comply, and

  *

    with the mention of a specific open source Linux router, DD-WRT


In a wide-ranging discussion, one plausible cause of error was raised, 
that of complaints from airports and other entities whose radar is being 
interfered with by 5GHz WiFi.


      Vendor Error

Numerous possible cases have been raised, and one of the technical 
features of Linux- and BSD-based routers has a high probability of 
causing just such a problem.  While it may or may not be the current 
problem, it is likely enough that the FCC would be well-advised to nip 
it in the bud.


The technical problem is that the software used for small home routers 
was developed for use on personal computers and laptops, to operate 
wi-fi cards plugged into a fairly powerful machine.  The software 
assumes that the machine has been told what country or legal regime and 
time zone it is in, and uses that to select a set of compliant 
parameters the correct ones for wi-fi operation in a given country.


The home routers, on the other hand, are very low-cost devices, and 
there is no reason for the owner to set a country or timezone, and in 
most cases, there is no means by which these can be set.  Whatever the 
default is in the country of manufacture, that is the value that is most 
likely to be set.


If the country is not the United States, the compliance rules are sure 
to be wrong.


The same applies to any replacement software loaded onto the machine. If 
the DD-WRT software were from Canada, for example, the compliance 
parameters will be those of Canada, and therefor will probably break the 
compliance rules of the United States.


      Compliance Requirements

We therefore urge the FCC to make it a requirement that the vendor of 
any routers sold in the United States certify in writing that they have 
selected the correct compliance rules, if the system supports more than 
a single American rule-set.


We further recommend that the FCC ensure the vendor has done so, by 
carrying out a test that the router software cannot detect, and thereby 
ensure that the certification  has not been obtained improperly, as has 
recently occurred with diesel Volkswagons.

*

**

*This same test can be used in the field to detect and identify routes 
which are causing problems, and allow the FCC to take action against 
their owners.*

**

*

This is, of course, in addition to the existing measure the FCC takes to 
ensure compliance by the vendors and the purchasers and operators of 
such equipment.



*

-- 
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: 26500 bytes --]

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

[Simon Barber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3314 bytes --]

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


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4759 bytes --]

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

[Matt Mathis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4102 bytes --]

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.

Also create an "unknown" geo for default use, which only uses channels that
are globally approved.

Thanks,
--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay

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.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Simon Barber <simon@superduper.net> wrote:

> 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 restdavecb@spamcop.net           |                      -- Mark Twain
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing listBloat@lists.bufferbloat.nethttps://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6061 bytes --]

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

[Jonathan Morton]

> On 13 Oct, 2015, at 20:29, Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com> wrote:
> 
> Doppler radar may be wanted everywhere some day.

Doppler radar is great, but my understanding is that newer installations use a different frequency band that doesn’t interfere with the unlicensed bands.

 - Jonathan Morton

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

[Sebastian Moeller]

On Oct 13, 2015, at 19:29 , Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com> wrote:

> 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.

	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.

> 
> Also create an "unknown" geo for default use, which only uses channels that are globally approved.

	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’t 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.

	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. 
	But I have not seen any data, so there might be a strong increase in interference incidents that warrant stricter rules… 


Best Regards
	Sebastian

> 
> Thanks,
> --MM--
> The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay
> 
> 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.
> 
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Simon Barber <simon@superduper.net> wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

[Bloat] The press release is working

[David Collier-Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1589 bytes --]

The slashdotties (of which I'm included) saw it and started a discussion 
on "Why Cybersecurity Experts Want Open Source Routers"
> derekmead <http://hardware.slashdot.org/%7Ederekmead>writes:/A 
> coalition of 260 cybersecurity experts is taking advantage ofa Federal 
> Communications Commission (FCC) public comment period 
> <http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/07/fcc-wifi-router-lockdown/>to push 
> for open source Wi-Fi router firmware.
>
> The cybersecurity expertsasked the FCC 
> <http://motherboard.vice.com/read/heres-why-cybersecurity-experts-want-open-source-routers>on 
> Wednesday to require router makers to open-source their firmware, or 
> the basic software that controls its core functionality, as a 
> condition for it being licensed for use in the US. The request comes 
> amida wider debate 
> <http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/09/fcc-accused-of-locking-down-wi-fi-routers-but-the-truth-is-a-bit-murkier/>on 
> how the FCC should ensure that Wi-Fi routers' wireless signals don't 
> "go outside stated regulatory rules" and causeharmful interference 
> <http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/spectrum-expert-wi-fi/prod_white_paper0900aecd807395a9.html>to 
> other devices like cordless phones, radar, and satellite dishes./
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/15/10/15/1620243/why-cybersecurity-experts-want-open-source-routers

-- 
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: 5396 bytes --]

Re: [Bloat] The press release is working

[Dave Taht]

that's not the actual title of the article they reference, sigh. good
discussion tho.

I will believe the PR is working when articles appear in the guardian,
nyy, washington post, sj mercury news, multiple international papers
and the economist, and I am given a chance to sing the mushroom
management song [1] with the audience joining each rousing chorus, on
the Late Show...

not before.

Winning the tech press and blogosphere is not enough. Seeing Barack
Obama utter the word, "bufferbloat", might be.

[1] http://steve.savitzky.net/Songs/mushroom/

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:21 PM, David Collier-Brown <davec-b@rogers.com> wrote:
> The slashdotties (of which I'm included) saw it and started a discussion on
> "Why Cybersecurity Experts Want Open Source Routers"
>
> derekmead writes:A coalition of 260 cybersecurity experts is taking
> advantage of a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) public comment period
> to push for open source Wi-Fi router firmware.
>
> The cybersecurity experts asked the FCC on Wednesday to require router
> makers to open-source their firmware, or the basic software that controls
> its core functionality, as a condition for it being licensed for use in the
> US. The request comes amid a wider debate on how the FCC should ensure that
> Wi-Fi routers' wireless signals don't "go outside stated regulatory rules"
> and cause harmful interference to other devices like cordless phones, radar,
> and satellite dishes.
>
> http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/15/10/15/1620243/why-cybersecurity-experts-want-open-source-routers
>
> --
> 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
>



-- 
Dave Täht
Do you want faster, better, wifi? https://www.patreon.com/dtaht

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

[Sebastian Moeller]

To follow up on myself here...
On Oct 13, 2015, at 13:19 , Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 19:29 , Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 	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


> 
>> 
>> Also create an "unknown" geo for default use, which only uses channels that are globally approved.
> 
> 	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’t 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.
> 
> 	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. 
> 	But I have not seen any data, so there might be a strong increase in interference incidents that warrant stricter rules… 
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> 	Sebastian
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> --MM--
>> The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Simon Barber <simon@superduper.net> wrote:
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bloat mailing list
>> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bloat mailing list
>> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat