From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-x232.google.com (mail-io0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B2D921FAD2 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:08:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ioii196 with SMTP id i196so62876118ioi.3 for ; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 09:07:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=A9Aly6Bx0kZVmyjUUSCRDd0NE45qoVtoLZGotGHRFxc=; b=pXVIA8JPUpZsE4e4Y9cXTzhmLhJdwGwRdrEN0iZvq19Eqw4G+U1k89LDjuQxAhyiTG OZttjVt8u8fc3GgYK42rhFEP6OuN4M1zJF3hAnDJC4q1q5Kw0KSrCQFjaPFrf+2Elqk2 iSaJ+ZQQgpY/tiun+NfT2o8wwpuJOo9xsxCdcbmeRIXmqvgzrR6N5Cl+v/Ei5H37m5lO HwQrS/WWBE8wxuiVE2FKjS3P4fH90dkv9eAIFOkPHpiRTOG+NMN+QH6MkMoDGmDwzXlP 2kIrfm6XFkrjj08BLtqO7aOjaG6BolqybvUWSTA40eKk/3qNQ57kUtMKUveSn32N/PTL feZg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=A9Aly6Bx0kZVmyjUUSCRDd0NE45qoVtoLZGotGHRFxc=; b=GkrNaEwqHBZilII0vQFCdayqobWv5wAjc68beR4qCsXLrcTGOWJRN83F/BIUlKbGki gt5aqnW8pTM2sdsVRCIayX39VO2DV2NaFamWJQlW7m2CZ3u2CMTLkGZcbuIqgDVDhc6M FTxL7p8OapCNoXtvSNtMwuV5ItlLBFDrKAAFaxMQYyLEoOJldhpEnhugkS56ysG7n0jX OH7L7ol1oxOR5dJsIK4OXsH8e2IV+dxmWP4uOe+QPBwITCTtNpEZDpTCwd1cX09DAvB0 aFkECS5k1NoGwBk9UaUzl3ZGMW7uy6LzP5nccVnUbQJ0i14wvOg1VNL+jKzTUSHKGPqJ DMWA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlZDaf2j5WZiBhw/pgk2U6PMTFAZ+qbliUGuRvbwEizt9UDw5QT7M6+2R91iWYghamSnFaH MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.156.14 with SMTP id f14mr9875106ioe.32.1444320478533; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 09:07:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.5.231 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:07:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <56168961.2080800@rogers.com> References: <561679A7.80400@rogers.com> <20151008144147.GB5171@thyrsus.com> <56168961.2080800@rogers.com> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:07:58 -0700 Message-ID: From: Matt Mathis To: davecb@spamcop.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140c2dc10fd0905219a11d3 Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] ESR's comment popped up on slashdot 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: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 16:08:32 -0000 --001a1140c2dc10fd0905219a11d3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Perhaps redundant asserts() with explicit documentation would help. A communication channel with the FAA and wardriving airports would also help.... 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 Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 8:18 AM, David Collier-Brown wrote: > Solandri wrote, at > http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8141531&cid=50686089 > > So based on a few vague comments, I managed to track down what the issue > is since neither this nor the previous/. article nor the sites opposed to > it (who seem to want to portray it as a Big Evil Government conspiracy to > take away your freedom) delve into it. > > Several airports use Terminal Doppler Weather Radar > [ > wikipedia.org] for high-resolution maps of storms, rainfall, and most > importantly (for airports) microbursts > [wikipedia.org]. TDWR operates > at frequencies from 5.60 - 5.64 GHz. That's smack dab in the middle of the > 5 GHz band used by 802.11a, n, and ac > > [wikipedia.org]. You'll notice use of those specific frequencies > (channels 120, 124, 128) are prohibited in the U.S. and Canada for this > reason. > > Based on that, it sounds like the issue is that you can buy a 5 GHz device > off the shelf, then hack the firmware to re-enable those frequencies. And > the FCC is proposing this action because people have been doing exactly > that and the FCC has received reports from the airports of such > interference on those frequencies. > > > If this is correct, it argues for various of our proposals and opens up > some new questions... > - is it a vendor that's scewed it up? > - was there a bad DD-WRT athe solution is enforcement... anyone > t any time? > > > --dave > > -- > 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 > > --001a1140c2dc10fd0905219a11d3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Perhaps redundant asserts() with=C2=A0explicit documentati= on=C2=A0would help.

A communication channel with the FAA= and wardriving airports would also help....
=
Thanks,
--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it.= =C2=A0- Alan Kay

Privacy matters!=C2=A0 We know from recent events = that people are using our services to speak in defiance of unjust governmen= ts. =C2=A0 We treat privacy and security as matters of life and death, beca= use for some users, they are.

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 8:18 AM, David Collie= r-Brown <davec-b@rogers.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
Solandri wrote, at http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3D8= 141531&cid=3D50686089
=20 So based on a few vague comments, I = managed to track down what the issue is since neither this nor the previous/. article nor the sites opposed to it (who seem = to want to portray it as a Big Evil Government conspiracy to take away your freedom) delve into it.=C2=A0

Several airports use=C2=A0Terminal Doppler Weather Radar=C2=A0[wikipedia.org] for high-resolution maps of storms, rainfall, and most importantly (for airports)=C2=A0microbursts[w= ikipedia.org]. TDWR operates at frequencies from 5.60 - 5.64 GHz. That's smack dab in the middle of the=C2=A05 GHz band used b= y 802.11a, n, and ac[wikipedia.org]. You'll notice use of those specific frequencies (channels 120, 124, 128) are prohibited in the U.S. and Canada for this reason.=C2=A0

Based on that, it sounds like the is= sue is that you can buy a 5 GHz device off the shelf, then hack the firmware to re-enable those frequencies. And the FCC is proposing this action because people have been doing exactly that and the FCC has received reports from the airports of such interference on those frequencies.=C2=A0
If this is correct, it argues for various of our proposals and opens up some new questions...
- is it a vendor that's scewed it up?
- was there a bad DD-WRT athe solution is enforcement...=C2=A0 anyone t any time?


--dave
--=20
David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
davecb@spamcop.net<=
/a>           |                      -- Mark Twain

_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net<= /a>
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat


--001a1140c2dc10fd0905219a11d3--