From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yk0-x230.google.com (mail-yk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::230]) (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 6520121FA6D for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:36:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ykdg206 with SMTP id g206so61781962ykd.1 for ; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 14:36:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=wRtPgosFfaBVqQLAEhAq5PDI+DD/GFA1p+0Y2Y8qJSY=; b=WCDsM+6aK59OZf4Ug5+QeKKDCQVvucrNB1fkUrJznCXelNDf8R06khScMnZOhbHjid GmFyn5EiEqZsaqvw6qJ3i0obP518OEzlTm2Jc8fYAgmy7vVLfOzpt0E1qiJrzxRGgfok rJzjwwU9G6W1tpwPDRgPyCtqyGrrJLPz6udtEjzG10GXM994C/4v93EmYs/5qEjHQ399 1G27vXk3tOH6uLCV5LmYBnXlpIsFWo5iMG3E3mLXidU8YL5zFA55iRUazbGbuRL4ON+c g0V7UJhQ9Vw6jLmc8/ycBdHpfJl7m/NzD50SHPpaVKNmCXX6QXchQnIr1pP3PzUBEnV3 cBoA== X-Received: by 10.129.37.6 with SMTP id l6mr7400654ywl.226.1444340198777; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 14:36:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5616CE0D.1060309@rogers.com> <5616D005.9080404@rogers.com> In-Reply-To: <5616D005.9080404@rogers.com> From: Rosen Penev Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 21:36:29 +0000 Message-ID: To: davecb@spamcop.net, bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114285b67bab8605219ea8a4 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: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 21:37:02 -0000 --001a114285b67bab8605219ea8a4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 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 > --001a114285b67bab8605219ea8a4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

How does a router that transmits at milliwatts interfere wit= h airport equipment? This seems like such an isolated case. At the very lea= st would it not require the routers to be relatively close?


On Thu, Oct 8, 2015, 13:20= =C2=A0David Collier-Brown <davec-b= @rogers.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
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.
=C2=A0
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:
=20 From tlkingan at http://te= ch.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3D8141531&cid=3D50686561


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 Notic= e 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&quo= t; 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= 9;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).


 
--=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@list=
s.bufferbloat.net
=
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat



--=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@list= s.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
--001a114285b67bab8605219ea8a4--