From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (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 92F5521F6EB for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:19:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hms-beagle.home.lan ([217.237.68.126]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MNq4h-1ZfkO93Z2h-007RKm; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:19:47 +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: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:19:44 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <5616CE0D.1060309@rogers.com> <561D2CA1.7040705@superduper.net> To: Matt Mathis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:40asGu3/neExiJpfeisTIAscTUwr4KLAzmhm4B9WZs7eCaf4/pR VwPSPWCyzOxuvcubLZCRj9oanxW9wppaFbefLGnhLzm/WDTlbtPYFMhzG5TjDDYqJb58aar QygMeSKPkLymr5DRRRpFqGW1fSesfJoP9pdDtTsV2Z7ZvMJDlcmwgAr+XGwhKnnsU9kEB6R KsdVPczpt4MMn4tJ19ejg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:9MMOfzHJbFY=:/hFdndm5poTc80ScTtk7wV N9MUifETuEo1rcoqarY1g1lA97wvrrB0b/X4VOxNNHIlhKSArPMf7iXtm6gKO15hYYArcH5TV jv9KusKxR0VTWq4ZanVw/YuS4ya8+eyB96FXReuU/n5hDlQB7d7YlRsu1R8KAJ682sdQAXcYC x+t5w5COcLkIeR1f614FInB7IHYgOxpapaB92obEYfSDpp23yCh12Ok0URBVV3gaLuM+dMQ3o 9wRT1prW7AFPxu/b5Ev/b68MEABPWFtZ/ZIH07wW9kHS4Ie7lyOk3+VrlheSEsneSNp8TnYho 6GkiSbpJD2w+u3z/BHYJ2CYptK2B6EDfjTpLIkBlMlTi3Y19qRnJGnLCswPFLArxEenxKU15p r2fo7WldWkU6ui0SJxAoUCWM+NrECma6/wKp6xHZ7+GDJ3NO1O/pWERBExtZueFUiF38cKwVW 1tl8dE6veHq9GWksRPHpxk5ykd2EkUfq2PLtwhG/GsJJ/ZdNqUVReE3vGmX6iy4At4BX5spDU 5OX4IkAesb/zNO0hU/hZRLTgtU7EOYwG8SpMB1A3RdavVmT7QeTmhz0/o9Rb5h8fTp0UhIW5M htdG9qVWKW2JUK4btPJxgIzReMg/4TyIB+s3APMhDJTMTR5lALwDDcKOWwv8ERWei446w/7Nf nrbmmoKb9T13oqrFUqoxd1ellERxzvaAB44HIFO4Y1jtN81jGW6AZCb+UyfXZ+mpQ5gU+BFPZ s5rekUtCpPTg7QkPxxR/jsFSGypycPwDsY8YJTDiJmGOM66TD423sM/hXoE/i6oiVYNcWS4Dw ONN/jzh 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: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:21:38 -0000 On Oct 13, 2015, at 19:29 , Matt Mathis 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. >=20 > 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=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. 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 Best Regards Sebastian >=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