From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp97.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp97.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.97]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F141121F78C for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 13:17:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp13.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp13.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 2B5A1100291; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 16:17:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by smtp13.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: dpreed-AT-reed.com) with ESMTPSA id 27B7D100160; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 16:16:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender-Id: dpreed@reed.com Received: from [100.96.207.30] (45.sub-70-196-6.myvzw.com [70.196.6.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA) by 0.0.0.0:465 (trex/5.4.2); Fri, 25 Sep 2015 20:17:00 GMT User-Agent: K-@ Mail X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----P86YI2M6IB55W6HJYJ9IMLX28W1IO2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "David P. Reed" Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:16:56 -0500 To: Dave Taht , make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, fcc@lists.prplfoundation.org, "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Message-ID: <49d53a3e-b7a0-4069-a87b-d9778bb8a229@reed.com> Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] some comments from elsewhere on the lockdown X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 20:17:24 -0000 ------P86YI2M6IB55W6HJYJ9IMLX28W1IO2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Those of us who innovate at the waveform and MAC layer would argue differen= tly=2E The cellular operators are actually the responsible control operato= rs and hold licenses for that=2E They may want to lock down phones' cellula= r transmitters=2E But U-NII and ism bands are not licensed to these operato= rs=2E There is no license requirement for those bands to use particular wav= eforms or MAC layers=2E So this is massive overreach=2E The control operat= or of the "licensed by rule" Part 15 radios in your phone or home are licen= sed to the device user and not to the mfr at all=2E For example, the user i= s responsible that the device not interfere with licensed services, and tha= t the device stop transmitting if such harmful interference is called to th= eir attention, *even* if the device passed certification=2E Lock down has = not been demonstrated to be necessary=2E This is all due to fearful what - = if speculation by people who have no data to justify the need, plus attempt= to stop innovation by licensees who want to exclude competitors from being= created, like LTE operators proposing LTE-U which will be locked down and = is the stalking horse for taking back open part 15 operation into a license= d regime based on property rights to spectrum=2E On Sep 24, 2015, Dave Tah= t wrote: >a commenter that I will keep anonymous = wrote: > > >Regarding the FCC firmware lockdown issue, I=E2=80=99m sure you= =E2=80=99re aware that >baseband firmware in cellphones has been subject to= similar >restrictions for some time=2E In fact, the FCC effectively mandat= es that >baseband functionality is implemented on a whole separate subsyste= m >with its own CPU to make it easier to isolate and protect=2E Also, the >= cellphone system is designed so that a misbehaving node can be easily >iden= tified and blocked from the network, making it useless and >removing most o= f the incentive to find ways around regulatory >restrictions=2E Wi-Fi devic= es have none of these protections=2E > >I believe this new attention to Wi-= Fi devices is a consequence of many >factors: > >The precedent from cellpho= ne baseband firmware control; regulators are >easily inspired by success st= ories in related areas >The substantial increase in flexibility offered by = SDR implementations >Technical ignorance, for example of the difference bet= ween OS, >protocol, and UI firmware and baseband firmware >The expansion of= allowed capabilities in Wi-Fi hardware (from 5=2E8 GHz >ISM to the U-NII b= ands, increases in transmit power allowances, etc=2E) >The improved spectru= m utilization of newer Wi-Fi modulation schemes >Inconsistencies among inte= rnational regulations for spectrum allocation >Spectrum sharing between Wi-= Fi and life safety applications >The relative lack of attention to (and som= etimes, the deliberate >flouting of) regulatory constraints in open-source = firmware >The increased availability of open-source firmware for higher-pow= er >and narrow-beam Wi-Fi devices (not just the WRT-54G :-) > > >And probab= ly more I can=E2=80=99t think of off the top of my head, but which >regulat= ors are obsessing over every day=2E > >Although I agree with the spirit of = your FCC email draft letter, it >does not address most of these factors, so= it=E2=80=99s likely to be seen as >missing the point by regulators=2E If y= ou want to reach these people, >you have to talk about the things they=E2= =80=99re thinking about=2E > >What you ought to be pushing for instead is t= hat Wi-Fi devices be >partitioned the same way cellphones are, defining a b= aseband section >that can be locked down so that the device can=E2=80=99t o= perate in ways that >are prohibited by the relevant local regulations, so t= hat the OS, >protocol, and UI code on the device can be relatively more ope= n for >the kinds of optimizations and improvements we all want to see=2E > = >It=E2=80=99s possible that the partition could be in software alone, or in= >some combination of hardware and software, that doesn=E2=80=99t require a= >cellphone-style independent baseband processor, which would add a lot >of= cost to Wi-Fi devices=2E For example, the device vendor could put >baseban= d-related firmware into a trusted and _truly minimal_ binary >module that t= he OS has to go through to select the desired frequency, >power, and modula= tion scheme, even for open-source solutions=2E That >doesn=E2=80=99t mean t= he source code for the binary module can=E2=80=99t be published, >or even t= hat there can=E2=80=99t be a mandate to publish it=2E > >I=E2=80=99m sure t= hat doesn=E2=80=99t sound like a great solution to you, but making >it easy= for end users to configure commercial devices to transmit at >maximum powe= r on unauthorized frequencies using very dense modulation >schemes doesn=E2= =80=99t sound like a great solution to regulators, and the >difference betw= een you and the regulators is that they are more >determined and, frankly, = better armed=2E It will do you no good to >constrain the range of the solut= ions you=E2=80=99ll accept so that it doesn=E2=80=99t >overlap with the sol= utions they will accept=2E > >=2E png > > >On Sep 21, 2015, a= t 5:10 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > > >Dave, > > >Huh= =2E I have been interested in mesh networking for a couple of years >now, a= nd curious about Battlemesh, but I had no idea I knew someone >who was acti= ve in it=2E > > >Are there any other reports online from this year or last = year? The >website doesn't seem to serve any purpose beyond announcing the = event=2E > > > >As you can tell I am way, way behind on my email=2E I've mo= stly been >chasihg funding for my main project, make-wifi-fast for over a y= ear >now - I added in the mill and the "cake switch chip" to that overall >= list as I tried to climb the financial ladders=2E My funding at google >dri= ed up suddenly (due to the re-org), and I was forced to chase other >avenue= s=2E I think i got a grant from comcast coming in, but it is for >1/10th th= e total I needed for make-wifi-fast=2E=2E=2E and it is hung up in >legal, a= nd in the fact the work has to mostly happen in europe=2E > >So I've moved = to europe, trying to find bases in bristol, england, >berlin, and sweden=2E= That's taken a while (I dropped out of the mill >process in may or so due = to the sudden google silences, and the lack >of compiler - and I view mill'= s biggest problem is funding, so it >seems like just combining my own quest= with yours the right thing) > >I was very involved in the early days of wi= reless networking but >dropped out by 2002 or so, much to my now, later reg= ret=2E The only devs >left that understand it at more than one level all go= to battlemesh, >so I've been there twice=2E I still find it quite discoura= ging how few >grok the minstrel algorithm, or what is wrong with packet agg= regation=2E >A billion+ users that all think wifi "just works", and "always= >sucked"=2E=2E=2E :( I gave a talk on the latter as well at at this >battl= emesh=2E > >anyway the videos and results from this battlemesh are all now = online=2E >I am pushing on all fronts, but being a manager was a bit wearyi= ng so >I took time out to do some recording at a place called theconvent=2E= net >for the past 2 weeks=2E Haven't played the piano so much in 5 years! >= >Youtube videos: > >https://www=2Eyoutube=2Ecom/channel/UCxfh-2aOR5hZUjxJL= Q2CIHw > >blog post: >https://wlan-si=2Enet/en/blog/2015/09/08/battlemesh-v= 8-and-its-many-stories/ > >The test results were dismal, as expected=2E Fin= ally knocking a few >heads to use abusive network tests like what toke and = I developed were >hopefully an eye-opener, and a lot more people grok what = >make-wifi-fast is really about, and how to do it=2E > >http://docs=2Ebattl= emesh=2Eorg/ > >one very positive outcome of the fcc talk was a level of ne= t outrage >and organisation over some new fcc rules I have not seen before= =2E My >letter to the fcc, in progress, with vint cerf and other >co-signer= s is up for review at: > >https://docs=2Egoogle=2Ecom/document/d/1VTOHEpRXS= vhWvQ0leM-sROJ_XC7Fk1WjFXq57ysFtAA/edit?usp=3Dsharing > >A similar letter h= as to go to the eu, as they just passed similar >rules=2E > >as much as I w= ould like to be working on the mill, it seems politics, >finance, and organ= isation are in more need of my attentions right now=2E >but I will keep plu= gging y'all at every opportunity=2E > >But, but=2E=2E=2E as I said, I just = took a few weeks off and am picking up >the pieces and trying to figure out= what to focus on, at the moment=2E > >If you wish a faster response to my = email, please use >dave=2Etaht@gmail=2Ecom > > > > >-- >Dave T=C3=A4ht >Do= you want faster, better, wifi? https://www=2Epatreon=2Ecom/dtaht >________= _______________________________________ >Cerowrt-devel mailing list >Cerowr= t-devel@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet >https://lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/listin= fo/cerowrt-devel -- Sent with K-@ Mail - the evolution of emailing=2E ------P86YI2M6IB55W6HJYJ9IMLX28W1IO2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Those of us who innovate at the waveform and MAC l= ayer would argue differently=2E  The cellular operators are actually t= he responsible control operators and hold licenses for that=2E They may wan= t to lock down phones' cellular transmitters=2E But U-NII and ism bands are= not licensed to these operators=2E There is no license requirement for tho= se bands to use particular waveforms or MAC layers=2E
So this is massive overreach=2E The control operator of t= he "licensed by rule" Part 15 radios in your phone or home are li= censed to the device user and not to the mfr at all=2E For example, the use= r is responsible that the device not interfere with licensed services, and = that the device stop transmitting if such harmful interference is called to= their attention, *even* if the device passed certification=2E

Lock down has not been demonstrated to be necess= ary=2E This is all due to fearful what - if speculation by people who have = no data to justify the need, plus attempt to stop innovation by licensees w= ho want to exclude competitors from being created, like LTE operators propo= sing LTE-U which will be locked down and is the stalking horse for taking b= ack open part 15 operation into a licensed regime based on property rights = to spectrum=2E

On Sep 24, 2015, Dave Taht <dave=2Etaht@gmail=2Ecom> wrote:
a commenter that I wil=
l keep anonymous wrote:


Regarding the FCC firmware lockdown issue, I’m sure you’re=
 aware that
baseband firmware in cellphones has been subj=
ect to similar
restrictions for some time=2E In fact, the=
 FCC effectively mandates that
baseband functionality is =
implemented on a whole separate subsystem
with its own CP=
U to make it easier to isolate and protect=2E Also, the
c=
ellphone system is designed so that a misbehaving node can be easily
identified and blocked from the network, making it useless and<=
br clear=3D"none">removing most of the incentive to find ways around regula=
tory
restrictions=2E Wi-Fi devices have none of these pro=
tections=2E

I believe this new attenti=
on to Wi-Fi devices is a consequence of many factors:
The precedent from cellphone baseband firmware control; reg=
ulators are
easily inspired by success stories in related=
 areas
The substantial increase in flexibility offered by=
 SDR implementations
Technical ignorance, for example of =
the difference between OS,
protocol, and UI firmware and =
baseband firmware
The expansion of allowed capabilities i=
n Wi-Fi hardware (from 5=2E8 GHz
ISM to the U-NII bands, =
increases in transmit power allowances, etc=2E)
The impro=
ved spectrum utilization of newer Wi-Fi modulation schemes
Inconsistencies among international regulations for spectrum allocationSpectrum sharing between Wi-Fi and life safety application=
s
The relative lack of attention to (and sometimes, the d=
eliberate
flouting of) regulatory constraints in open-sou=
rce firmware
The increased availability of open-source fi=
rmware for higher-power
and narrow-beam Wi-Fi devices (no=
t just the WRT-54G :-)


And probably more I can’t think of off the top of my head, but wh=
ich
regulators are obsessing over every day=2E

Although I agree with the spirit of your FCC e=
mail draft letter, it
does not address most of these fact=
ors, so it’s likely to be seen as
missing the point=
 by regulators=2E If you want to reach these people,
you =
have to talk about the things they’re thinking about=2E

What you ought to be pushing for instead is that Wi=
-Fi devices be
partitioned the same way cellphones are, d=
efining a baseband section
that can be locked down so tha=
t the device can’t operate in ways that
are prohibi=
ted by the relevant local regulations, so that the OS,
pr=
otocol, and UI code on the device can be relatively more open for
the kinds of optimizations and improvements we all want to see=2E=


It’s possible that the partitio=
n could be in software alone, or in
some combination of h=
ardware and software, that doesn’t require a
cellph=
one-style independent baseband processor, which would add a lot
of cost to Wi-Fi devices=2E For example, the device vendor could put=

baseband-related firmware into a trusted and _truly mini=
mal_ binary
module that the OS has to go through to selec=
t the desired frequency,
power, and modulation scheme, ev=
en for open-source solutions=2E That
doesn’t mean t=
he source code for the binary module can’t be published,
or even that there can’t be a mandate to publish it=2E

I’m sure that doesn’t sound like a=
 great solution to you, but making
it easy for end users =
to configure commercial devices to transmit at
maximum po=
wer on unauthorized frequencies using very dense modulation
schemes doesn’t sound like a great solution to regulators, and the=

difference between you and the regulators is that they a=
re more
determined and, frankly, better armed=2E It will =
do you no good to
constrain the range of the solutions yo=
u’ll accept so that it doesn’t
overlap with t=
he solutions they will accept=2E

=2E  =
             png


On=
 Sep 21, 2015, at 5:10 AM, Dave Taht <dmt@millcomputing=2Ecom> wrote:=



Dave,


Huh=2E I have been interested i=
n mesh networking for a couple of years
now, and curious =
about Battlemesh, but I had no idea I knew someone
who wa=
s active in it=2E


A=
re there any other reports online from this year or last year? The
website doesn't seem to serve any purpose beyond announcing the e=
vent=2E



As you can tell I am way, way behind on my email=2E I've mostly b=
een
chasihg funding for my main project, make-wifi-fast f=
or over a year
now - I added in the mill and the "ca=
ke switch chip" to that overall
list as I tried to c=
limb the financial ladders=2E My funding at google
dried =
up suddenly (due to the re-org), and I was forced to chase other
avenues=2E I think i got a grant from comcast coming in, but it i=
s for
1/10th the total I needed for make-wifi-fast=2E=2E=
=2E and it is hung up in
legal, and in the fact the work =
has to mostly happen in europe=2E

So I=
've moved to europe, trying to find bases in bristol, england,
berlin, and sweden=2E That's taken a while (I dropped out of the mill=

process in may or so due to the sudden google silences, =
and the lack
of compiler - and I view mill's biggest prob=
lem is funding, so it
seems like just combining my own qu=
est with yours the right thing)

I was =
very involved in the early days of wireless networking but
dropped out by 2002 or so, much to my now, later regret=2E The only devs<=
br clear=3D"none">left that understand it at more than one level all go to =
battlemesh,
so I've been there twice=2E I still find it q=
uite discouraging how few
grok the minstrel algorithm, or=
 what is wrong with packet aggregation=2E
A billion+ user=
s that all think wifi "just works", and "always
sucked"=2E=2E=2E :( I gave a talk on the latter as well at at th=
is
battlemesh=2E

any=
way the videos and results from this battlemesh are all now online=2E
I am pushing on all fronts, but being a manager was a bit wear=
ying so
I took time out to do some recording at a place c=
alled theconvent=2Enet
for the past 2 weeks=2E Haven't played the piano so mu=
ch in 5 years!

Youtube videos:

https://www=2Eyoutube=2Ecom/chan=
nel/UCxfh-2aOR5hZUjxJLQ2CIHw

blog =
post: https://wlan-si=2Enet/en/blog/2015/09/08/=
battlemesh-v8-and-its-many-stories/

The test results were dismal, as expected=2E Finally knocking a few
heads to use abusive network tests like what toke and I develo=
ped were
hopefully an eye-opener, and a lot more people g=
rok what
make-wifi-fast is really about, and how to do it=
=2E

http://docs=2Ebattlemesh=2Eorg/

one very positive outcome of the fcc talk was a level=
 of net outrage
and organisation over some new fcc rules =
I have not seen before=2E My
letter to the fcc, in progre=
ss, with vint cerf and other
co-signers is up for review =
at:

https://docs=2Egoogle=2Ecom/document/d/1VTOHEpRXSvhWvQ=
0leM-sROJ_XC7Fk1WjFXq57ysFtAA/edit?usp=3Dsharing

A similar letter has to go to the eu, as they just passed si=
milar rules=2E

as much as I would like=
 to be working on the mill, it seems politics,
finance, a=
nd organisation are in more need of my attentions right now=2E
but I will keep plugging y'all at every opportunity=2E

But, but=2E=2E=2E as I said, I just took a few weeks=
 off and am picking up
the pieces and trying to figure ou=
t what to focus on, at the moment=2E

I=
f you wish a faster response to my email, please use dave=2Etaht@gmail=2Ecom




-- Sent with K-@ = Mail - the evolution of emailing=2E ------P86YI2M6IB55W6HJYJ9IMLX28W1IO2--