From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bifrost.lang.hm (lang.hm [66.167.227.134]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 443013B2CD; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 18:29:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from asgard.lang.hm (asgard.lang.hm [10.0.0.100]) by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u2EMTGQX006742; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:29:16 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:29:16 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: Wayne Workman cc: bufferbloat-fcc-discuss , make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net, dpreed@reed.com In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1457964158.79616218@mobile.rackspace.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [bufferbloat-fcc-discuss] arstechnica confirmstp-link router lockdown X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 22:29:26 -0000 On Mon, 14 Mar 2016, Wayne Workman wrote: > One thing Is for sure - if the FCC can't see this, they will have > effectively handicapped yet another technology, they will basically kill > wifi. In the public's minds it will become some gross slow thing. Agreed. David Lang > Again, reminds me of what the FCC, RCA, and copyright courts did to FM back > at its birth. > On Mar 14, 2016 2:13 PM, "David Lang" wrote: > >> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016, dpreed@reed.com wrote: >> >> But it will take working with both the FCC and the chip vendors, and the >>> home access point vendors with a common purpose and agenda. That agenda >>> needs to be to find the minimum lock that will satisfy the FCC, and a >>> sufficiently cheap implementation that, along with the cost saving on >>> design certification, it is cheaper to make a router that is otherwise >>> open, than to make one whose certification depends on review of all the >>> code in the router. >>> >> >> This should never require review of all the code in the router. At most it >> should require review of the firmware code for the wifi chip. >> >> Linux has had this sort of thing in the past, look at the ISDN code that >> required certification to operate. >> >> This is a common design pattern. The DAA for phones is now purchasable as >>> a single module, FCC precertified, so one can make any kind of cordless >>> phone be certifiable, merely by using that part. That part is more >>> expensive than one I could design myself, but it saves on certification >>> cost, because the rest of the phone or modem doesnt need certification, so >>> one can innovate. >>> >> >> The problem is how much stuff gets stuffed in this certified component. >> Cell phones, with their 'baseband processor' are a good example of too much >> functionality being in the certified component. >> >> We want to get more access to what's currently in the wifi chipset >> firmware, not have it all locked down more. >> >> David Lang >> _______________________________________________ >> bufferbloat-fcc-discuss mailing list >> bufferbloat-fcc-discuss@lists.redbarn.org >> http://lists.redbarn.org/mailman/listinfo/bufferbloat-fcc-discuss >> >