[Bloat] Another comment re FTC and weather radar from /.

[Rosen Penev]

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 <davec-b at rogers.com> 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 at spamcop.net           |                      -- Mark Twain
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing listBloat at 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 at spamcop.net           |                      -- Mark Twain
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/attachments/20151008/c300315a/attachment-0002.html>