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

Tue Oct 13 14:19:44 EDT 2015

On Oct 13, 2015, at 19:29 , Matt Mathis <mattmathis at google.com> 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.

> 
> 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’t 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. 
	But I have not seen any data, so there might be a strong increase in interference incidents that warrant stricter rules… 


Best Regards
	Sebastian

> 
> Thanks,
> --MM--
> The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay
> 
> 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.
> 
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Simon Barber <simon at superduper.net> wrote:
> Sounds like DD-WRT should add some IP geo-location code quickly, and let the FCC know that they have done so!
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> On 10/8/2015 1:11 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 rest
>> 
>> davecb at spamcop.net
>>            |                      -- Mark Twain
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bloat mailing list
>> 
>> Bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat