[Bloat] RE : Save WiFi from the FCC - DEADLINE is in 3 days *September* 8

[Michael Richardson]

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote:
    > So I think a constructive approach would be to try to say how the FCC
    > concern can be solved or at least mitigated in a FOSS world. Do we have
    > any ideas?

The FCC needs to think bigger: restricting who can make/design/update
(fundamentally: 'own') wifi devices leads to millions of compromised devices
attacking the Internet.

If you think of the wifi spectrum as a small component of a bigger "Internet"
spectrum, and that FCC really cares about all of it, then it makes no sense
to manage each part in isolation.

Or to put it differently: if company X's locked down wifi device is attacking
the Internet, then maybe their wifi license should be revoked.

    > Because I can understand that regulators whose job it is to make sure
    > devices follow the rules have a problem with FOSS code that lets people
    > do whatever they want.

Manufacturer devices that have security holes in them let black hats do
whatever they want with the device.

    > Do we really want for regulators to bring back the vans who might roll
    > around and impose a fine because you were running OpenWRT and happened
    > to set the output power too high for whatever local regulation was in
    > place?

Yes, actually, I do.
I'm starting to be convinced that the Bell FIBE "wireless TV" eats more than
it's fair share of wifi.   I have no way to prove it without that Van.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     mcr at sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/attachments/20150908/08b40f17/attachment-0001.sig>