The FCC is asking for comments on a proposal to require manufacturers to lock down computing devices

[Chrysalis]

it isnt reasonable because the manufacturers cannot get it right. It requires end user's to get the maximum out of the device.

 

[Nullity]

Am I the only one who sees the FCC's plans as understandably logical?


WiFi is one of the undeserved conveniences, in my mind, and my 802.11n WLAN functions far better than I would expect, especially considering the (lack of) effort to set it up.

If the FCC or "lazy" manufacturers ruins WiFi, someone else will fill the extremely lucrative wireless internetworking gap.


or the sky is falling.

 

[sfx2000]

I provide zero "enhancements" to wifi, and yet my firmware project seems to be fairly popular, despite being limited to only a handful of models. Wifi driver is taken directly from Asus's code, I did no change at all to the region, power output or channel management. Closest I've been to touching it is to allow enabling 802.11d+h - and even there, I force 802.11h to be enabled on the 5 GHz band, as per Asus's own code.

That's why the compromise of forcing manufacturers to ensure that the wireless portion isn't user-modifiable is reasonable enough, as opposed to the heavy-handed "let's prevent changing the whole firmware" hinted by the FCC.

Let me start off - RMerlin - your contributions to the community are exceptional and I think deeply appreciated by all - the time and effort to sort out, debug, and fix bugs/add functionality within that source tree is a tremendous effort...

Getting back to the FCC proposed rule-making - for general use, I think that locking down the WiFi firmware and more importantly, base settings related to regulatory domain (which can be part of that WiFi lockdown) might be a course of action for many...

What I would like to see however, is a personal use exemption - even if it needs an FCC RT Permit even, and specific gear - in other words, maybe I can't change an ASUS RT-AC68U AP or an Asus USB-AC56 driver, but I should be able to acquire a development board and client/clients to do development, that would meet the needs of the Makers/Researcher/Innovators in the ISM and UNII* bands...

At the end of the day, that's my primary concern...

 

[jegesq]

The way forward is either for the FCC to put up with it or for the airports etc. to change their equipment.

I do not mean to sound insulting, but did you read what you wrote? Really? Seriously??? You really believe "the way forward" is for airports to change their equipment rather than have the FCC require wifi router manufacturers to not be able to market products that can be modified to directly interfere with weather forecasting, storm warnings and passenger life safety?

You want to be able to stream videos over your wifi LAN at higher powers and on channel 14 (illegal everywhere except Japan) at the risk of a.... plane going down?

Yeah....that's what I thought.

I'm gonna run over to LAX and suggest to the airport officials that they move their radar somewhere else because, after all, it is messing up my $289 Asus router's ability to broadcast on certain 5ghz frequencies at higher powers because of that darn DFS and TPC the FCC makes Asus install into the router.

 

[sfx2000]

I do not mean to sound insulting, but did you read what you wrote? Really? Seriously??? You really believe "the way forward" is for airports to change their equipment rather than have the FCC require wifi router manufacturers to not be able to market products that can be modified to directly interfere with weather forecasting, storm warnings and passenger life safety?

You want to be able to stream videos over your wifi LAN at higher powers and on channel 14 (illegal everywhere except Japan) at the risk of a.... plane going down?

Yeah....that's what I thought.

I'm gonna run over to LAX and suggest to the airport officials that they move their radar somewhere else because, after all, it is messing up my $289 Asus router's ability to broadcast on certain 5ghz frequencies at higher powers because of that darn DFS and TPC the FCC makes Asus install into the router.

I'm reasonably certain of where your thoughts are on this post - even in rant mode...

Can you sort it into a better format?

Respectfully asked, as many might use your valid comments on a formal response to the FCC...

 

[Chrysalis]

I do not mean to sound insulting, but did you read what you wrote? Really? Seriously??? You really believe "the way forward" is for airports to change their equipment rather than have the FCC require wifi router manufacturers to not be able to market products that can be modified to directly interfere with weather forecasting, storm warnings and passenger life safety?

You want to be able to stream videos over your wifi LAN at higher powers and on channel 14 (illegal everywhere except Japan) at the risk of a.... plane going down?

Yeah....that's what I thought.

I'm gonna run over to LAX and suggest to the airport officials that they move their radar somewhere else because, after all, it is messing up my $289 Asus router's ability to broadcast on certain 5ghz frequencies at higher powers because of that darn DFS and TPC the FCC makes Asus install into the router.

First of all even tho I said my wifi is not over legal limits you and others continue to pretend to justify this by pretending people only want to use super high power limits on their routers, this is complete nonsense. It has been proven asus and other manufacturers are not capable of supplying devices that allow routers to be used to their max potential (within legal limits) for this reason it is not sensible to trust manufacturers to lock down these devices, or are you suggesting this doesnt matter, it is somehow irrelevant. Please explain.

Also since when have planes been crashing due to wifi interference, please dont make things up. People have trouble getting wifi to reach their back garden let alone an airport runway. Lets not get carried away here not to mention there would be no safety risk if their frequencies were adjusted.

In my mind any of these would be satisfactory.

1 - End users are assigned a new wifi frequency that can sustain at least 4 160mhz channels without overlapping but the military pays for the cost e.g. if a new router is needed the end user is fully reimbursed for the cost (this isnt insane e.g. in the UK people with freeview tv boxes which will no longer work due to the government changing their mind have recieved compensation).
2 - Firmware's stay unlocked, but end user's are of course responsible for legal use and risk fines if caught misusing the airwaves.
3 - Firmware's are locked but the manufacturers have a legal duty to correctly specify the configuration and ensure stable use. e.g. not restricting to 80mw when limits are higher and locking off higher channels when allowed, in such instances the manufacturer has to withdraw products of shelves until they comply or advertise they are selling a crippled router.
4 - Radars etc. move to a new frequency, yes moving a few hundred radar stations is a hell of a lot easier to do then 10s of millions of devices. Especially as most miltiary have budgets in the billions.

Until you accept manufacturers are currently not correctly locking down devices and that needs fixing first and that end users (as well as the companies) should not be footing the bill for this mess, I cannot debate with you, it seems the miltary comes first and to hell with everyone else. We not all america where we love the military. If I put a new firmware on my device with a locked EU region, its unusable on wifi, its unstable, dropouts, terrible throughput etc. Its a device not fit for purpose.

Also I will say this to put this to bed, my brother in law works for the MET office, I told him apparently wifi networks are causing havoc on their systems, his response? a big laugh. What is the source of these lies?

 

[jegesq]

. . . I cannot debate with you. . .

Yes, I agree.

 

[jegesq]

I'm reasonably certain of where your thoughts are on this post - even in rant mode...

Can you sort it into a better format?

Respectfully asked, as many might use your valid comments on a formal response to the FCC...

You are correct, it was a rant, and written entirely tongue in cheek. But nevertheless, the point Chrysalis was making, i.e., that rather than require manufacturers of wifi SOHO routers to take steps in order to achieve certification of their devices that insures (1) end users are not able to increase a radio's transmit power beyond the highest EIR permitted where the device is certified for use and sale, and insure (2) that end users cannot transmit on frequencies (e.g., channel 14 in the U.S.) that are not allowed to be used within the region where the device has been certified for sale and use, we should instead require the FCC, FAA, NOAA and the U.S. military branches to relocate their weather, civil and military aviation radar so that those radars do not detect SOHO wifi, is, to put it simply a laughable proposition. Because it's not radar that interferes with the routers, it's the routers that have the capability to interfere with radar....no matter what Chrysalis' ill-informed brother-in-law might think.

I should have shown greater self-restraint and avoided responding at all to that post in the first place. So feel free to ignore my rant.

 

[thiggins]

I should have shown greater self-restraint and avoided responding at all to that post in the first place. So feel free to ignore my rant.

This thread has run its course. Unless someone brings new FACTs to the discussion, I suggest refraining from responding to inflammatory posts.

 

[stevech]

Facts are that in some locales, some FAA systems can be affected by WiFi users transmitting signals on prohibited channels. The FAA systems' receivers are far more sensitive than WiFi receivers for several practical reasons and some laws of physics reasons relating to noise*bandwidth. As to power excesses, these mainly come from operating at the upper edge of the FCC defined band, or worse, in a prohibited channel, AND using antennas with approximately 6dBi or more gain. The antenna choice has far more to do with effective radiated power than does the WiFi router/AP transmitter max power setting. Some alternative WiFi router firmware offers power settings that are so high as to be ignored by the product's low level radio firmware. Thus, the on-screen dBm numbers are misleading. The WiFi beacons are what bedevil these other radio systems as the beacons are ever-present.

 

[red_pope]

I do not mean to sound insulting, but did you read what you wrote? Really? Seriously??? You really believe "the way forward" is for airports to change their equipment rather than have the FCC require wifi router manufacturers to not be able to market products that can be modified to directly interfere with weather forecasting, storm warnings and passenger life safety?

You want to be able to stream videos over your wifi LAN at higher powers and on channel 14 (illegal everywhere except Japan) at the risk of a.... plane going down?

Yeah....that's what I thought.

I'm gonna run over to LAX and suggest to the airport officials that they move their radar somewhere else because, after all, it is messing up my $289 Asus router's ability to broadcast on certain 5ghz frequencies at higher powers because of that darn DFS and TPC the FCC makes Asus install into the router.

Airports do have WIFI inside their terminals!!

 

[stevech]

Airports do have WIFI inside their terminals!!

Indeed. But not operated on the upper prohibited channels - one the the FCC is trying to stop.

 

[red_pope]

I found this article on the web. http://prpl.works/2015/09/21/yes-the-fcc-might-ban-your-operating-system/
Interesting article to read. Very informative.
It does not constitute my opinion or anyone else in this forum.
keeping everything on a good orderly perspective, after all is about measuring the Con's and Pro's of the any FCC ruling and decision and how probably will affect the American Public.

You could find it at and read it at:
http://prpl.works/2015/09/21/yes-the-fcc-might-ban-your-operating-system/
Again read it objectively.

 

[red_pope]

Update:

Proposed Rule; Extension Of Comment Deadline.

https://www.federalregister.gov/art...-time-for-comments-on-equipment-authorization

A Proposed Rule by the Federal Communications Commission on 09/01/2015
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission's (Commission's) Office of Engineering and Technology Bureau (Bureau) extends the deadlines for interested parties to submit comments and reply comments in response to the Equipment Authorization and Electronic Labeling for Wireless Devices.

 

[sfx2000]

EFF has joined the effort with an online petition...

https://dearfcc.org

Open source software can make wireless devices more valuable and useful, introducing innovative new features, faster and more secure communications, and powerful options for households or small businesses. But an FCC proposal aimed at regulating radio frequencies could wipe out these free software projects—unless you speak up today

 

[red_pope]

EFF has joined the effort with an online petition...

https://dearfcc.org

Open source software can make wireless devices more valuable and useful, introducing innovative new features, faster and more secure communications, and powerful options for households or small businesses. But an FCC proposal aimed at regulating radio frequencies could wipe out these free software projects—unless you speak up today

I have already did my share. I voice my opinion on the Main FCC website including the EFF website. Lets hope everyone else has done the same.

 

[RMerlin]

Another organization jumping into the discussions:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/14/iab_defends_users_rights_to_mod_wifi_kit/

 

[red_pope]

Anyone interested in reading.

The docker has already been submitted to the FCC . What really did catch my attention was not only the large numbers of people that signed the docker, but mainly by one of the co- Inventors of the Internet, Vint Cerf and Dave Taht co-founder of bufferbloat.net.

Here is the Link:
http://huchra.bufferbloat.net/~d/fcc_saner_software_practices.pdf

 

[RMerlin]

The FCC published a revised version yesterday:

https://regmedia.co.uk/2015/11/12/fcc-wifi-update-nov15.pdf

The new version no longer asks manufacturers what step they make to prevent any third party software, and they also posted on social medias that they don't intend to encourage manufacturers into preventing third party software.

Now the question remains whether it can still become an unintended consequence of their new rules. Because intentions and end results aren't always the same. But so far, things are definitely looking better for us.

 

[stevech]

Just hope that 2.4GHz 802.11 and WiFi don't go the same route as unmanaged Citizens' Band radio did.
Too many cursing morons with 100-1000Watt amps so when the band opens (propagation), they could be heard well 1500 miles away but could barely hear the legal-power stations 5 miles away.

Overstated analogy, but the principle here is that the FCC just "gave up/quit" administering CB. Wrote it off. Turned their attention to collecting $B's from cellular spectrum auctions.