I was briefed on this a month ago and spent time with Terry Ngo at a CES press event last night. I'll get a private demo tomorrow, then write my story.
These guys are serious, know their stuff and have very interesting technology that can make using DFS channels a piece o' cake. They have some work to do with the FCC to get some regs changed, though.
Kickstarter is primarily to get the word out, they have money. As the Verge story notes, the real business they're after is to get their module into the usual suspects' routers.
And L&LD, you can start your rant now; the product relies on processing in the cloud.
Stevech: what does Wi-Fi Alliance have to do with DFS? Wi-Fi Certification isn't required to sell a product and the Alliance doesn't even have a DFS Certification.
My discussion of DFS was in the context of FCC et al regulatory domain approval (Part 15 in the US), not the WiFi Alliance. I forgot to mention in addition to DFS and CCA, there's TPC (transmitter power control), where each data frame (not IP packet) is to be sent with the minimum power needed for that client and for the current but dynamically chosen modulation order. TPC is a paradox in WiFi which based on CSMA/CD. However, TPC is widely used in proprietary TDMA systems and in IEEE 802.16e such as it is.
Vendors like Redline have been selling 5.4GHz products (not 802.11) for many years, and they comply with DFS/TPC/CCA regulations in regulatory domains that require it. It's irregular around the globe. Some developing nations have no FCC equivalent at all, or a tiny one for cellular and broadcast TV/radio only.
Regulatory approval (e.g., FCC) long ago was a prerequisite for entry into the WiFi alliance.
Originally, the WiFi Alliance established signal quality and receiver sensitivity vs. FER and SINR minimum standards. And there was a test process and proof to be submitted to ask the Alliance for specific product compliance with the relevant WiFi specs. For example, transmitted waveform Rho (quality, error-vector magnitude), ability to achieve what WiFi wanted for FER vs. data rates. And so on.
Only when the Alliance was satisfied with the proof was the approval to use the WiFi logo and trademark to be granted. But the Alliance is not a big corporation; the Alliance has no real income stability and no clout for offenders.
But now, I believe that the Alliance is impotent. Paltry dues aren't enough to run such a program. Same for IEEE's 802 committees - they have no certification program becuase they have no authority or funding. I served on the 802.15.4 committee for a while and sat in some 802.11 meetings. Attendees are gratis and often on the agenda of their employer.
FCC is not concerned with WiFi types of criteria (Rho, etc.); FCC just cares about channel power and power spilling out of the US ISM band at more than X (emissions masks). FCC does not care about bit/frame error rates or suitability for purpose - that's what the WiFi alliance was supposed to do.
Due to economics and market forces, WiFi product makers must have interoperability with popular client devices of all brands, else they'd not sell well!
But I feel that the WiFi Alliance's power of trademark and logo use is not policed today due to global volumes.