[Battlemesh] FCC Contacts about Wifi Regulations

[Paul Gardner-Stephen]

Hello,

On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am not huge on a separate style of power connector. It raises costs,
> and makes for finding the right plug in an emergency situation harder.
>
> With the rise of usb micro plugs, and now usb-3.1c we are entering a
> world where we can power anything from anything, over a combined
> power/network bus, and to me that seems like a more efficient way to
> go. I gave a talk on this at ietf:
>

Thanks.  I'll see what we can do on this front.  If anyone knows a source
of USB 3.1 or C sockets that are IP65/66 rated (including when connected to
a cable), it would be very helpful.

Paul.


>
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-babel-3.pdf
>
> latter third of:
>
> http://recs.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/watch.jsp?recording=
> IETF96_BABEL&chapter=chapter_1
> )
>
> ...
>
> The disconnect between the decline in costs, the rise of extreme
> integration, open source and regulation and the public safety needs to
> be fixed, and continuing to to carry our problems back to the
> regulators in terms they can understand seems to be a good option.
> Recently for example, a set of patches enabling wifi on a few special
> wifi channels reserved for emergency services was rejected because
> someone could abuse those frequencies, and me, I kept imagining a
> tsunami hitting california and trying to pick up the pieces with
> whatever equipment was available.
> _______________________________________________
> Battlemesh mailing list
> Battlemesh at ml.ninux.org
> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/battlemesh
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ml.ninux.org/pipermail/battlemesh/attachments/20160806/1032782e/attachment.htm>