[Battlemesh] [bufferbloat-fcc-discuss] Action: fixing *WRT and the FCC

[David Hilton]

Thanks for your input, Rich, Wayne, Moeller and Adrian

Input from a *WRT maintainer would be very welcome. We *do* have funds
available, so if the FCC is amenable we could use that for hosting,
licenses (for wifi location data?) or development.

Adrian:
It is political, but I think that having a solution that works *right now*,
for *anything open* is an important bargaining chip.

Our initial (not mainline) implementation *would* just disable the
channels. That's the <2h dev time. As we get traction with the FCC, we
actually do a smart implementation that goes into trunk. Maybe WiFi
location data, or allow DFS-capable chips report DFS events (opt-in, of
course).

We can't just demand that vendors open their code and say "that will make
things better... because then we can fix it for you!" Let's apply a fix,
get some political capital, and try and expand what the fix applies to.
This ultimately will increase openness and security. As we *demonstrate*
the "secondary" benefits, we can expand the scope.

David

An aside: I am 10 miles from the FCC office in DC (this week (just Friday,
I guess), and will be here again in another month). I'm willing to go there
in person and meet with whoever I need to.

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian at freebsd.org> wrote:

> Ugh!
>
> Look, it's not going to work that way. You're expecting everyone is
> going to have access to a GPS receiver. If you get access to NTP and
> GeoIP location, people will just disable or spoof it.
>
> It's barking up the wrong tree. This is mostly political. We need loud
> vendor voices advocating for openness. Now, this likely won't be
> TP-Link, D-Link, etc. My suggestion is to get the vendors that are
> already doing stuff with open hardware (pfsense, thinkpenguin,
> 8devices, and all of the kickstarter wifi companies) to get together
> and advocate on this.
>
> This isn't specifically a technical problem. There needs to be a much
> larger, much louder, much more unified front than the last attempt. If
> you can get this, then you can ask someone like Google to get
> involved.
>
>
>
> -adrian
> _______________________________________________
> bufferbloat-fcc-discuss mailing list
> bufferbloat-fcc-discuss at lists.redbarn.org
> http://lists.redbarn.org/mailman/listinfo/bufferbloat-fcc-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ml.ninux.org/pipermail/battlemesh/attachments/20160218/94ec5e82/attachment.htm>