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

[Eric Schultz]

David,

DFS does work now. It's worked for years. The best we can do is make sure
you can't turn off DFS unless you rebuild from kernel.

The FCC hasn't even said that DFS is the problem or what would satisfy
them. We need the FCC to actually collaborate and to date, they've just
talked past us.

Eric

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:27 PM, David Hilton <quercus.aeternam at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bufferbloat-fcc-discuss mailing list
> bufferbloat-fcc-discuss at lists.redbarn.org
> http://lists.redbarn.org/mailman/listinfo/bufferbloat-fcc-discuss
>
>


-- 
Eric Schultz, Community Manager, prpl Foundation
http://www.prplfoundation.org
eschultz at prplfoundation.org
cell: 920-539-0404
skype: ericschultzwi
@EricPrpl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ml.ninux.org/pipermail/battlemesh/attachments/20160218/6f6dea28/attachment-0001.html>