7 ms·

PLEASE put in comments on this proceeding, everyone! WE NEED YOUR HELP!

cpncrunch 11y ago
First I would advise you to understand why this is being done. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10137739 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10137739
- nickysielicki 11y ago
  I don't understand your/his reasoning here. * People don't enable DFS and they mess up radar for Airports. * ~20 reported incidents, people are fined ~$25k and stop. * Therefore we must make it illegal to change the firmware on wireless devices. Only 20 cases? $25k fines!? Why can't we continue to solve this problem like this? The hobbyists flashing their devices with OpenWRT and then making a conscious decision to override defaults (upon which OpenWRT will warn you about legality) are a rare breed. Those that foolishly do this are being fined heavily. I just don't understand the jump.
  - cpncrunch 11y ago
    I guess they just don't want to make it too easy to do this, given the serious consequences.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    Because one case can (potentially) cause the radar to miss a wind-shear threat, which is precisely what the radar is there to detect. Missing that can cause a plane crash and kill anywhere from one to a few hundred people. Given that level of potential downside (even if things would have to happen exactly wrong for it to occur), I'm not sure that "we fine them $25K and they stop" is the right trade-off. I'm not sure that "only 20 reported incidents" is a level that you should expect people to be comfortable with. I'm not sure "we'll continue to not be horribly unlucky" is a valid approach.
    - CamperBob2 11y ago
      This is just a variation on the old "Turn off your Game Boys before takeoff, or the plane might crash" schtick. The proper way to fix that issue, if there ever was one, was to mandate the implementation of avionics that can't be jammed by a Part 15 device. Instead, look what happened... we got a decade of silly, groundless rules that had no useful effect and were eventually scrapped. Now it looks like it's the WiFi industry's turn. Gee, maybe putting weather radar right next to an unlicensed ISM band wasn't such a great idea. Maybe they're the ones who should move.
      - cpncrunch 11y ago
        It's not quite the same as the gameboy. There have never been any instances of electronics interfering with avionics, but there have been quite a few instances of wifi interfering with weather radar. Also the weather radar was there first, and the issues were known right from the start.
        Karunamon 11y ago
        If by "quite a few", you mean "20" - which is insignificant compared to the ~80K flights happening in this country every year.
        cpncrunch 11y ago
        20 that have been noticed and charged. One is too many. How would you like to end up flying through a thunderstorm or a microburst? Most of the cases happened in Puerto Rico, where they get thunderstorms almost every day at certain times of year. It just takes one plane to fly through a thunderstorm to give everyone a very bad day.
        quotemstr 11y ago
        Kill all humans. That's a surefire way to prevent any more violations. After all, "one is too many". Your comments indicate that you're not even trying to balance different public interest concerns.
- dec0dedab0de 11y ago
  Why not just increase patrols for people breaking the law? Or change the radar to use a different frequency? Honestly, if I had to decide between the ability to choose free software, and having all flights grounded indefinitely I would go with the software. I know my opinion is not the majority though.
  - pdabbadabba 11y ago
    It would have been a lot easier for the FCC to have just not allowed unlicensed use on these channels than move all the weather RADAR. Instead, they put a lot of effort into rules that would make unlicensed use possible alongside it. Please remember this before firing off your letters to the FCC, and think about the alternative if the Commission can't count of reliable DFS.
rando289 11y ago
Here is where you do that: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-18402/equipment-authorization-and-electronic-labeling-for-wireless-devices https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-184...

First I would advise you to understand why this is being done. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10137739 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10137739

nickysielicki 11y ago
I don't understand your/his reasoning here. * People don't enable DFS and they mess up radar for Airports. * ~20 reported incidents, people are fined ~$25k and stop. * Therefore we must make it illegal to change the firmware on wireless devices. Only 20 cases? $25k fines!? Why can't we continue to solve this problem like this? The hobbyists flashing their devices with OpenWRT and then making a conscious decision to override defaults (upon which OpenWRT will warn you about legality) are a rare breed. Those that foolishly do this are being fined heavily. I just don't understand the jump.
- cpncrunch 11y ago
  I guess they just don't want to make it too easy to do this, given the serious consequences.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  Because one case can (potentially) cause the radar to miss a wind-shear threat, which is precisely what the radar is there to detect. Missing that can cause a plane crash and kill anywhere from one to a few hundred people. Given that level of potential downside (even if things would have to happen exactly wrong for it to occur), I'm not sure that "we fine them $25K and they stop" is the right trade-off. I'm not sure that "only 20 reported incidents" is a level that you should expect people to be comfortable with. I'm not sure "we'll continue to not be horribly unlucky" is a valid approach.
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    This is just a variation on the old "Turn off your Game Boys before takeoff, or the plane might crash" schtick. The proper way to fix that issue, if there ever was one, was to mandate the implementation of avionics that can't be jammed by a Part 15 device. Instead, look what happened... we got a decade of silly, groundless rules that had no useful effect and were eventually scrapped. Now it looks like it's the WiFi industry's turn. Gee, maybe putting weather radar right next to an unlicensed ISM band wasn't such a great idea. Maybe they're the ones who should move.
    - cpncrunch 11y ago
      It's not quite the same as the gameboy. There have never been any instances of electronics interfering with avionics, but there have been quite a few instances of wifi interfering with weather radar. Also the weather radar was there first, and the issues were known right from the start.
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        If by "quite a few", you mean "20" - which is insignificant compared to the ~80K flights happening in this country every year.
        cpncrunch 11y ago
        20 that have been noticed and charged. One is too many. How would you like to end up flying through a thunderstorm or a microburst? Most of the cases happened in Puerto Rico, where they get thunderstorms almost every day at certain times of year. It just takes one plane to fly through a thunderstorm to give everyone a very bad day.
        quotemstr 11y ago
        Kill all humans. That's a surefire way to prevent any more violations. After all, "one is too many". Your comments indicate that you're not even trying to balance different public interest concerns.
dec0dedab0de 11y ago
Why not just increase patrols for people breaking the law? Or change the radar to use a different frequency? Honestly, if I had to decide between the ability to choose free software, and having all flights grounded indefinitely I would go with the software. I know my opinion is not the majority though.
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  It would have been a lot easier for the FCC to have just not allowed unlicensed use on these channels than move all the weather RADAR. Instead, they put a lot of effort into rules that would make unlicensed use possible alongside it. Please remember this before firing off your letters to the FCC, and think about the alternative if the Commission can't count of reliable DFS.

rando289 11y ago

Here is where you do that: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-18402/equipment-authorization-and-electronic-labeling-for-wireless-devices https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-184...