3 ms·

From the down link: Take Action Now! The FCC is asking for comments on this proposal. The most important thing you can do is comment on the FCC's proposal and

From the down link: Take Action Now! The FCC is asking for comments on this proposal. The most important thing you can do is comment on the FCC's proposal and tell them you want to be able to control your computing devices. Will you do this? Comment deadline extended to October 9. Instructions: 1. Go to the Federal Register and press "Submit a formal comment" (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...) 2. Start your comment by respectfully asking the FCC to not implement rules that take away the ability of users to install the software of their choosing on their computing devices. Additional points of emphasis you should consider adding: - Wireless networking research depends on the ability of researchers to investigate and modify their devices. - Americans need the ability to fix security holes in their devices when the manufacturer chooses to not do so. - Users have in the past fixed serious bugs in their wifi drivers, which would be banned under the NPRM. - Billions of dollars of commerce, such as secure wifi vendors, retail hotspot vendors, depends on the ability of users and companies to install the software of their choosing. 3. Enter your name and address. This is a public comment and your personal information provided will be publicly available. Once you've submitted your comment, make sure to encourage others to submit comments opposing these restrictions on computing devices. Use the #SaveWifi hashtag on Twitter or your favorite microblogging services. Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Save_WiFi/Individual_Comments&client=ubuntu&hs=Clj&channel=fs&strip=1&vwsrc=0 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...

Sanddancer 11y ago
The rules do nothing of the sort. The guidelines state that the hardware manufacturer must make certain that reasonable efforts have been made to keep the device from trampling over radar systems, etc. The guidelines state that one route to do so is to have the firmware locked down in its entirety, but there are other ways to do so. Atheros chips, for example, do not expose the functionality that would require the chips to be locked down. Wireless researchers will almost certainly have the licensing in place to do investigation and modification. Device makers choosing not to update their devices should honestly be handled through tort; a few lawsuits against companies making defective routers will get makers to shape up. Buggy devices can and should be handled similarly. Finally, with your point regarding secure wifi vendors and the like, those would be the manufacturers and would by definition have access to all of those settings. This campaign reminds a lot of the bad old days of Microsoft and spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. This is not an evil policy that has nefarious purposes, it's about making sure people don't intentionally use their devices that will cause damage to the neighbors on the bandwidth spectrum. Also, keep in mind that the unlicensed regions were not created for communications, but rather so that medical and industrial heating devices have some range of frequencies to operate magnetrons, etc, without disrupting sensitive communications. Wifi uses them mostly because they do go unused the majority of the time.
- the_ancient 11y ago
  >>Wireless researchers will almost certainly have the licensing in place to do investigation and modification. Most/Alot of research, especially security research is one with out the manufacturers permission,I highly doubt they will have licensing in place to do investigation. >>Device makers choosing not to update their devices should honestly be handled through tort; a few lawsuits against companies making defective routers will get makers to shape up. You may want to consult a lawyer on that, since most of the manufacturers EULA explicitly indemnify them from this type of liability. If this was possible Microsoft should be bankrupt by now. My 2.5 year old Samsung phone has need seen an update for over a year, many security problems have been found both Samsung and my carrier say "Buy a new phone" yet somehow I think me attempting to sue them for not updating the device will be less than successful. Instead the best option I have is a Custom non-OEM ROM that is still being updated. >>reasonable efforts have Most of the people posting in support of this measure, including yourself seem to have a vastly different defination of "reasonable" that people like myself for who are open source / open hardware advocate. I bet you believe secure boot, UEFI and other measures are "reasonable" as well. >> This is not an evil policy that has nefarious purposes, it's about making sure people don't intentionally use their devices that will cause damage to the neighbors on the bandwidth spectrum The Road to hell is paved with good intentions, it may not be the FCC's goal to lock in hardware and to prevent users from replacing OEM operating systems, we can call it an "unintended consequence" if you wish. At the end of the day however it is a distinction with out a difference. If this rule is adopted, innovation, consumer freedom, and consumer security will suffer.
- bsder 11y ago
  > Also, keep in mind that the unlicensed regions were not created for communications, but rather so that medical and industrial heating devices have some range of frequencies to operate magnetrons, etc, without disrupting sensitive communications. The unlicensed regions were created because they absorbed RF very highly due to water and oxygen. The fact that we transmit in them in spite of the fact that from an RF perspective they totally suck is a tribute to the the fact that engineering ingenuity is far easier than navigating government regulation.
Lord_Nightmare 11y ago
"Comment deadline extended to October 9." No. Comment deadline extended to SEPTEMBER 9. No idea where October came from. (If someone can show otherwise, please let me know.)
- Lord_Nightmare 11y ago
  ... And, I'm wrong. It really was extended to October 9.

Sanddancer 11y ago

The rules do nothing of the sort. The guidelines state that the hardware manufacturer must make certain that reasonable efforts have been made to keep the device from trampling over radar systems, etc. The guidelines state that one route to do so is to have the firmware locked down in its entirety, but there are other ways to do so. Atheros chips, for example, do not expose the functionality that would require the chips to be locked down. Wireless researchers will almost certainly have the licensing in place to do investigation and modification. Device makers choosing not to update their devices should honestly be handled through tort; a few lawsuits against companies making defective routers will get makers to shape up. Buggy devices can and should be handled similarly. Finally, with your point regarding secure wifi vendors and the like, those would be the manufacturers and would by definition have access to all of those settings. This campaign reminds a lot of the bad old days of Microsoft and spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. This is not an evil policy that has nefarious purposes, it's about making sure people don't intentionally use their devices that will cause damage to the neighbors on the bandwidth spectrum. Also, keep in mind that the unlicensed regions were not created for communications, but rather so that medical and industrial heating devices have some range of frequencies to operate magnetrons, etc, without disrupting sensitive communications. Wifi uses them mostly because they do go unused the majority of the time.

the_ancient 11y ago
>>Wireless researchers will almost certainly have the licensing in place to do investigation and modification. Most/Alot of research, especially security research is one with out the manufacturers permission,I highly doubt they will have licensing in place to do investigation. >>Device makers choosing not to update their devices should honestly be handled through tort; a few lawsuits against companies making defective routers will get makers to shape up. You may want to consult a lawyer on that, since most of the manufacturers EULA explicitly indemnify them from this type of liability. If this was possible Microsoft should be bankrupt by now. My 2.5 year old Samsung phone has need seen an update for over a year, many security problems have been found both Samsung and my carrier say "Buy a new phone" yet somehow I think me attempting to sue them for not updating the device will be less than successful. Instead the best option I have is a Custom non-OEM ROM that is still being updated. >>reasonable efforts have Most of the people posting in support of this measure, including yourself seem to have a vastly different defination of "reasonable" that people like myself for who are open source / open hardware advocate. I bet you believe secure boot, UEFI and other measures are "reasonable" as well. >> This is not an evil policy that has nefarious purposes, it's about making sure people don't intentionally use their devices that will cause damage to the neighbors on the bandwidth spectrum The Road to hell is paved with good intentions, it may not be the FCC's goal to lock in hardware and to prevent users from replacing OEM operating systems, we can call it an "unintended consequence" if you wish. At the end of the day however it is a distinction with out a difference. If this rule is adopted, innovation, consumer freedom, and consumer security will suffer.
bsder 11y ago
> Also, keep in mind that the unlicensed regions were not created for communications, but rather so that medical and industrial heating devices have some range of frequencies to operate magnetrons, etc, without disrupting sensitive communications. The unlicensed regions were created because they absorbed RF very highly due to water and oxygen. The fact that we transmit in them in spite of the fact that from an RF perspective they totally suck is a tribute to the the fact that engineering ingenuity is far easier than navigating government regulation.

Lord_Nightmare 11y ago

"Comment deadline extended to October 9." No. Comment deadline extended to SEPTEMBER 9. No idea where October came from. (If someone can show otherwise, please let me know.)

Lord_Nightmare 11y ago
... And, I'm wrong. It really was extended to October 9.