[FCC] RE : NON-SEQUITUR

Christopher Waid chris at thinkpenguin.com
Wed Sep 9 21:33:24 PDT 2015


On 2015-09-08 09:07 PM, L. D. Pinney wrote:
> It's easiest to blame the FCC anyway....they "authorized" the HIGH
> POWER RADAR in the Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure [3]
> Band.
> 
> And sure...but where is the "tangible" evidence of such unauthorized
> modified firmware and operating wifi without DFS and/or on disallowed
> channels near airports  ?? Does the FCC have records as in arrest
> records and/or fines...or perhaps confiscated equipment....otherwise
> it is unsubstantiated.

I think allot of what is being argued is speculation and not fact. I 
haven't seen the FCC clearly state much anything clearly. I have read 
some quotes from the FCC, but it was largely double talk. They say "we 
only care about x, only ban y, and don't care about what software you 
run", but then the resulting combination leads one to realize (if you 
understand it all) that they're still banning the software from running 
on these devices by the virtue of the fact the cheapest simplest method 
is to add a software lock. They seem to assume that its the only way 
manufactures can/will do it too in how they are asking questions of 
manufacturers during the certification process. It doesn't ask how the 
manufacturer is preventing the operation of the radio outside of 
certified parameters. It asks how they are locking the devices down.

I'm already seeing routers shipping with updated firmware that have 
these locks. I think the evidence is in the known facts and not the 
speculation.

We know:

1. They've asked manufacturers how they are locking the devices down
2. We know manufacturers have updated firmware shipping with software 
locks on routers that they weren't locking until recently
3. Double talk that suggests they only care about one thing, but then 
state stuff that clearly indicates that the real solution to the rule is 
a device lock down

What we don't know for sure is the reason why the rules have/are 
changing. We seem to be doing nothing more than speculating. And if 
we're not I want more evidence of that.

> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Daniel Curran-Dickinson
> <daniel at daniel.thecshore.com> wrote:
> 
>> According to the FCC there are people who disagree and were running
>> modified firmware and operating wifi without DFS and/or on
>> disallowed channels near airports, and I really don't buy the whole
>> it's all a big conspiracy of lies argument.
>> 
>> Occam's Razor says that the less convoluted social explanation
>> (that the FCC did indeed find what they say they did and that they
>> are over-reacting to it) wins in the absence of more concrete
>> evidence otherwise.
>> 
>> On 2015-09-08 8:50 PM, L. D. Pinney wrote:
>> 
>>> Scare Quotes? ...it's just "sweeps" & "listens" isn't really
>>> technical
>>> 
>>> SO...basically I think (know) that I personally have NO INCENTIVE
>>> WHATSOEVER to run my WiFi on those frequencies.
>>> Whereas the FCC says otherwise .... it's a NON-SEQUITUR
>>> "argument"
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Daniel Curran-Dickinson
>>> <daniel at daniel.thecshore.com
>>> <mailto:daniel at daniel.thecshore.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> What's with all the scare quotes?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Daniel
>>> 
>>> On 2015-09-08 8:44 PM, L. D. Pinney wrote:
>>> 
>>> radar is very directional it "sweeps" with a powerful
>>> beam and
>>> "listens"
>>> for the echos.
>>> So...depending on how fast they turn the thing...would be
>>> the
>>> number of
>>> "spikes"
>>> Where as distance from the "airport" would "determine"
>>> the power
>>> level
>>> at your home.
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Daniel Curran-Dickinson
>>> <daniel at daniel.thecshore.com
>>> <mailto:daniel at daniel.thecshore.com>
>>> 
>>> <mailto:daniel at daniel.thecshore.com
>>> <mailto:daniel at daniel.thecshore.com>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It's an interesting argument, although I am not sure
>>> of the
>>> directionality of the radar (i.e. how much goes
>>> wide/down
>>> vs. up)
>>> which is a relevant question to this notion.
>>> 
>>> Routers are generally non-directional so could get
>>> to the radar
>>> receiver, so if radar is sufficiently directional to
>>> avoid
>>> swamping
>>> the home wifi then the argument still holds.
>>> 
>>> I am nowhere near an aiport so I really have no idea
>>> what
>>> radar does
>>> to wifi signals.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Daniel
>>> 
>>> On 2015-09-08 8:25 PM, L. D. Pinney wrote:
>>> 
>>> Even if this is all true.... my point is one has
>>> DISincentive to run
>>> WiFi on the same (or nearly) frequency of the
>>> TDWR at
>>> the local
>>> airport...as every time "it" sweeps your place
>>> your
>>> WiFi would be
>>> "swamped" by a signal with HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS
>>> of WATTS.
>>> Where as the FCC seems to think one has
>>> "incentive" to
>>> run his
>>> WiFi in
>>> this "so-called" illegal frequency range.
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Daniel
>>> Curran-Dickinson
>>> <daniel at daniel.thecshore.com
>>> <mailto:daniel at daniel.thecshore.com>
>>> <mailto:daniel at daniel.thecshore.com
>>> <mailto:daniel at daniel.thecshore.com>>
>>> <mailto:daniel at daniel.thecshore.com
>>> <mailto:daniel at daniel.thecshore.com>
>>> <mailto:daniel at daniel.thecshore.com
>>> <mailto:daniel at daniel.thecshore.com>>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> That makes more sense. The reason I was
>>> confused
>>> by the
>>> 250 part of
>>> the number is that I was thinking dBm.
>>> 
>>> Anyway still doesn't make your point unless
>>> you
>>> can point to
>>> literature that says the guy who said that
>>> reflection from
>>> clouds is
>>> in the same order of magnitude as router
>>> output is
>>> completely out to
>>> lunch. It makes sense to me - no only do
>>> you have
>>> inverse
>>> square
>>> round trip over a long distance, clouds are
>>> not highly
>>> radar reflective.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Daniel
>>> 
>>> On 2015-09-08 2:11 PM, L. D. Pinney wrote:
>>> 
>>> I can't reply to my post because of
>>> some
>>> problem with
>>> the list.
>>> Somehow the Old version got
>>> posted...Yes it is 250
>>> MILLI watts.
>>> 
>>> http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/uniitdwr.pdf [1]
>>> 
>>> http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2014/15/407/ [2]
>>> .
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-NII [3]
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/uniitdwr.pdf
> [2] http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2014/15/407/
> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-NII
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FCC mailing list
> FCC at lists.prplfoundation.org
> http://lists.prplfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fcc


More information about the FCC mailing list