Imagination Solution to FCC Rules: Run OpenWrt and WiFi Driver in Separate VM's
cnx-software.com
cnx-software.com
I mean, that's how it is with plenty of other devices and types of equipment (cars aren't speed limited to 70mph - you're expected to operate your equipment within the bounds of the law, regardless of capability).
I'm not in the US, but I can imagine global firmware versions being locked down just to placate the FCC.
Or is it too late and do we have too little sway to convince them?
The FCC's approach to regulation of the electromagnetic spectrum is that it is a "common good", i.e. it is rivalrous but non-excludable. In their view, nobody has a right to use the spectrum in the USA. They grant licenses to use it, and they can tell you how to use the spectrum you are licensed to use.
Apparently, there were documented problems with WiFi radios being operated outside of their licensed parameters and interfering with safety critical airport radar systems.
It's probably too late to persuade them to change their minds. The public response to this topic was voluminous. They received way more comments than they usually do, but they still chose this approach.
If you care, you should choose to support hardware vendors that make the effort to separate the WiFi radio from the main system, allowing you to install your own firmware.
I've never seen a report listing more than about 45 instances of WiFi interfering with TDWR, and that's counting repeat offenders. I also haven't seen a clear statement of how many of those instances resulted in impaired operation of the airport's systems, or how many of them could have been prevented with the FCCs preferred solution. Meanwhile, the FCC has shown considerable ignorance of and disregard for the consequences of imposing such strict regulations on WiFi.
It shouldn't have been hard for the FCC to make a clear and compelling case for this, with a similarly clear call to action for chipset vendors to produce products that could meet the need for secure regulatory enforcement while remaining open to all the tweaking that is outside the FCC's purview.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/u-nii-and-tdwr-interference-enfo...
After reading a few of those reports, you should learn enough of the terminology to effectively search further.
Detecting and tracing wireless interference is much more difficult, requiring specialized equipment and a lot of FCC filings. All of the major carriers tend to bump shoulders in one market or another and the issue is often difficult to resolve due to the need for a lot of evidence.
So in short, it's harder to identify and confront violators. Like figuring out who peed in a crowded pool.
The only way to really prevent misuse would be to regulate the supply of any electronic components that could be used to build non-compliant equipment.
A better solution would be to include warnings with all certified equipment that it must be operated in accordance with regulations, as we do now.
I think the threat is being overstated and the proposed solution too bluntly applied.
If the offending transmissions are not intermittent (ie. an access point is operating normally, but with DFS off and a high transmit power for broadcasts), then it's probably feasible to pinpoint at least the correct building by searching on foot for a few hours.
If you go and buy a 30$ BaoFung and operate it on bands that the device is not certified to be used under ( CB/MURS/wakie talkie bands) then you can be fined for using it.
On the other hand, if you are a HAM then you have full access to do whatever you'd like in that regard. It doesn't even need to be for within your license class. So long as you are legally allowed to transmit on that band, you can do so as a HAM.
This was done because lots of us HAMs build our own equipment.
Mesh networking is one of the most radical ideas to which I've ever been exposed, and I think that the auspice of spectrum regulation will make a convenient way to nip it in the bud if we don't act fast to develop and deploy it.
As an alternative suggestion, couldn't the transmit power be capped in hardware? I don't see why you'd need to have hardware that could exceed the specified transmit limits, other than to save money for the manufacturers (allowing them to tweak transmit power in software to meet the regulations in different countries, assuming the maximum transmit power for wireless routers varies from country to country).
As a side note, the L4Re hypervisor the article proposes using looks very promising, first I've heard of it, was hoping someone would make a hypervisor based on a provably secure kernel like L4 one day, seems like it already exists.
No end users will touch it, but any vulnerabilities present will be used if present. In such a market I believe you'd actually spend your money on a high quality non-wifi router that you can update on your own and dangle insecure wifi access off of it, requiring VPN or other 'from the Internet' style for entry to the 'secure' network.
Also, I heard that current TP-LINK are a piece of cake to jailbreak. Being a cheap Chinese brand, they have little reason to go out of their way to "secure" those devices any more than the FCC will care to specifically demand under the threat of banning them from the US.
That said any 10$ SDR can be used to violate FCC regulations.
And if you know what you are doing a microwave can be turned into a decent 2.4ghz jammer.
:)
http://blog.imgtec.com/powervr/omnishield-multi-domain-secur...