Breaking Old Regulations and Old Habits 67
tadghin writes ""Under the current regulatory regime, 802.11 would never have been legalized." Andy Oram reports this comment by David Reed in his summary of a wireless policy BOF session at the O'Reilly Emerging Technology conference. Andy discusses some of the hidden regulatory threats to wireless networking and what we might do about them, as well as many of the other sessions he attended, in a conference report on Wednesday's sessions."
Time to clean house... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Time to clean house... (Score:1)
I agree, BTW, so this is ontopic. ;)
Money and Fear (Score:4, Insightful)
A new band (Score:4, Informative)
In the medium term, 802.11a will replace 802.11b/Wi-Fi. As well as lack of interference, the U-NII is simply larger, allowing a lot more networks to co-exist in the same airwaves.
Re:A new band (Score:1)
Re:ahh, finally (Score:1)
Effects on Opensource (Score:5, Interesting)
His proposals for improving the situation included:
The oft-heard suggestion to make software manufacturers liable for defects.
....
(Note: software companies are doing their damnedest to move in the opposite direction, by pushing UCITA laws that would let them get away with releasing known defects.)
....
Making other companies liable for their own systems as well. They'd act differently if they knew they could be sued when their customers' social security numbers were released.
Oh sounds great. So we get to sue the crappy coders. Nice. How about having a huge fine for companies that release crappy code? That sounds great too!
Except that Microsoft could afford to pay up the fine AND face any huge lawsuits by sheer muscle power. As would Sun. Or for that matter any of the bigger companies. It would mean nothing to them, and people would still continue to buy their stuff.
But what about Opensource? Whom would you hold responsible? If it becomes a law for one, it's law for another.
As Schneier said, "Security is a people problem, not a technical problem." Actually, the people he was referring to at that moment were not the malicious crackers themselves, but the crowds of negligent programmers, managers, data centers, and policy-makers who tolerate weak security.
Yeah, but please note that it is not just corporates who churn out bad code, not just companies. And if it did become a law that bad code will be punished, corporates can fight. A lonely hacker cannot, atleast not that easily. It would hit the OSS community and companies based on the movement a whole lot worse than the big guys.
Utopian, yes. Pragmatic? No.
Re:Effects on Opensource (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really.
It's really not that difficult to imagine a law that was written such that those who licensed their IP (code) under certain criteria (zero cost, freely redistributable, modifiable, whatever. Think open source criteria) would be exempt. And in particular, any well-drafted law would have this property.
Whether one can expect that from the fine congress you folks have elected is another matter entirely.
Re:Effects on Opensource (Score:2)
That clause might not even be necessary... (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that except in the case of extreme negligence, or intentional harm, your right to recover damages for something you got "for free" is extremely limited.
-Mark
Re:Effects on Opensource (Score:1)
And not hiding behind an AC would also help.
Re:Effects on Opensource (Score:2)
if you coded it for free, you can't be assessed
That would seem to absolve internet explorer and outlook express, both of which are "free" (free as in candy from strangers)
You're right to suppose UCITA will penalise open-source whilst exempting microsoft, but the answer isn't so simple as "percentage of earnings"
It's even simpler than that. "US Congress stay the fuck out of what doesn't concern them, and what they know nothing about"
My software is no longer available to those states which have passed UCITA
Re:Effects on Opensource (Score:3, Insightful)
The resolution to this is to base the fine on per copy retail pricing. If Microsoft Shop (a theoretical planning package allowing you to plan and cost out building projects ranging from making a one legged stool through re-fitting your garage or basement as a manufacturing center) costs $79 per copy retail, and it unwittingly notifies your local zoning office that you plan on setting up a mass distribution center running out of your garage, Microsoft should be fined $79 per copy of Microsoft Shop sold.
As Microsoft is not the recipient of all of the $79 per copy, they would be paying above and beyond their profit for the product.
Personally I think this should be based upon the Suggested Retail Price at the time the product is released. So if a major software flaw is found in X-Box, they would be liable for the $299 per device, not the current or upcomming $199 per device.
Punative damages should be awarded based upon actual costs to consumers for the losses accumulated by the software. If the theoretical problem with Microsoft Shop ultimately cost you $1500 in legal bills to defend the fact that you did not implement the project that you played around with, that cost would be a added as punative damages to any class action suit.
But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
As a side effect, Free software (as in beer) would have significantly lower cost per failure. Unfortunately with the potential for punative damages as part of a class action suit, this would have a deletorious effect on poorly managed Open Source/Free software.
Re:Effects on Opensource- Professionalism maybe? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Effects on Opensource- Professionalism maybe? (Score:2)
Re:Effects on Opensource- Professionalism maybe? (Score:2)
Re:Effects on Opensource- Professionalism maybe? (Score:2)
Tacoma Narrows anyone?
Yes, use a bridge that fell down due to a previously unknown property (harmonic vibration) as an example of how construction workers affect the quality of a built bridge.
Re:Effects on Opensource- Professionalism maybe? (Score:1)
Re:Effects on Opensource- Professionalism maybe? (Score:2)
It's also necessary to usually have at least 4 years of qualifying experience [nspe.org] before you can even take the examination.
The National Society of Professional Engineers [nspe.org] will have probably more information than you want to deal with on the subject.
Just remember, when a PE signs off on something, he's signing off on the work of everyone who's worked on the project. Given what I know of most of the other developers I've met, I don't think I'd be willing to be liable for their code...
One word.. (Score:1)
Re:/. Sing Along... everybody add a line! (Score:1, Offtopic)
3G wireless (Score:2, Informative)
But the 3G wireless part was misleading. The section is entitled "Don't forget 3G" but it is all about SMS, which is more of a 2G wireless technology, heck even if it was supposed to be about GPRS that is a 2.5G wireless thing. 3G might not be dead (or even barely born yet really) but SMS is not the proof of this! Happily it is gaining momentum in the US though as more carries move to GSM.
802.11b in 2.4GHz not a player long-term (Score:3, Insightful)
I also see no compelling reason to believe there is any commercial interest in keeping 802.11b around, as 802.11a devices provide faster throughput (supposedly), have fewer regulatory restrictions, and allow for higher prices / profit margins (due to the two reasons above).
Given the current political climate as it relates to emerging technologies and the 2.4Ghz band, I would expect to see 802.11b fade away to regulatory condemnation and watch 802.11a take over where 802.11b left off.
Ignorance exists on 802.11 supporters' part also (Score:5, Interesting)
What do I think? Which is more imporatant? I'd definitely say that ham radio *should* trump digital broadband. Amateur radio is more than just a trivial hobby. Who provided communication for rescue workers in NYC after 9/11 when all the communication antennae on top of the WTC were destroyed? Amateur radio operators. In DC during the Pentagon operation at the same time? Amateur radio operators. Who provided overseas troops in numerous wars the ability to call home and talk to families? Amateur radio operators. The FCC recognizes and provides for the privileges of amateur radio operators particularly because of their value in providing emergency communications, but also because of their improvements and advances in radio communication and for advancing international goodwill.
The people quoted in this piece obviously believe that commercial purposes should trump all others. Money above all. The airwaves are a public commons and I firmly believe that providing space for ham radio operators to continue practing their hobby (which in turn is practice for providing emergency communications when such arise) is more important than providing inviolable space for 802.11 networking.
Re:Ignorance exists on 802.11 supporters' part als (Score:2)
Re:Ignorance exists on 802.11 supporters' part als (Score:1)
i think the whole wavelength segregation the FCC controls needs to be reworked. there no reason for ham radio operators to have precedence over anyone just because they were there first. the USA is based on consumer acceptance of a product. as soon as wireless really starts showing up at your grandma's house, you'll notice ham radio dying off much quicker.
maybe someone should write some code or build some hardware so 802.11 can contribute to ham radio, by acting as a repeater.
Re:Ignorance exists on 802.11 supporters' part als (Score:2)
Helpful suggestion for Cheeze: Please learn how to use capital letters.
Disclaimer: I am not (and have never been) an amateur radio operator.
Re:Ignorance exists on 802.11 supporters' part als (Score:1)
Most HF rigs (the under 50MHz rigs) cost between $1000 and $4000 and are made by Kenwood, Icom and Yaesu. Top names in radio equipment. They use DSPs and speech filters that are years ahead of anything you'll find in consumer products. 2 meter and 70 cm rigs run between $150 and $500, even at Radio Shack.
Also Hams are critical emergency communication operators. When bad weather happens hams are out there acting as storm spotters and feeding information back to the National Weather Service. Nothing beats trained eyeballs on the spot. We provide communications when 911 systems go down and in disasters we provide the critical link that save lives.
Realize that the FCC is chartered to maintain the airwaves in trust for the American people and ask your selves who serves the people better, hams or 802.11 in Starbucks?
Under the current regulatory regime ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Neither would asprin or alchohol or sunlight.
We live in a world with silly regulations. They even apply to technology.
=brian
Goddamn Hams! (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, about a ham radio operator "actually" shutting down a network -- where and when? Hams are perhaps the most conscientious users of spectrum anywhere. They have clean signals and stay in their bandwidth -- bandwidth they are licensed to operate in. Consumer electronics, on the other hand, are the worst offenders. And 802.11b is unlicensed and must accept all interference caused to it by licensed users -- which includes microwave ovens. Read Part 15 and Part 18 of the FCC regulations.
ObDisclaimer: I am not (and have never been) a ham radio operator.
(Microwaved) Honeybaked Hams! (Score:1)
Hmmm... So, does this mean that a ham radio operator can force people not to use microwave ovens, which also use the 2.4GHz band (and, last time I checked, weren't licensed either)? "Excuse me, ma'am, but I'm confiscating your microwave as an illegal transmitter. Your ham radio operator neighbors have been complaining."
Re:(Microwaved) Honeybaked Hams! (Score:1)
On every part 15 device are the words:
"This Device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) This device must accept any interference received. Including interference that may cause undesired operation."
An otherwise legally operated part 15 device that causes interference to hams or any other primary user in that band is operating illegally and must shut down.
Shutting down a network (Score:1)
802.11B was never legalized (Score:2)
Re:802.11B was never legalized (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:802.11B was never legalized (Score:1)
Ham Spectrum Allocation [arrl.org]
Everyone seems to be focusing on 802.11b... (Score:3, Interesting)
I do still believe that an 802.11b network could cause interference to licensed spectrum users, but buildings have a way of attenuating signals =) (having worked closely with 3 different types of 2.4GHz packet radio technologies)
For those interested in a detailed explanation (biased?) of FCC part 15 rulings and how they apply to Ham radio operators, I suggest:
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/part15.htm
It was enlightening for me!
Markey spectrum bill (Score:2)
Yall West Coast politico-wannabe's must be out of it if yall missed this, get in the game already. This stuff is going down in Washington and yall don't even know it. Couldn't Larry Lessig have clued you in? Seriously, here's some resources on this.
Quick info on the bill from the Center for Digital Democracy [democraticmedia.org] (lead group on the open access fight)
http://democraticmedia.org/news/washingtonwatch/m
The proposal is kinda a scaled down version of the a proposal called the Digital Promise [digitalpromise.org], hatched by a guy who used to head PBS.
This was all discussed at a gab fest [newamerica.net] at the New America Foundation [newamerica.net] last week. Check out the agenda [newamerica.net] (pdf), the spectrum panel is on towards the end. You'll notice Reed Hundt, former FCC commissioner, and Yochai Benkler who's scholarship intersects w/ free software and other kinds of commons.