Slashdot Mirror
Breaking Old Regulations and Old Habits
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."
I'm getting a bit sick of all of the industry friendly spectrum giveaw^H^H^H^H^H^Hauctions. How about a bit of spectrum for wireless broadband?
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
Unfortunantly, as long there is greed in the world, there will always be problems with government legalization. In addition, fear is often also a driving factor. Just look at the large amount of products out there to protect users from cell phonce radiation. People are always scared of new things. Especially if it has the oppurtunity to relive them of some of the money that they have been earning(drug war anyone?).
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.
I read the part about 802.11 wireless, very interesting.
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.
While I realize there is much support for 802.11b in it's 2.4Ghz position, it seems likely that as devices continue to be developed with output in that range, it's going to be impossible to continue recieving clear signals, even in the small 100 foot range that most of the devices promise.
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.
What would the effects be? Unprecedented professionalism in the software industry. We like to call it Software Engineering. When a Civil Engineer signs off on a bridge, he's stating it is flawless to the best of his ability. He's also accepting liability for the bridge. If software people want to be treated like professionals, they need to accept the same standards as professionals. If you release something that's broken, and it can be proven you know better, your ass is in the can.
(Celui que tient la peur de devinir nuage)
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.
>>Now what do you think? Which is more important to the economy and to social progress in general: digital broadband or ham radio? The truth is that ham radio trumps digital broadband, just because ham radio has been around longer and therefore is sanctified with a license to use the spectrum. (Yes, it's happened--a ham radio operator has actually shut down an 802.11 network.) >>
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.
Amen! Now, if only I could find enough time to study for my license exam...
Neither would asprin or alchohol or sunlight.
We live in a world with silly regulations. They even apply to technology.
=brian
Exactly, though I would soften the hard line a bit. When you write an OS, it would probably be impossible to code totally bug free code, no matter how much testing you did. The problem here is to define a parameter where the bug crosses into the penalty phase. A minor bug that crashes your system shouldn't be cause for fines, but something like the Melissa virus probably would. Stupid errors were automatic actions like VB scripting are the default should be penalized. Not plugging known security gaps should be penalized. But no one deserves the title of engineer when they release a product with 60k known bugs! "Yes, this bridge works pretty well, even though it has 60,000 structural cracks."
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
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.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Helpful suggestion for Cheeze: Please learn how to use capital letters.
Disclaimer: I am not (and have never been) an amateur radio operator.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
that's why they call the frequency range it works under "unregulated spectrum." Now, they are trying to take away the freedom of it and sell it to corporate interests, same as CB (which stands for "Citizens Band"), but the Ham radio complainers are way off. The regulated Ham networks are on a much lower frequency. 802.11B networks do not interfere unless there is a broken transmitter.
um, when a civil engineer signs off on a bridge, he's stating an estimate of cost, materials, time, and impact that it will have. Stuff like how many cars per minute and tons of concrete. Now, a structural engineer has a bit more to do with how it is built, but really, it comes down to the construction laborers and what kind of job they do. And bridges have lots of flaws and fall down or need repairs all the time. Tacoma Narrows anyone?
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.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
When 802.11 is mentioned, everyone seems to be assuming 802.11b, which is not the issue. Many people (at least here in Silicon Valley) are setting up long range 1or2Mbps links that are based on 802.11 (no 'b' or 'g', just 802.11). They transmit at much maximum power, using high gain _directional_ antennas to get more than 1000 meters.
l
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!
I believe (though IANAL) that the law already makes a distinction between things "you buy" and things that are "given to you".
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
Hmm, no mention of Markey's recent bill, the "Wireless Technology Investment and Digital Dividends Act" aka hr4641. It would use some of the proceeds from spectrum auctions to go to a fund to support digital divide issues and clear our new unlicensed spectrum. There's a companion bill in the Senate that *doesn't* include the spectrum bit, so we'll have to fight for it.
a rkeyBill.html
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 (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, hatched by a guy who used to head PBS.
This was all discussed at a gab fest at the New America Foundation last week. Check out the agenda (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.
What you're describing is what's known as a Professional Engineer (PE) certification. *Very* few engineers go for their PE, since it takes a lot of time and a lot of money, though the resulting salary increase is very nice. A PE is equivalent to "MD" after a name, or being licensed to practice law. IE, not everyone involved in medicine is an MD, not everyone who works in law offices is a lawyer and has passed the Bar (think paralegals, etc), and not everyone involved in engineering is a PE.
It's also necessary to usually have at least 4 years of qualifying experience before you can even take the examination.
The National Society of Professional Engineers 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...
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken