Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Breaking Old Regulations and Old Habits

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the breakin-the-law-breakin-the-law dept.

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."

10 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. Money and Fear by El+Pollo+Loco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?).

  2. Effects on Opensource by metlin · · 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.

    1. Re:Effects on Opensource by sylvester · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it becomes a law for one, it's law for another.

      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. :-)

      --
      -Rob Ewaschuk
    2. Re:Effects on Opensource by rusty0101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      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.

      --
      You never know...
  3. 802.11b in 2.4GHz not a player long-term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  4. A new band by cyberformer · · Score: 4, Informative
    The article calls for a new dedicated spectrum band for wireless networking, that can't be shut down by other users who have a higher priority. But the author doesn't seem to realize that there already is such a band: it's called the Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure band, at 5GHz., and is intended for 802.11a wireless LANs (as well as 802.16 wireless local loop).


    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.

  5. Ignorance exists on 802.11 supporters' part also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    >>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.

  6. Goddamn Hams! by phliar · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.)
    This one section is enough for me to dismiss anything else this crackpot has to say. Yer damn right ham radio trumps your stupid unlicensed network. When there's a disaster and all the landlines are down -- and that includes fiber backbones, broadband-boy -- hams are the ones who relay messages for rescue services.

    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.
  7. Re:802.11B was never legalized by Detritus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Amateur Radio has a frequency allocation at 2390-2450 MHz. This overlaps the ISM band that is used with 802.11b and other unlicensed users. Unlicensed users must accept interference from licensed users and must not cause interference to licensed users.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  8. Everyone seems to be focusing on 802.11b... by eqteam · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    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.html
    It was enlightening for me!