Subject: Re: [Announce] Intel PRO/Wireless 3945ABG Network Connection

From: Stephen Hemminger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:34:04 -0800

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:10:29 +0000
Christoph Hellwig <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 12:58:02AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Sad, 2006-02-25 at 08:41 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > the regualatory problems are not true.  
> > 
> > They are although the binary interpretation isn't AFAIK from law but
> > from lawyers. The same is actually true in much of the EU. The actual
> > requirement is that the transmitting device must be reasonably
> > tamperproof. Some of the lawyers have decided that for a software radio
> > tamperproof means "binary".
> 
> Exactly.  There's no strong requirement, it's just over-zealous corporate
> lawyers.  That's why we need to push Intel strongly here.

It is not Intel, but the regulators that need a stronger clue. Vendors
don't have any incentive to force change on this. They just want to sell
as much hardware as possible.

Does anyone know who the actual FCC administrators in charge of this are?