Wired & Ars Technica (2nd one) write articles on FCC banning free software (FCC wifi campaign)

I haven't read deeply into this yet, but I do understand the FCC's concerns. The wireless spectrum has been carefully divided into different segments for different uses, some of which are mission critical to people's physical safety (emergency services comms, maritime comms, mountain radio etc). There does need to be regulation of the way any wireless device is used to ensure it doesn't clash with other users. However, it sounds like what the FCC is proposing is regard to wifi devices is incredibly heavy-handed, and seem motivated by others agendas (eg telecoms corporations concerned about the potential of projects like the Free Network Foundation to reduce their market).

Like copyright, wireless regulation does not need to be enforced through DRM. People misusing wireless devices are much easy to find and stop, and prosecute where there is evidence of malicious intent, than unauthorized copiers (via triangulation). More to the point, most wifi is limited by its hardware, and cannot broadcast much beyond the boundaries of a residential property, so it has no chance of interfering with anything mission critical. Surely wifi devices capable of stronger signals than that could be constrained by the design of the hardware to prevent them being used maliciously, rather than with the "security by obscurity" of proprietary drivers/firmware? The technical limitations the FCC is proposing would also prevent a plethora of legitimate uses of wifi, including running wifi devices with free code drivers and firmware, and are unreasonably and unnecessarily restrictive.

There isn't a need for the heavy handedness of the regulations. They're likely endangering more lives by implementing regulations that will hinder emergency workers communications in the aftermath of major hurricanes like Katrina in 2005. The rules might theoretically reduce the risks around airports, but won't do anything in practice. The regulations won't stop intentional abuse which is the problem because the rules allow the locks to be done in software and as such they can be easily bypassed by those intentionally breaking the rules. However they will hinder those who are abiding by the rules greatly.

You don't put breathalysers on every car just because there are a few people who will drive drunk. You selectively target the abusers. If you don't have the resources feel free to petition congress for a bigger budget- you don't mandate through additional rules that require implementations that'll increase costs for everybody for no good reason [ie stopping a few people from causing havoc is not a good reason when there are other ways to stop this bad behaviour that doesn't even go away even if you do enforce the rules on manufacturers].