This is why we can't have nice wireless things in the USA ....
-
It's for the domestic case, where it's about providing a better telephone service than the cell mast, while simultaneously freeing up more bandwidth for the people a little bit further away who can only get cell signal.
Eh, the domestic case is boring and not what the articles are about at all.
-
This was a well-timed email
-
I'm at 50 Mbps, and fine with it - I rarely use that bandwidth.
What's more important, I actually hit those speeds on real loads, including large downloads from a wide range of locations, and video game ping rates in the low double or even single digit ms range.
-
Maybe we should worry less about what companies are doing and more about what the FCC is doing:
FCC Introduces Rules Banning WiFi Router Firmware Modification
For years we have been graced by cheap consumer electronics that are able to be upgraded through unofficial means. Your Nintendo DS is able to run unsigned code, your old XBox was a capable server …
The proposed rule only affects devices operating in the U-NII bands; the portion of the spectrum used for 5GHz WiFi, and the proposed rule only affects the radios inside these devices. Like all government regulations, the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head, and the proposed rules effectively ban Open Source router firmware.
The actual FCC publication:
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?id=39498&switch=P
I'm not savvy enough about this stuff to know if that claim is accurate. I don't see a lot of stuff around talking about this including around here.
-
the proposed rule only affects the radios inside these devices
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the DMZ/DNS/DHCP stuff doesn't run on the radio
-
That's sort of what I was thinking, but I really don't know if it can touch any of that stuff. Given the general lack of outcry, I suspect this is someone mistaking controlling the radio with router functionality. But while I have no idea how those might overlap, I suspect people around here do.
-
The radio should really be a 'black box' to the firmware, though that does raise the question of whether driver updates are included in the ruling or not; no matter what the design is, the radio needs a driver.
-
The radio should really be a 'black box' to the firmware, though that does raise the question of whether driver updates are included in the ruling or not; no matter what the design is, the radio needs a driver.
The ruling is almost certainly about making sure that the radio can't be modified to emit outside the part of the spectrum it is permitted to use. Anything prior to the point where the rules are enforced is probably fair game for modification; anything after that, locked down. The main issues will be with a) people who insist that everything be “Free”, and b) cheap-ass manufacturers trying to avoid putting two processors on the same chip.
-
The ruling is almost certainly about making sure that the radio can't be modified to emit outside the part of the spectrum it is permitted to use.
That's the FCC's goal, but the rules state that no end-user modification of any kind to the entire certified device should be allowed, and that any exceptions (SSID, etc) be reported and justified. Heck, they give as an example that only a "professional installer" can set the wireless channel -- and even then only if the device agrees (e.g. no OTH radar detected, not in 2.4GHz channels 12 or 13, ...).
-
That's the FCC's goal, but the rules state that no end-user modification of any kind to the entire certified device should be allowed, and that any exceptions (SSID, etc) be reported and justified.
But is the certified device (under these rules) the router or the radio it contains?
-
The whole router.
-
And is this the actual ruling or just a proposal that can be shouted down by interested parties?
-
It was finalized into a ruling as of June 2 last year. I'm not sure if it was a proposal before that.
edited to add: On the compliance checklist, they mainly ask about "can you, through software configuration, change the radio frequency to not be compliant with US regs?" but one question in particular is "Describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT." And yes, DD-WRT is called out by name.
-
It was finalized into a ruling as of June 2 last year. I'm not sure if it was a proposal before that.
edited to add: On the compliance checklist, they mainly ask about "can you, through software configuration, change the radio frequency to not be compliant with US regs?" but one question in particular is "Describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT." And yes, DD-WRT is called out by name.
-
You have to be kidding me??
-
"Describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT." And yes, DD-WRT is called out by name
... What the fuck?!
That is not cool!
-
*is thankful the FCC have no say over here*
-
/me is thinking she may want to acceleration her exfiltration plans
-
@TwelveBaud said:
"Describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT." And yes, DD-WRT is called out by name
... What the fuck?!
That is not cool!
--!
Looks like I'm not getting a new router any time soon.
-
@accalia said:
@TwelveBaud said:
"Describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT." And yes, DD-WRT is called out by name
... What the fuck?!
That is not cool!
--!
Looks like I'm not getting a new router any time soon.
Actually, you may want to get it quick, before the affected routers start hitting shelves.
-
Just got a new one :)
-
Yeah, see, that sounds a lot more worrying than "Verizon using radio frequencies it's legally allowed to use!"
-
Do those rules imply nobody can patch the firmware without changing a (probably sealed) hardware part?
Edit: [irony]
Just good that professional software is flawless except for some minor annoyances. And even if it wasn't, legislature is wise enough to outlaw exploitation of security holes for criminal purposes.
Edit: [/irony]
(Making the irony tag visible seems to be necessary here. Or is that just today, due to moon phase, solar weather, etc.?)
-
-
I forgot something ...
legislature is wise enough to outlaw exploitation of security holes for criminal purposes.
Therefore nobody would ever even dream of doing such heinous things. And legislature knows that therefore there is no need to consider anything like criminal actions anymore.
-
legislature is wise enough to outlaw exploitation of security holes for criminal purposes
-
@PWolff said:
legislature is wise
@PWolff said:
legislature is wise enough to outlaw exploitation of security holes for criminal purposes
Now I wonder whether I should have used the pink irony
instead of the white ones...
-
Hooray for Nichijou reactions!
-
And even if it wasn't, legislature is wise enough to outlaw exploitation of security holes for criminal purposes.
You don't understand how the sausage is made anymore in the US. The legislature writes vague statutes that gives the real legislative muscle to some executive agency like the FCC. There is no wisdom in this.
-
To expand on this, the whole show was basically comic strips. To a greater extent than just about anything else I've ever seen.
-
EPIC! THUMBNAIL!
-
'Epic' is an apt description of every part of that scene.
-
The radio should really be a 'black box' to the firmware, though that does raise the question of whether driver updates are included in the ruling or not; no matter what the design is, the radio needs a driver.
With Android phones, that's the case (at least, when I was looking at it last): lots of people make ROMs with various degrees of customization, but for the radio, it is just a black box: you get one of the various ones that have been extracted from various firmware updates and apply it to the phone, but nobody messes with them.
As to why you'd want to do that, the only thing I can think of is that with my old HTC Inspire 4G/Desire HD, half a dozen different radio binaries were released by AT&T and I think Rogers in Canada, and some of them appeared to provide better reception than others, so the kind of people who frequent XDA Developers and root/flash their phones would also do the radio.
-
Heck, they give as an example that only a "professional installer" can set the wireless channel
That ranks up there with the more idiotic ideas that I've heard.
Reminds me of ESR's story from back in the day about, essentially, the government assigning people email addresses--it took him seconds to come up with a number of reasonable objections that hadn't really occurred to them, like "what if you switch jobs, what happens to your email address?"
