
New FCC Rules May Prevent Installing OpenWRT on WiFi Routers? - zdw
http://www.cnx-software.com/2015/07/27/new-fcc-rules-may-prevent-installing-openwrt-on-wifi-routers/
======
jonathanmayer
(Background: I'm a computer security lawyer at Stanford. This ain't legal
advice.)

This is a misunderstanding. The FCC has _not_ tried to ban Wi-Fi device
modding. What it _might_ be requiring is locked-down radios. And _only_
radios.

The phrasing of the recent guidance is unfortunately ambiguous, and calls out
DD-WRT by name. But the original rules are clear [1], and staff guidance
_cannot_ trump Commission rules.

What's more, an attempt to ban third-party software would be inconsistent with
the FCC's previous policy. The agency fined Verizon, for instance, when it
tried to block third-party tethering apps [2].

[1]
[https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-30A1.pd...](https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-30A1.pdf)

    
    
      The software must prevent the user from operating the transmitter
      with operating frequencies, output power, modulation types or
      other radio frequency parameters outside those that were approved
      for the device.
    

[2] [https://www.fcc.gov/document/verizon-wireless-
pay-125-millio...](https://www.fcc.gov/document/verizon-wireless-
pay-125-million-settle-investigation)

~~~
makomk
For cost-saving reasons, on most WiFi access points the radio is part of the
main SoC and is controlled by code running on the main CPU. So it's going to
mean an end to router firmware modding in practice.

~~~
adestefan
But that's not the FCC's problem.

~~~
nmrm2
Regulators who don't take into account possible unintended consequences of
their regulations should be stripped of regulatory authority.

~~~
sigzero
Because they are OMNISCIENT and can foresee every possible unintended
consequence right?

~~~
nmrm2
You don't have to be omniscient to realize an action might have a consequence
that wasn't intended. I don't go 100MPH on city roads because I don't have to
be omniscient to realize I might end up killing someone even if I don't intend
to.

So _OF COURSE_ regulators should consider ways in which their reulations might
cause unintended harm. This is a major reason why US Federal regulators almost
all have mandatory public comment periods -- third parties might be able to
point out some of these unintended consequences. Regulators might not always
make the right decision, but they should at least be making informed
decisions.

The attitude should be "We considered that possible outcome and the benefits
outweigh the harms (or not)", rather than GP's "well that shitty outcome
sucks, but guess what? Not my problem".

I honestly cannot believe the idea that regulators should be considering both
positive intended and negative unintended consequences of regulations is
controversial.

------
AndyMcConachie
Read the actual rule here:
[https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=1UiSJRK869Rsy...](https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=1UiSJRK869RsyQddPi5hpw%3D%3D&desc=594280%20D02%20U-NII%20Device%20Security%20v01r02&tracking_number=39498)

Look at item #2 under "Third-Party Access Control" which states a home router
manufacturer must answer this question: "What prevents third parties from
loading non-US versions of the software/firmware on the device? Describe in
detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of
third-party firmware such as DD-WRT."

What they're doing is requiring home router manufacturers to claim their
device cannot be flashed to gain FCC approval. Theoretically, the FCC could
penalize router manufacturers that allow their routers to be flashed. These
manufacturers would then no longer be allowed to sell their devices in the
USA.

~~~
ajross
Unbelievable that it actually calls out community firmware as a threat, and
DD-WRT by name. There has to be a story behind the genesis of this rule. I
mean, these ROMs have been around for well over a decade now with no ill
effects I'm aware of. That's not something that the FCC is going to be
inclined to spontaneously regulate if someone weren't pushing for it.

So who pushed?

~~~
olefoo
What you're seeing here is a policy that came into full flower in World War II
but has been a part of radio since the beginning. It's the idea that all paths
must be pursued to maintain absolute mastery of signals intelligence on
communications channels used by the public. It's as full an example of
imperial military doctrine as you will encounter anywhere. This unfortunately
puts the military interests of the United States directly against the civil
rights of United States Citizens.

Oh yeah, also. It's pretty settled case law that your first amendment rights
do not apply to broadcast radio signals.

~~~
sliverstorm
Is that the military, or is that just the fact that we only have so much radio
spectrum (it's basically a public good) and everybody wants a piece of it?
Have you taken a look at the U.S. Frequency Allocations map recently?

~~~
olefoo
I have heard that the current system woefully misallocates bandwidth and that
Full Frequency Spread Spectrum transmission would help with that. Of course
the current system of government granted monopolies on spectrum allocation
would have to go away. And that is a political event of low probability of
occurence. At least this week.

------
wsh
The FCC has an open rulemaking proceeding that would expand these requirements
beyond the 5 GHz U-NII devices covered by the OET document to all Part 15
devices. See paragraphs 45 and 46 on page 18 of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (FCC 15-92):

    
    
      We propose to modify the SDR-related requirements in Part 2 of our rules
      based in part on the current Commission practices regarding software
      configuration control.  To minimize the potential for unauthorized
      modification to the software that controls the RF parameters of the
      device, we propose that grantees must implement well-defined measures to
      ensure that certified equipment is not capable of operating with
      RF-controlling software for which it has not been approved.  [ . . . ]
      We seek comment on these proposals. 
    

\--
[http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015...](http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0722/FCC-15-92A1.pdf)

Anyone interested should file public comments with the FCC in ET Docket No.
15-170 by August 16:
[http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=15-170](http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=15-170)

~~~
pera
>
> [http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=15-170](http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=15-170)

It now says "Not Found"

~~~
jakeogh
[http://imgur.com/VUZMVsi](http://imgur.com/VUZMVsi)
[https://bpaste.net/show/832abaaa62d8](https://bpaste.net/show/832abaaa62d8)

------
Taek
Unflashable firmware means you cannot remove backdoors. Given that the NSA has
abused router backdoors in the past, it's not far-fetched to see this as a
push from the NSA and related agencies to protect themselves. We've also seen
around the world that governments are ready to great lengths to protect their
surveillance abilities.

This goes far beyond the standard limitations of restrictions preventing
people from innovating. It directly inhibits their ability to protect
themselves or avoid conflicting interests between the manufacturer and the
user (example: many wifi routers are now, without consent of the household,
public access points). Especially if firmware is going to remain closed source
(I see no reason why it wouldn't), this is troubling news.

------
KerrickStaley
I sent this email to the FCC (directly to the chairman, Tom.Wheeler@fcc.gov,
although maybe there's a better address). Feel free to re-use.

Hi! I'm writing about the regulations described at
[https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm...](https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?id=39498&switch=P)

I personally use OpenWrt on my home wireless router because it provides more
capabilities than the firmware that came pre-installed. It also has a
consistent interface, so I didn't have to re-learn how to configure my router
when I upgraded. This gave me a lot more choice when upgrading—I didn't have
to worry about staying with the same manufacturer to avoid loosing certain
capabilities or having to learn a new interface. Also, OpenWrt, being open
source, encounters far fewer vulnerabilities than manufacturer firmwares, and
existing vulnerabilities are fixed quicker, meaning my home network stays more
secure.

Not being able to install OpenWrt on newer devices will make setting up my
home network far more frustrating the next time I upgrade my hardware. And on
a broader scale, it'll stifle competition—upstart manufacturers will have
trouble selling their solutions because businesses won't want to migrate to
new software. If OpenWrt eventually becomes defunct because no new devices
support it, then the situation will be even worse, because new manufactures
won't have a reference point to base their firmwares off of. So these new
regulations are actually very anti-competitive given the place open-source
firmwares like OpenWrt play in the market.

Allowing end-users to install open-source firmwares is really important.
Please reconsider your regulations against it.

------
whalesalad
This is backwards. Instead of regulating devices they should just enforce the
law and penalize those who break it. If you're found to be violating FCC
regulations you pay a fine. This is pretty standard stuff. The top-down
can't-trust-users thing is such bullshit.

The government lets me own a semi automatic rifle but I can't run non-standard
firmware on my router because I might hurt someone.

~~~
rando3826
And of course vendors still need to update the software, so people will just
hack that method. Of course you will be violating the DMCA anti-circumvention
statue, so it will be a felony. Not to mention this sounds like effectively
mandating tivoization which would prevent them from shipping gplv3 code.

~~~
iwwr
Vendors having to come up with an actually secure remote update procedure
(rather than ad-hoc secret protocols and "factory passwords")? This is beyond
the "greats" like Samsung or LG even.

------
bcg1
This is interesting because certain parts of the bandwidth for wifi routers
crosses into the bandwidth for amateur radios. So in some instances these
devices fall under Part 15 (consumer devices) and sometimes under Part 97
(amateur radio) depending on the operator and how it is used.

Some HAMs use hacked routers to implement "broadband hamnet"
([http://www.broadband-hamnet.org/](http://www.broadband-hamnet.org/)) ...
theoretically they could transmit from one of these routers at 1500W (in
practice much less I presume, and the rules say you have to use the minimum
power necessary) ... this regulation would effectively strip them of devices
and force the use of devices blessed with a "SDR" label, if I understand it
correctly. Facepalm for the masses.

------
pmorici
I've always wondered what the FCC status was of devices like Sparkfun's
esp8266 based boards. [0] They are all based around the same ultra cheap
Chinese wifi chip. Seems like trying to make vendors lock down their consumer
routers is pointless when the market is flooded with products that don't have
such restrictions.

[0]
[https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13287](https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13287)

~~~
TD-Linux
SDRs that can transmit at wifi bandwidths are also getting cheaper by the day.

And don't forget the billions of wifi devices already out there that aren't
subject to this restriction...

I really don't know what or who they are trying to protect.

~~~
jakeogh
I don't think it's about protection; it's power needing to stay relevant.

If we let this happen, they will continue to roll more and more things into
their regulatory sphere. It's almost a law of nature. Eventually they will
tell SDR owners that they need a 'license' (because bla bla safety).

The same "logic" will be applied to other gadgets. Open source cars, open
baseband, and ultimately, open brain implants. Casualties in the war on
general purpose computing.

------
aselzer
Isn't this as ridiculous as saying all Android phones should be un-flashable
and locked-down since you could increase transmit power in the Linux shell, or
laptops are no longer allowed to boot Linux, since you could just use your
built-in WiFI to jam others. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, how do
you really classify a router as a router?

The more "dangerous" WiFi modules are probably not router chips, since they
are usually based on closed-source drivers/firmware, but rather ones like the
ath9k ones.

Possibly the _only_ good thing that this will accomplish is the emergence of
open source hardware/software "routers".

------
derefr
The real compromise that everyone could settle for here, I think, would be to
split the router's firmware into "baseband" and "control" parts, where all the
regulatory stuff only applies to the baseband. Y'know, just like with
smartphones.

~~~
codys
Ah yes, lets add all the problems of vulnerable basebands to wifi routers too.
No issues there.

Edit: And the possibility for purposeful maliciousness on the part of the
baseband manuf. And after all, all a closed system like a baseband does is
increase the cost of replacing it. It might be out of reach of you and me, but
is it out of reach of everyone?

~~~
derefr
There's a reason it's called a "compromise." The FCC has a completely
orthogonal set of things it cares about, none of which are software freedom.
If you _don 't_ give them something like a baseband firmware, the alternative
is that the entire router is the baseband firmware.

~~~
sliverstorm
It's always funny when people object to a compromise on the grounds that they
don't get everything they want.

~~~
Dylan16807
Look, you don't have to give me 20 dollars, we can compromise, how about you
give me 15 and keep 5.

There's nothing odd about rejecting a compromise when there's no validity to
the demands.

------
userbinator
As much as I understand the point of protecting shared spectrum from abuse,
has there been many, if at all, instances of custom firmware causing
interference issues? If not, this just feels like another attempt at reigning
in control over the users and taking away freedom from them.

~~~
TD-Linux
There have been cases of manufacturers shipping routers without DFS, where
OpenWRT correctly refuses to enable 5GHz Wifi:
[http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/tp-link/tl-
wdr7500](http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/tp-link/tl-wdr7500)

~~~
gcb0
Ha!

...oh wait, are you referring to the models that only sell in china? or did
the models that pass FCC also did fail?

~~~
coldtea
There's a big world of around 6 billion people outside China AND US/FCC where
those models could be sold too.

------
dogma1138
Isn't DD-WRT and OpenWRT just router firmwares? AFAIK they don't actually
flash or touch the baseband.

The limitation for local regulation can (and should) be done in the base band,
many routers will have (or at least used to have) different base bands for
North America, Europe, Asia and "Other World" regions.

The router OS it self knows only how to talk to the baseband but it doesn't
handle the RF part on it's own it just own.

DD-WRT doesn't know what QAM is or what beamforming is it just knows how to
trigger certain flags in you BBP to put it in a specific mode.

Seems to me that all that needs to be done to comply with this ruling is for
router manufacturers to ensure that the baseband complies with US regulations
and that you cannot unlock these features with software which should be easy
enough to achieve by just having a dedicated version for the NA market if they
don't have it already.

And it's not like it's new I've only seen a few routers that DD-WRT allows you
to actually unlock channel 14 in 2.4ghz is only allowed in Japan, even if
channel 14 appears in the selections in many cases it won't do anything and
either the radio won't work at all or it will fallback to the default channel.

~~~
wtallis
The baseband such as it exists in wireless routers either doesn't run code
(ath9k) or relies on the host CPU to upload a firmware image. None of the
radios have their own non-volatile storage for their firmware.

~~~
dogma1138
Does DD-WRT modify the image? don't they work with the original broadcom
firmware?

------
TD-Linux
This could also be a problem for wifi chips in laptops. The existing Linux
regulatory domain framework has been sufficient for now.

~~~
shmerl
Lenovo already forbids using "unauthorized" cards in their laptops. Most
likely for related reason.

------
dmitrygr
I am sure $ANY_COMPANY_MAKING_ROUTERS will truly care about this and somehow
(for the first time in their existence) pull real security experts out of thin
air to make their products secure enough to be actually impossible to re-flash
to a custom firmware...Right...

~~~
fweespeech
As sarcastic as your comment is, the fact is preventing uploads by casual
users isn't hard.

~~~
dec0dedab0de
while still allowing updates, and not violating the GPL?

~~~
codys
It'd only be problematic legally to ship GPLv3 (or similar) licensed software.
v3 adds language mandating that the software be replaceable.

~~~
Spivak
There is an exception if law forbids the software from being replaceable.

~~~
rando3826
I don't think so. I just read the tivoization section (section 6), and skimmed
the rest. The only thing allowed to prevent modifications is if it is
physically not designed to do so.

------
tw04
Thank you Tom Wheeler, just when I thought there was the slightest chance you
might be on the side of the consumer...

While this is probably the most effective route to curb the behavior, it also
seems like the most sleazy. If you didn't want DD-WRT allowing non-region
channels, why didn't you go after them directly? Probably because the uproar
would have been deafening. Instead you go after the router manufacturers
because they're easier to control. If you can remove their product from the
market, you can instantly curb the behavior.

~~~
tjohns
To be fair, DD-WRT isn't an FCC licensed entity, so I don't think there's much
the FCC could actually do to them directly.

There's no license to revoke, and I don't think we want to be in a world where
the FCC can issue a civil forfeiture for simply publishing code to the web.

The router manufacturers are the FCC licensees, so going after them is the
easiest route to compliance.

(The other option, going after users who are broadcasting on disallowed
channels or above rated power levels, is practically untenable due to issues
of scale.)

~~~
tw04
Shouldn't DMCA shoot this in the head? My right to repair is essentially
eliminated when they can completely lockdown the firmware. The second they
decide to stop releasing updates, I no longer even have the ability to repair.

~~~
bjt
The "right to repair" under the DMCA is not freestanding like the rights to
free speech or a jury trial. It's an affirmative defense
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense))
to an anti circumvention charge brought under the DMCA.

Maybe having such a free standing right would be good policy, but it's not
current US law.

------
jacquesm
You could easily see these rules as going much further than OpenWRT, basically
anything with a radio transmitter is fair game so that's all the way from USB
wifi dongles to laptops and computers that come with installed wifi. After all
whether it's a linux driver or OpenWRT doesn't seem to matter at all in this
sense.

A couple more steps and Cory Doctorow will be found to be right.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg)

------
craftsman
It's probably worth (re)watching Cory Doctorow's talk at 28c3: The Coming War
on General Computation. He mentions this issue around the 23:45 mark, but the
whole talk is great.

[https://youtu.be/HUEvRyemKSg](https://youtu.be/HUEvRyemKSg)

------
rolandl
Looks to me like the only solution in this case is to build your own: a box
with PCI slots, pfSense OS, ethernet cards, and a PCI wifi card. Screw the
feds!

~~~
tarikjn
On that note, Mikrotik also makes some fine hardware/software at prices lower
than building your own and lower than most entry level consumer routers.

I don't entirely get why people buy new hardware to flash with xx-WRT,
although I do get the point for recycling some already purchased gear.

~~~
wtallis
When Mikrotik doesn't sell any devices that have both 2.4GHz and 5GHz radios
out of the box, I don't think you can classify them separately from "build
your own", unless you want to talk about how their cheap 2.4GHz-only devices
stack up against the kind of D-Link devices that they give away for free when
you buy a modem.

(And btw, Mikrotik's software is nothing special compared to OpenWRT. Hardware
NAT support is about all you get last I checked, and it's not worth it.)

------
x0054
Ok, I understand where the FCC would have an interest in regulating peoples
ability to easily screw around with transmission power or frequency. But why
does it have to extend to the rest of the firmware. Can we at least agree on
the middle ground where the radio firmware can be locked, but the rest of the
firmware is open to modification.

3 years ago I switched to TomatoUSB firmware, and since then I power cycled my
router to get it to work again exactly ZERO times. It just works. I use
default power and band, and I am not using any special features of the
TomatoUSB, the only reason I run it is because it's rock solid, unlike EVERY
stock OEM software I ever tried.

On a more interesting note, why are stock OEM firmwares so incredibly bad? I
mean, there are open source alternatives they can use, or just write there own
stuff that works. You would think that a large company like Linksys or Netgear
would have at least one programer worth something working for them. No?

------
shmerl
This is really sick. So they want to reduce security of routers for
controlling the spectrum?

------
voltagex_
I'm in Australia. I _really_ don't want to have to JTAG my router to get it
into an operable state.

------
sandworm101
So the ubertooth isn't legal anymore?

Doesn't locking down wifi radios basically outlaw software-defined radio
(SDR)? How can SDR exist without infinite control over "modulation types"?

I'm not sure that it is possible to truly lock down a radio to a particular
modulation type. Transmitters aren't magic. They cannot be DRMed. They don't
even run software. Send them the voltage and they send the signal.

~~~
dfox
Essentially any user-configurable SDR transmitter is sold as "measurement
equipment", "non-certified technology sample" or "Class A unintentional
radiator". In all cases it means that it's user's responsibility to obtain
relevant transmitter licenses and/or ensure that such device does not behave
like transmitter and meets all relevant EMC requirements.

------
gonewest
Is the following information still relevant?

Basically it suggests a flashable device must be classified a "SDR", but FCC
jurisdiction does not extend to independent software developers.

[https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/fcc-sdr-
white...](https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/fcc-sdr-
whitepaper.html)

------
kw71
This would be really bad for consumers' security in light of the current
fashion of deploying poor quality firmware full of bugs and dropping support
for a product after it has been on the market for a couple of months.

I thought that the linux-wifi people had made some good efforts at regulatory
compliance by signing the rules list. While this doesn't nearly make breaking
the rules impossible, it makes it enough of a pain to do so that many people
won't. The FCC could then go after bad actors who distribute modified blobs
with one of those "Notice of Proposed Forfeiture: $25,000" actions the way
they sometimes do with CB radio amplifier clowns, rude ham operators, and
those pirate FM transmitter hoons who seem to be competing in a contest to
demonstrate the worst engineering practices.

------
tzs
There are two different documents referred to in the FCC document that the
article links to.

The one that talks about preventing loading third party firmware only applies
to 5 GHz wifi routers, not 2.4 GHz wifi routers.

The one that applies to 2.4 GHz routers looks like it only requires that
software (built in or downloaded) not be able to modify operation to operate
beyond the equipment authorization.

Manufacturers of 2.4 GHz routers should be able to achieve that fairly
straightforwardly without taking away the ability to run third party firmware.

------
skarap
Why is this any different from the situation with GSM (where you are sort-of
required to run proprietary software and not allow anyone to flash any "bad"
firmware to get a certificate)? Sure there is the ISM frequency band, but a
lot of wifi hardware is physically capable of violating both: the allowed
frequency and power regulations (which btw can be different in different
countries).

Not that I approve this new rule - just saying that it's a natural extension
of another existing rule.

~~~
dfox
There are two significant differences:

1) for GSM (and all other 3GPP radio interfaces), regulatory control is
completely on the network side. Network says when, where and at what power MS
must/can transmit. And significantly deviating from network-dictated
parameters does not get you anything worthwhile (except in situations that are
totally outside of what normal consumer can reasonably do, like attaching
30dBi directional antenna to GSM phone).

[Edit: 802.11whatever STA radio is also somehow controlled by AP, but anybody
can set-up their own AP without specific license and bandwidth allocation to
do so]

2) Cellular phones are typically more strictly certified than WiFi devices.

------
scopecreep
You can pry my channel 14 from my cold dead hands.

~~~
Qantourisc
You sir, are the reason FCC even has a job. (Assuming channel 14 is illegal in
your place of living.)

~~~
dogma1138
It is in NA there is a lock beyond channel 11, Europe allows upto 13, C14 is
only available in Japan.

The sad part is that most wifi cards won't even able to see anything on C14
none of my phones or laptops see the network on a router which is confirmed to
have an open baseband.

But on most router's I've seen the baseband doesn't actually operate on C14
even if you set it up it just defaults back to it's default channel, 12 and 13
can usually be accessed these days on NA routers as well.

Basically every time you operate on a locked channel you are breaking the law,
channel 14 in the US the only one which is flat out forbidden (most likely due
to overlap with military communication), while 12 and 13 are restricted.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels)

------
tlrobinson
As a consumer this sucks, but it is also unfortunate for licensed ham radio
operators who actually _are_ legally allowed to use greater power on certain
frequencies (almost certainly more power than these devices could ever output)

------
exabrial
On a related note, time to start voting for small government. BATF has been
abusing their regulatory power for a long ass time now. Need to reign in these
branches.

------
irfan
What about installing OpenWRT on RaspberryPi with USB WiFi dongle which can be
used like any other router? Can they ban it as well?

~~~
tzs
(I'm not a lawyer or an FCC rules expert)

Would OpenWRT run on the Pi or on the CPU in the WiFi dongle?

Assuming the former, I don't see how there would be a problem here. It is the
WiFi dongle that is the certified Part 15 device, and you would not be
modifying that device. You would be using for exactly what it is designed and
certified for: sticking it into a computer's USB port to provide WiFi access
to that computer.

------
fnordfnordfnord
Question for an RF engineer: Wouldn't a filter on the output achieve the FCC's
(stated) goal?

------
snarfy
Does this kill software defined radio?

------
ausjke
long time openwrt user here, FCC is focusing on the right thing with wrong
priority. how can we stop that?

------
snickerdoodles
Really? Blow me FCC - my router, my choice.

~~~
sliverstorm
The FCC's airwaves though. I have my share of ill will towards the FCC, but
fact of the matter is while the router might be yours the airwaves are the
FCC's to rule.

~~~
rando3826
Rule by mandating locked down buggy horrible proprietary software? Absolutely
ridiculous. And of course people will just hack the proprietary channel of
updates, because of course it will still be flashable. The obvious answer is,
make it illegal to use software to do illegal things. Don't outlaw software
freedom.

------
bigmofo
Is it even about using put the radio into an illegal mode? OpenWRT has been
around since 2004. One does notice those facist in the US governement pushing
for weaking security so that the government can spy on everybody... Until
there is real and actual data to back up the misuse of open source software, I
must say to the FCC "liar, liar, pants on fire!"

------
hyperion2010
Just wait until the FCC learns about these crazy things call "software defined
radios." They'll have to ban antennas outright!

