
FCC Reaches Settlement with TP-Link in Wi-Fi Router Investigation - pentago
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0801/DOC-340564A1.pdf
======
_RPM
One time I was up for like 36 hours, and I had just gotten a new router from
Linksys. I started reading the privacy policy and got really freaked out that
they were tracking every website I visited through some kind of HTTP/S proxy.

I wouldn't doubt it because in their policy they paint some pretty broad
strokes with their words. Their "Smart WiFi" router phones home constantly and
the web interface manager doesn't allow you to run it without third party
cookies enabled and JavaScript enabled. I'm going to have to burn that open
source router onto it because it said it was capable.

~~~
godzillabrennus
I wish Pfsense hardware was more affordable so more people could afford to run
it.

~~~
pyvpx
pfSense is based on FreeBSD. there is no "pfSense hardware", just x86
machines.

~~~
kalleboo
I wonder what's the cheapest/most low-power hardware that could do that job? A
Raspberry Pi is too underpowered (putting Ethernet on USB is also a big
problem), but what's the next step up from there?

~~~
utefan001
See my ebay link above.

~~~
gonzo
You're not part of the solution here

~~~
utefan001
Hi Jim please see my reply above.

------
ausjke
So the bottom line of this settlement is:

1\. You can still load openwrt etc to TP-Link routers.

2\. TP-Link needs to do something(e.g. set hard-limit on TX power in some
binary blob or something) to make sure nobody can increase Wifi output power
above the "safe" threshold.

Now as someone said in the thread, UBNT might have the real high-power WIFI
devices(e.g. point-to-point outdoor) that can cause real interference to
airplanes etc, it seems UBNT is not impacted at all, which is odd.

~~~
wtallis
I think the tricky part has always been dynamic frequency selection, where the
5GHz WiFi radio is supposed to listen for a radar chirp and switch channels if
it hears one. It's my impression that the hardware typically already supports
some form of maximum transmit power configuration that the Linux drivers can
further restrict but not loosen on the basis of the software's regulatory
domain setting.

~~~
ausjke
I have seen high-power WIFI card with amplifiers that can do really powerful
TX output and the linux drivers are free to tune that output to its physical
upper limit.

~~~
dogma1138
But this isn't about the case, you can always chain your router to an external
amplifier (your SNR might be a bit flaky but that's another issue) you can
always hard mod your router to do whatever you want.

This is a simple case of the routers adhering to the specs out of the box and
that the spec could not be modified via software, and I really haven't seen
that many TP Link routers that can actually broadcast outside of the "safe"
spec, most of them can be unlocked to use the forbidden channels on 2.4 but
their power limits are pretty low.

~~~
ausjke
correct, even without amplifiers I have used high-power wifi-cards, however I
have not tried any high TX output on any TP-Link products, which is odd why
TP-Link becomes the target.

~~~
dogma1138
From reading the full document it seems that the default TP-Link software
allowed the routers to operate at higher power levels.

" _TP-Link violated the Equipment Authorization and Marketing Rules by
marketing routers in the United States that were shipped with TP-Link software
that permitted the user to change the country code for the router, thereby
enabling the router to operate at a higher power than allowed on certain
restricted Wi-Fi channels._ "

This doesn't seem to have much to do with OSS/3rd party firmware support which
is a whole other can of worms that the FCC opened a few months ago. This is
also seem to be limited to 5ghz only where I guess the US has more
restrictions.

------
Sanddancer
FCC announcement:
[http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016...](http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0801/DOC-340564A1.pdf)

Direct Link to the ruling:
[http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016...](http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0801/DA-16-850A1.pdf)

------
shmerl
Better to stick with those who don't need anyone to require them that.

At least Linksys with Marwell chips has really open WiFi drivers (WRT1900ACS).

~~~
lmns
The last time I looked it required a proprietary binary blob. AFAIK the only
free drivers which work well are ath5k and ath9k.

~~~
shmerl
For firmware. The driver itself is open. I don't think even Qualcomm have open
firmware for 802.11ac chips. That's an unfortunate trend. While drivers are
getting more open, firmware blobs are becoming more prevalent, in GPUs, WiFi
and etc.

~~~
wtallis
The really unfortunate thing is that they're putting the _wrong things_ into
the proprietary firmware. I'd be fine with signed proprietary firmware that
only enforces FCC limits and regulations. That would make it harder if I
wanted to sell my used equipment overseas, but wouldn't otherwise restrict my
freedoms.

I'm not fine with the bottom half of the network stack being offloaded to the
proprietary firmware where we can't adjust or even directly see things like
how many packets it's buffering and how it handles aggregation and
retransmissions.

------
ashitlerferad
[https://omnia.turris.cz/](https://omnia.turris.cz/)

------
koolba
Would it be possible to do any real harm (to humans, pets, etc) by increasing
this power setting or would this only cause interference with other
electronics?

Also, which models is this for?

~~~
callesgg
Harm to biological entity's no way.

"causing interference" In theory, yes the possibility exists. In practice not
likely.

Other wifi ap's neer by might be drowned more than they would otherwise. You
could call that interference.

~~~
raarts
> In practice not likely.

Depends. It apparently is real enough. Higher 5GHz WiFi band channels can
interfere with airport radar. That's why the standard mandates a router to
switch to another channel if it detects radar signals.[1]

But of course using an illegal channel is simply illegal...

[1] [http://wifi-insider.com/wlan/dfs.htm](http://wifi-
insider.com/wlan/dfs.htm)

~~~
swiley
The rules for using DFS 5ghz channels are so harsh that the networks built
with them are almost uselessly unreliable. You're /far/ better off just not
using channels requiring DFS. Especially if it means you can actually own the
equipment you paid for.

~~~
yuhong
Which also reminds me of LTE-U vs WiFi. I wonder if the fundamental problems
are similar.

------
ars
According to the /. comments "Requires" is wrong. They "support" them doing
that (i.e. that there are not legislative obstacles to it).

------
qwertyuiop924
Woo! Cheap Wi-Fi routers with the possibility of open source firmware!

------
doctorshady
bws111's post from the Slashdot thread:

Nowhere in that document does it say the FCC REQUIRES TP-Link to allow open
source. What it says is:

“While manufacturers of Wi-Fi routers must ensure reasonable safeguards to
protect radio parameters, users are otherwise free to customize their routers
and we support TP-Link’s commitment to work with the open-source community and
Wi-Fi chipset manufacturers to enable third-party firmware on TP-Link
routers.”

They SUPPORT a company working with open-source, not REQUIRE,

Later on it says: TP-Link has also agreed to take steps to support innovation
in third-party router firmware by committing to investigate security solutions
for certain 5 GHz band routers that would permit the use of third-party
firmware while meeting the Commission’s security requirements and maintaining
the integrity of critical radio parameters.

So the requirement is that any open-source stuff must meet the security
requiements and maintain correct operation, not that they MUST allow open
source,

------
codys
Title is inaccurate, TP-Link only committed to investigate supporting third
party firmware (including open source).

From the FCC announcement (similar language is in the ruling):

> committing to investigate security solutions for certain 5 GHz band routers
> that would permit the use of third-party firmware

~~~
sctb
We updated the link from the Slashdot post
([https://build.slashdot.org/story/16/08/01/1855206/fcc-
requir...](https://build.slashdot.org/story/16/08/01/1855206/fcc-requires-tp-
link-to-support-open-source-router-firmware)) to the official announcement.

