Tp-link vs FCC

[NVR]

Strange ruling.

The open source requirement is a unique one, as it isn't directly related to TP-Link's violation. Moreover, FCC rules don't require router makers to allow loading of third-party, open source firmware. In fact, recent changes to FCC rules made it more difficult for router makers to allow open source software.

In exchange for not facing further penalties, the settlement requires TP-Link to "work with the open-source community and Wi-Fi chipset manufacturers to enable consumers to install third-party firmware on their Wi-Fi routers.


http://arstechnica.com/information-...k-to-support-open-source-firmware-on-routers/

 

[nayr]

the FCC fucked up scared TP-Link into dropping all FOSS support.. the FCC corrected its statement but the damage was done, now they are trying to fix the damage they caused.

Its not more difficult for FOSS Firmware, the FCC just wants devices that run in the USA to operate ONLY on the frequencies allowed here.. so changing the settings to say your in europe and getting more frequencies used to be possible, but now needs to be avoided at all costs.

They basically want the radio's locked down to USA frequencies and thats it.. its not that difficult.

 

[bp2008]

I don't know about 5 GHz channels, but for 2.4 GHz isn't it only channels 12 and 13 that aren't available in the USA? Those are worthless anyway because whether you have them or not, there are still only 3 non-overlapping channels (1, 6, and 11) assuming a 20 MHz channel width which is by far the most common setting for 2.4 GHz wifi. The only time channels 12 and 13 would do any real good is if some jack ass neighbor was on channel 7 or 8 with his wifi and you needed to shift yours up to avoid his.

Point is, I've never had any desire to change my access point region and illegally use a licensed channel.

 

[nayr]

5Ghz is a cluster fuck, see attached graphic..

Since I am a HAM I can legally run my access points at 2.3Ghz if I really wanted too.. but I'd have to hack all my radios to transmit on the frequency.

With channels 12-14 on 2.4Ghz you could run wider channel widths for more throughput.. instead of 1/6/11 it'd be 1/7/14 and you get an extra channel for each access point.

 

[NVR]

The FCC just wants devices that run in the USA to operate ONLY on the frequencies allowed here...

Hey Nayr, Im not sure if it was a frequency violation but rather using more power than allowed in the U.S. This would be a very attractive option for users as they gain wider reception area.

What grabbed my attention most, is rather then allowing TP-Link to fix the problem in their new firmware, they are forcing them with "consumers to install third-party firmware on their Wi-Fi routers"

Even the article calls it odd with "The open source requirement is a unique one"

 

[nayr]

TP-Link allowed FOSS firmware to be ran on there hardware, but then the FCC announced the requirements and TP-Link just pulled the plug entirely instead of trying to implement the requirements w/out nuking 3rd party firmware images.. Since Asus and Linksys were able to meet the requirements without nuking previous capabilities the FCC thinks TP-Link should do the same.

Instead of implementing a subsystem for the radio's that cant be reprogrammed, they just locked the whole damn thing down.. FCC just wanted the former solution, not the latter.. though they were not very clear at first.

see: http://www.tp-link.us/faq-1058.html