>>Wireless researchers will almost certainly have the licensing in place to do investigation and modification. Most/Alot of research, especially security resea

>>Wireless researchers will almost certainly have the licensing in place to do investigation and modification. Most/Alot of research, especially security research is one with out the manufacturers permission,I highly doubt they will have licensing in place to do investigation. >>Device makers choosing not to update their devices should honestly be handled through tort; a few lawsuits against companies making defective routers will get makers to shape up. You may want to consult a lawyer on that, since most of the manufacturers EULA explicitly indemnify them from this type of liability. If this was possible Microsoft should be bankrupt by now. My 2.5 year old Samsung phone has need seen an update for over a year, many security problems have been found both Samsung and my carrier say "Buy a new phone" yet somehow I think me attempting to sue them for not updating the device will be less than successful. Instead the best option I have is a Custom non-OEM ROM that is still being updated. >>reasonable efforts have Most of the people posting in support of this measure, including yourself seem to have a vastly different defination of "reasonable" that people like myself for who are open source / open hardware advocate. I bet you believe secure boot, UEFI and other measures are "reasonable" as well. >> This is not an evil policy that has nefarious purposes, it's about making sure people don't intentionally use their devices that will cause damage to the neighbors on the bandwidth spectrum The Road to hell is paved with good intentions, it may not be the FCC's goal to lock in hardware and to prevent users from replacing OEM operating systems, we can call it an "unintended consequence" if you wish. At the end of the day however it is a distinction with out a difference. If this rule is adopted, innovation, consumer freedom, and consumer security will suffer.