10 ms·

FCC: We aren’t banning DD-WRT on Wi-Fi routers

84 points by sprucely 11y ago

willvarfar 11y ago
No mention of Dave Taht and Vint Cerf's open letter to the FCC then? Sad. http://fqcodel.bufferbloat.net/~d/fcc_saner_software_practices.pdf http://fqcodel.bufferbloat.net/~d/fcc_saner_software_practic...
- zdw 11y ago
  DD-WRT has a lot of mindshare, probably due to the fairly successful commercial partnerships with router vendors, over OpenWRT and derivatives like CeroWRT from the bufferbloat projct. See also how Plex and Boxee attained more fame and name recognition even though they started as forks of the XBMC (now Kodi) project. That letter really didn't get passed around enough - it's a true smackdown of the problems with proprietary, unfixable software in critical infrastructure positions.
- qb45 11y ago
  This letter calls for quite radical and, dare I say, controversial changes. Did you really expect to see this changes adopted overnight? Or are you complaining that Arstechnica didn't mention it?
  - slang800 11y ago
    How are those changes radical or controversial?
    - qb45 11y ago
      Giving users full control over the hardware and expecting that they will follow regulations is exactly the opposite of what RF regulatory looked like throughout the last century. And if you want to understand the "controversial" part, just go to any company and ask what they think about being required to open source their precious firmwares and fix bugs in timely manner under the threat of getting banned from the market.
qb45 11y ago
TL;DR: Describe, if the device permits third-party software or firmware installation, what mechanisms are provided by the manufacturer to permit integration of such functions while ensuring that the RF parameters of the device cannot be operated outside its authorization for operation in the US. In the description include what controls and/or agreements are in place with providers of third-party functionality to ensure the devices’ underlying RF parameters are unchanged and how the manufacturer verifies the functionality. This sounds like it permits open source drivers and OSs, as long as the hardware enforces FCC compliance. However, I see a problem with the "FCC" in "FCC compliance". This rule doesn't sound good for world-roaming WiFi adapters, i.e. ones which are validated to physically work in multiple regulatory regimens and try to comply with current local regulations simply by not transmitting on frequencies not allowed everywhere in the world until they connect to some AP working on this frequency. Obviously, the assumption is that APs are compliant. AFAIK at least Atheros makes such adapters (for laptops, phones, etc) and the channel limiting logic is implemented in drivers, which are open source for some platforms. I wonder how are they going to deal with such regulations. Not that this would be the first time radio regulations screw mobile users, btw. You may think that even if your laptop's WiFi card is locked to channels allowed in one country, you can get a USB dongle from another country and use it there. Not that easily. Some cards made by Atheros (dunno about other vendors) are validated only for operation in certain regulatory domains and this information is stored in EEPROM on the card. Their Linux driver reads the country code from the card and passes it to the wireless stack, which in turn immediately locks out all frequencies and power levels disallowed in this country. When I asked about this behavior, the WiFi stack maintainer's response was that they treat each region-locked card in the system as a "hint" that the system may be operating in this region and try to comply with this region's regulations just to be safe. Madness and paranoia. This maintainer was an employee of one WiFi hardware vendor. I ended up replacing my laptop's WiFi card with one whose drivers are based on independent reverse-engineering effort, simply because they didn't bother passing regulatory codes to the WiFi stack and messing up USB dongles.
- h4waii 11y ago
  You can quite easily change your regulatory domain on Linux, as well as change stored settings (through wireless-regdb) in it. CRDA is run in user-space. For example, `iw reg set` to BO ro JP will remove many power and channel limitations. Yes, it's possible to have these settings stored in a tertiary firmware, but it's not common anymore. The hardware is the same, the driver and stack simply limit it based on what the OS requests.
violentvinyl 11y ago
It's interesting (depressing) to me, that the FCC thinks that hardware vendors should be responsible for what their hardware does once it leaves their hands. If we applied the same logic to other industries, there wouldn't be a firearm manufacturer left in the USA. Is this an actual problem? Are there people running DD-WRT in a way that is wreaking havoc on other communications? I can count on one hand the number of people I know who have played with DD-WRT, and I've worked with hundreds of geeks in my career. It feels like the FCC is trying to regulate a problem that doesn't exist yet, and it makes me wonder what the motivation behind it is.
- qb45 11y ago
  Maybe radio regulatory agencies should be given some run for their money and forced to always provide solid rationale for their rules. How serious is the problem currently? Why locating and fining offenders isn't enough? Unfortunately, it's easier to order manufacturers to force users to jump hops instead of getting one's hands dirty.
- pjc50 11y ago
  there wouldn't be a firearm manufacturer left in the USA. Attempts have been made on this but have not been successful. Perhaps a better comparison would be cars, which are also deadly but the liability nearly always falls on the drivers so long as the manufacturers stay within the rules.
  - qb45 11y ago
    There's probably quite a lot of weapons manufactured in the USA. However, good luck trying to purchase this anti-aircraft battery to deter idiots who would want to crash stolen jets on your property. --- I find it somewhat interesting that the right to own firearms referred to state of the art weaponry when it was codified.
- ams6110 11y ago
  There's no defined right of the people to keep and bear WiFi routers in the Constitution.
tracker1 11y ago
It seems to me that transmitter chipsets should work with an optional resister/register that is hard-wired to the market.. in this way the device firmware won't be able to utilize the antenna out of band, or at least the drivers should/could use this as a guide, and with most device drivers of this type being included as closed/source blobs, it would be less of an issue while allowing for userspace mods like dd-wrt, open-wrt and tomato to continue working. edit: Maybe having a dip switch panel under the cover, so it could be user modifyable, but not the "default" for a region.
jimrandomh 11y ago
So they changed the language, and the new language is > Describe, if the device permits third-party software or firmware installation, what mechanisms are provided by the manufacturer to permit integration of such functions while ensuring that the RF parameters of the device cannot be operated outside its authorization for operation in the US. In the description include what controls and/or agreements are in place with providers of third-party functionality to ensure the devices’ underlying RF parameters are unchanged and how the manufacturer verifies the functionality. Hardware locking to correct frequencies would satisfy this requirement. But it also sounds like getting in touch with the authors of common third-party firmwares, and getting them to agree to stay within FCC might suffice? That isn't totally clear, but it seems like that would be the ideal: hardware manufacturers some risk of power users reprogramming their radios incorrectly, but keep an eye on things so no one publishes software that leads people into doing it by accident or makes it too easy.
zaroth 11y ago
It's a step in the right direction. The concern I have is that "disabling" the ability to use 3rd party firmware is still the primary means of compliance which is prima facie accepted, whereas if you don't disable, then you have to make the case for why you comply, including coordinating with random 3rd parties and FCC may decide you haven't done enough. Are manufacturers going to take this risk? Ideally for a manufacturer to take the stance that they comply through disabling 3rd party firmware updates (versus the preferred method of... what exactly?) they should have to work harder than the alternative, but at least it should be an equally "certain" process and outcome. That shifts the calculus of a risk adverse company deciding how to comply.
c2the3rd 11y ago
While they aren't banning DD-WRT, they are creating restrictions for manufacturers. The easiest way for a manufacturer to meet the new rules is simply to not allow flashing third-party software. Even if they don't intend to ban DD-WRT, their rules may indirectly eliminate consumer ability to use it.

84 points by sprucely 11y ago

No mention of Dave Taht and Vint Cerf's open letter to the FCC then? Sad. http://fqcodel.bufferbloat.net/~d/fcc_saner_software_practices.pdf http://fqcodel.bufferbloat.net/~d/fcc_saner_software_practic...

zdw 11y ago
DD-WRT has a lot of mindshare, probably due to the fairly successful commercial partnerships with router vendors, over OpenWRT and derivatives like CeroWRT from the bufferbloat projct. See also how Plex and Boxee attained more fame and name recognition even though they started as forks of the XBMC (now Kodi) project. That letter really didn't get passed around enough - it's a true smackdown of the problems with proprietary, unfixable software in critical infrastructure positions.
qb45 11y ago
This letter calls for quite radical and, dare I say, controversial changes. Did you really expect to see this changes adopted overnight? Or are you complaining that Arstechnica didn't mention it?
- slang800 11y ago
  How are those changes radical or controversial?
  - qb45 11y ago
    Giving users full control over the hardware and expecting that they will follow regulations is exactly the opposite of what RF regulatory looked like throughout the last century. And if you want to understand the "controversial" part, just go to any company and ask what they think about being required to open source their precious firmwares and fix bugs in timely manner under the threat of getting banned from the market.

qb45 11y ago

TL;DR: Describe, if the device permits third-party software or firmware installation, what mechanisms are provided by the manufacturer to permit integration of such functions while ensuring that the RF parameters of the device cannot be operated outside its authorization for operation in the US. In the description include what controls and/or agreements are in place with providers of third-party functionality to ensure the devices’ underlying RF parameters are unchanged and how the manufacturer verifies the functionality. This sounds like it permits open source drivers and OSs, as long as the hardware enforces FCC compliance. However, I see a problem with the "FCC" in "FCC compliance". This rule doesn't sound good for world-roaming WiFi adapters, i.e. ones which are validated to physically work in multiple regulatory regimens and try to comply with current local regulations simply by not transmitting on frequencies not allowed everywhere in the world until they connect to some AP working on this frequency. Obviously, the assumption is that APs are compliant. AFAIK at least Atheros makes such adapters (for laptops, phones, etc) and the channel limiting logic is implemented in drivers, which are open source for some platforms. I wonder how are they going to deal with such regulations. Not that this would be the first time radio regulations screw mobile users, btw. You may think that even if your laptop's WiFi card is locked to channels allowed in one country, you can get a USB dongle from another country and use it there. Not that easily. Some cards made by Atheros (dunno about other vendors) are validated only for operation in certain regulatory domains and this information is stored in EEPROM on the card. Their Linux driver reads the country code from the card and passes it to the wireless stack, which in turn immediately locks out all frequencies and power levels disallowed in this country. When I asked about this behavior, the WiFi stack maintainer's response was that they treat each region-locked card in the system as a "hint" that the system may be operating in this region and try to comply with this region's regulations just to be safe. Madness and paranoia. This maintainer was an employee of one WiFi hardware vendor. I ended up replacing my laptop's WiFi card with one whose drivers are based on independent reverse-engineering effort, simply because they didn't bother passing regulatory codes to the WiFi stack and messing up USB dongles.

h4waii 11y ago
You can quite easily change your regulatory domain on Linux, as well as change stored settings (through wireless-regdb) in it. CRDA is run in user-space. For example, `iw reg set` to BO ro JP will remove many power and channel limitations. Yes, it's possible to have these settings stored in a tertiary firmware, but it's not common anymore. The hardware is the same, the driver and stack simply limit it based on what the OS requests.

violentvinyl 11y ago

It's interesting (depressing) to me, that the FCC thinks that hardware vendors should be responsible for what their hardware does once it leaves their hands. If we applied the same logic to other industries, there wouldn't be a firearm manufacturer left in the USA. Is this an actual problem? Are there people running DD-WRT in a way that is wreaking havoc on other communications? I can count on one hand the number of people I know who have played with DD-WRT, and I've worked with hundreds of geeks in my career. It feels like the FCC is trying to regulate a problem that doesn't exist yet, and it makes me wonder what the motivation behind it is.

qb45 11y ago
Maybe radio regulatory agencies should be given some run for their money and forced to always provide solid rationale for their rules. How serious is the problem currently? Why locating and fining offenders isn't enough? Unfortunately, it's easier to order manufacturers to force users to jump hops instead of getting one's hands dirty.
pjc50 11y ago
there wouldn't be a firearm manufacturer left in the USA. Attempts have been made on this but have not been successful. Perhaps a better comparison would be cars, which are also deadly but the liability nearly always falls on the drivers so long as the manufacturers stay within the rules.
- qb45 11y ago
  There's probably quite a lot of weapons manufactured in the USA. However, good luck trying to purchase this anti-aircraft battery to deter idiots who would want to crash stolen jets on your property. --- I find it somewhat interesting that the right to own firearms referred to state of the art weaponry when it was codified.
ams6110 11y ago
There's no defined right of the people to keep and bear WiFi routers in the Constitution.

tracker1 11y ago

It seems to me that transmitter chipsets should work with an optional resister/register that is hard-wired to the market.. in this way the device firmware won't be able to utilize the antenna out of band, or at least the drivers should/could use this as a guide, and with most device drivers of this type being included as closed/source blobs, it would be less of an issue while allowing for userspace mods like dd-wrt, open-wrt and tomato to continue working. edit: Maybe having a dip switch panel under the cover, so it could be user modifyable, but not the "default" for a region.

jimrandomh 11y ago

So they changed the language, and the new language is > Describe, if the device permits third-party software or firmware installation, what mechanisms are provided by the manufacturer to permit integration of such functions while ensuring that the RF parameters of the device cannot be operated outside its authorization for operation in the US. In the description include what controls and/or agreements are in place with providers of third-party functionality to ensure the devices’ underlying RF parameters are unchanged and how the manufacturer verifies the functionality. Hardware locking to correct frequencies would satisfy this requirement. But it also sounds like getting in touch with the authors of common third-party firmwares, and getting them to agree to stay within FCC might suffice? That isn't totally clear, but it seems like that would be the ideal: hardware manufacturers some risk of power users reprogramming their radios incorrectly, but keep an eye on things so no one publishes software that leads people into doing it by accident or makes it too easy.

zaroth 11y ago

It's a step in the right direction. The concern I have is that "disabling" the ability to use 3rd party firmware is still the primary means of compliance which is prima facie accepted, whereas if you don't disable, then you have to make the case for why you comply, including coordinating with random 3rd parties and FCC may decide you haven't done enough. Are manufacturers going to take this risk? Ideally for a manufacturer to take the stance that they comply through disabling 3rd party firmware updates (versus the preferred method of... what exactly?) they should have to work harder than the alternative, but at least it should be an equally "certain" process and outcome. That shifts the calculus of a risk adverse company deciding how to comply.

c2the3rd 11y ago

While they aren't banning DD-WRT, they are creating restrictions for manufacturers. The easiest way for a manufacturer to meet the new rules is simply to not allow flashing third-party software. Even if they don't intend to ban DD-WRT, their rules may indirectly eliminate consumer ability to use it.