3 ms·

> I suspect that under the current fcc rules you can't sell hardware that isn't locked to its firmware (because if you did users would be able to freeband). Yo

by burnte 9y ago

> I suspect that under the current fcc rules you can't sell hardware that isn't locked to its firmware (because if you did users would be able to freeband). You absolutely can and most companies do not lock their firmware. There are companies that commercially sell routers with DD-WRT and other OSS firmwares by default, like Buffalo. http://www.buffalotech.com/news/dd-wrt-nxt-routers http://www.buffalotech.com/news/dd-wrt-nxt-routers End users are expected to adhere to FCC rules even if they have the technical ability to violate them.

gsich 9y ago
What is "freeband"? Most chips have hardware limitations, so it does not matter what firmware you install. For most chips it is unrealistic that they can eg. use 1 W as output power.
boomboomsubban 9y ago
>End users are expected to adhere to FCC rules even if they have the technical ability to violate them. The FCC rules changed ~two years ago, you aren't allowed to sell devices capable of violating FCC rules. The original rule just banned third party firmware, but after some outrage it was changed so that the easiest way to comply was blocking third party firmware. They clearly wanted to ban them altogether, wouldn't be surprised if they were working on it right now
- burnte 9y ago
  I disagree they wanted to ban firmware, they simply want to prevent interference. I doubt they actually CARE about the firmware. Regardless, nothing you mentioned changes what I said. Yes, under the revised rules [1] manufacturers are required to ensure certain changes can't be made, such as disabling DFS and using non-standard channels. And as I said, the FCC explicitly does not ban third party firmware. The biggest reason is that it's cheaper to make adjustments to the radio chips to prevent certain changes than it is to swear to the FCC no one can hack in new firmware. And as I stated and you quoted, users are still required to follow FCC rules. You can't hook up an external signal amp to boost transmit power past legal levels, use unapproved channels, etc, even if they find bypasses for the protections required by the FCC. You can't use a signal booster for a TV antenna that causes interference. You can't boost power on your CB radio. Etc. [1] https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=zXtrctoj6zH7oNEOO6De6g%3D%3D&desc=594280%20D02%20U-NII%20Device%20Security%20v01r03&tracking_number=39498 https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=zXtrctoj6zH7o...
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    I wasn't doubting what I quoted was true. You replied to a post about speculated ideas of FCC regulations on selling routers and didn't mention the actual regulation on selling routers. It seemed worth adding. Their original proposal for the revised rules specifically banned third party firmware, mentioning DD-WRT by name, and the revised version decided not to ban it. The rule also doesn't hold the company liable if someone manages to hack a third party firmware onto the device. Before selling it,you need an approved application showing either a chip unable to break the rules, or a way of preventing unauthorized code from running on the device. If the FCC approves the application and you've implemented it, you aren't at fault if a workaround is discovered. This makes locking the firmware a cheaper than producing two models or selling a limited model elsewhere. To me, it seems like they wanted a hard ban on the firmwares, settled for a soft ban, and will likely revisit the issue when there's some political capital justifying a hard ban.

by burnte 9y ago

gsich 9y ago

What is "freeband"? Most chips have hardware limitations, so it does not matter what firmware you install. For most chips it is unrealistic that they can eg. use 1 W as output power.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

>End users are expected to adhere to FCC rules even if they have the technical ability to violate them. The FCC rules changed ~two years ago, you aren't allowed to sell devices capable of violating FCC rules. The original rule just banned third party firmware, but after some outrage it was changed so that the easiest way to comply was blocking third party firmware. They clearly wanted to ban them altogether, wouldn't be surprised if they were working on it right now

burnte 9y ago
I disagree they wanted to ban firmware, they simply want to prevent interference. I doubt they actually CARE about the firmware. Regardless, nothing you mentioned changes what I said. Yes, under the revised rules [1] manufacturers are required to ensure certain changes can't be made, such as disabling DFS and using non-standard channels. And as I said, the FCC explicitly does not ban third party firmware. The biggest reason is that it's cheaper to make adjustments to the radio chips to prevent certain changes than it is to swear to the FCC no one can hack in new firmware. And as I stated and you quoted, users are still required to follow FCC rules. You can't hook up an external signal amp to boost transmit power past legal levels, use unapproved channels, etc, even if they find bypasses for the protections required by the FCC. You can't use a signal booster for a TV antenna that causes interference. You can't boost power on your CB radio. Etc. [1] https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=zXtrctoj6zH7oNEOO6De6g%3D%3D&desc=594280%20D02%20U-NII%20Device%20Security%20v01r03&tracking_number=39498 https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=zXtrctoj6zH7o...
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  I wasn't doubting what I quoted was true. You replied to a post about speculated ideas of FCC regulations on selling routers and didn't mention the actual regulation on selling routers. It seemed worth adding. Their original proposal for the revised rules specifically banned third party firmware, mentioning DD-WRT by name, and the revised version decided not to ban it. The rule also doesn't hold the company liable if someone manages to hack a third party firmware onto the device. Before selling it,you need an approved application showing either a chip unable to break the rules, or a way of preventing unauthorized code from running on the device. If the FCC approves the application and you've implemented it, you aren't at fault if a workaround is discovered. This makes locking the firmware a cheaper than producing two models or selling a limited model elsewhere. To me, it seems like they wanted a hard ban on the firmwares, settled for a soft ban, and will likely revisit the issue when there's some political capital justifying a hard ban.