3 ms·

There is a specific problem with routers and certification for radio usage. This makes right to repair harder. It's not just a legal issue. The ether is quite f

by rocqua 5y ago

There is a specific problem with routers and certification for radio usage. This makes right to repair harder. It's not just a legal issue. The ether is quite full and it mostly works because there are clear rules that devices must meet. With user serviceable routers, bumping up power, or moving to locally forbidden (quieter) frequencies could become lifehacks. There was already an airport whose radio saw interference from extra powerful 5ghz wifi routers. Locking down devices as a business model is bad. But Locking them down as a regulatory precaution to keep radio working is different. How to keep every manufacturer from seeking excemption from right to repair under these rules would be challenging tho.

haneefmubarak 5y ago
If we didn't allow for an exemption but still required full compliance, perhaps manufacturers could physically limit the output from the power amplifiers and/or use blowable fuses in the chips to set a non-modifiable power limit. I imagine that the same could be done for frequency management either on board (bandstop filtering) or on chip (once again, blowable fuses to set disallowed frequencies). I know that there will still be enterprising folks who modify their hardware itself to try to get around these limitations, but such enterprising people are already more than capable of physically modifying their existing hardware.
- somerandomqaguy 5y ago
  Not in manufacturing so I'm just speculating here. But I'd imagine that would create a new set of logistical issues, specifically instead of one bill of material that can be applied everywhere with controlled applied via software, now you need N BOM's, when N is the market region that has a slightly different set of RF transmission rules. Not infeasible but certainly a significant increase in cost.
howdydoo 5y ago
My PC has a 5ghz wifi antenna, and I can install any OS I want. Why should a router be any more locked down than my PC? The FCC takes illegal broadcasting VERY seriously and I think that should deter people from becoming criminals.
- jcrawfordor 5y ago
  1) The scale of the problem seems much lower on PCs because Windows and MacOS respect local regulations, Linux has an infrastructure to do so that works by default in some distros but not others, but overall the Linux market share is small and as is PC WiFi adapters are more often sold in country-specific variants with hardware restrictions than the chipsets in routers are (and usually have lower hardware Tx power limits). Overall, the architecture of WiFi is such that it's rare for a PC to make these kinds of decisions anyway. If it's an infrastructure mode network, the AP dictates channels. 2) FCC enforcement is, in general, rare. It usually requires specific complaints from commercial broadcasters in order for the FCC to respond. In the ISM and WiFi-specific bands, enforcement is extremely difficult because enforcement methods like radio direction finding are inherently difficult for the frequencies involved and even more difficult because of the high noise floor and large number of sources in urban environments. Even if the FCC allocated significant resources (which they do not), it would technically be difficult to enforce these regulations. The FCC has closed more than half of field offices and laid off half of the enforcement staff over the last ten years. They have eliminated most of their field enforcement teams and now only have teams (perhaps only a handful, they don't say but the best public info I've found suggests 5) based out of the DC area that have to fly out. It's been very frustrating to see the FCC eliminating enforcement resources these days, but the reality is that enforcement has become far more difficult and less effective over time due to advancements in the technology. Direction finding FM pirate stations is technically pretty easy and something the FCC is very effective at (especially since FM broadcasters inform the FCC promptly). Just about everything else... fat chance of the FCC doing anything about it unless they can do so at an organizational/regulatory level (e.g. fining manufacturers or large scale operators). At the field level it's just too expensive and unproductive to try to track down individuals who have configured their WiFi routers in violation.
  - coredog64 5y ago
    Follow the California Prop 65 model: Enable the general public to collect damages via civil suit. (Only half joking)
- wtallis 5y ago
pdonis 5y ago
> There is a specific problem with routers and certification for radio usage. No, there isn't, because it's perfectly possible to limit what frequencies and power levels the hardware can emit without affecting the ability to run custom firmware such as OpenWRT. The certification argument is a dodge used by router manufacturers to avoid having to give customers what they actually want. > There was already an airport whose radio saw interference from extra powerful 5ghz wifi routers. Anyone who is radiating enough power to interfere with airport radios is doing something a lot stranger than just flashing custom firware like OpenWRT on their router. Such people are easily stopped without having to lock down devices.
- Piskvorrr 5y ago
  Um, no. The "airport radio" in question is weather radar, which does directional scans and is very sensitive to interference. Just choose the wrong regulatory domain, and you're messing up the spectrum in ways that are mostly invisible to you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_frequency_selection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_frequency_selection (some devices try to avoid this by scanning the spectrum for weather radars...user indignation at unavailable channels follows)
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > The "airport radio" in question is weather radar Ah, ok. Weather radar is very different from "airport radio". For the latter I have a very hard time seeing how someone's ordinary wifi router could cause interference, but weather radar antennas have to be much more sensitive.
    - Piskvorrr 5y ago
      Sure, but news channels usually don't distinguish this. "It's some sort of wireless problem at the airport, therefore airport radio."

by rocqua 5y ago

haneefmubarak 5y ago

If we didn't allow for an exemption but still required full compliance, perhaps manufacturers could physically limit the output from the power amplifiers and/or use blowable fuses in the chips to set a non-modifiable power limit. I imagine that the same could be done for frequency management either on board (bandstop filtering) or on chip (once again, blowable fuses to set disallowed frequencies). I know that there will still be enterprising folks who modify their hardware itself to try to get around these limitations, but such enterprising people are already more than capable of physically modifying their existing hardware.

somerandomqaguy 5y ago
Not in manufacturing so I'm just speculating here. But I'd imagine that would create a new set of logistical issues, specifically instead of one bill of material that can be applied everywhere with controlled applied via software, now you need N BOM's, when N is the market region that has a slightly different set of RF transmission rules. Not infeasible but certainly a significant increase in cost.

howdydoo 5y ago

My PC has a 5ghz wifi antenna, and I can install any OS I want. Why should a router be any more locked down than my PC? The FCC takes illegal broadcasting VERY seriously and I think that should deter people from becoming criminals.

jcrawfordor 5y ago
1) The scale of the problem seems much lower on PCs because Windows and MacOS respect local regulations, Linux has an infrastructure to do so that works by default in some distros but not others, but overall the Linux market share is small and as is PC WiFi adapters are more often sold in country-specific variants with hardware restrictions than the chipsets in routers are (and usually have lower hardware Tx power limits). Overall, the architecture of WiFi is such that it's rare for a PC to make these kinds of decisions anyway. If it's an infrastructure mode network, the AP dictates channels. 2) FCC enforcement is, in general, rare. It usually requires specific complaints from commercial broadcasters in order for the FCC to respond. In the ISM and WiFi-specific bands, enforcement is extremely difficult because enforcement methods like radio direction finding are inherently difficult for the frequencies involved and even more difficult because of the high noise floor and large number of sources in urban environments. Even if the FCC allocated significant resources (which they do not), it would technically be difficult to enforce these regulations. The FCC has closed more than half of field offices and laid off half of the enforcement staff over the last ten years. They have eliminated most of their field enforcement teams and now only have teams (perhaps only a handful, they don't say but the best public info I've found suggests 5) based out of the DC area that have to fly out. It's been very frustrating to see the FCC eliminating enforcement resources these days, but the reality is that enforcement has become far more difficult and less effective over time due to advancements in the technology. Direction finding FM pirate stations is technically pretty easy and something the FCC is very effective at (especially since FM broadcasters inform the FCC promptly). Just about everything else... fat chance of the FCC doing anything about it unless they can do so at an organizational/regulatory level (e.g. fining manufacturers or large scale operators). At the field level it's just too expensive and unproductive to try to track down individuals who have configured their WiFi routers in violation.
- coredog64 5y ago
  Follow the California Prop 65 model: Enable the general public to collect damages via civil suit. (Only half joking)
wtallis 5y ago

pdonis 5y ago

> There is a specific problem with routers and certification for radio usage. No, there isn't, because it's perfectly possible to limit what frequencies and power levels the hardware can emit without affecting the ability to run custom firmware such as OpenWRT. The certification argument is a dodge used by router manufacturers to avoid having to give customers what they actually want. > There was already an airport whose radio saw interference from extra powerful 5ghz wifi routers. Anyone who is radiating enough power to interfere with airport radios is doing something a lot stranger than just flashing custom firware like OpenWRT on their router. Such people are easily stopped without having to lock down devices.

Piskvorrr 5y ago
Um, no. The "airport radio" in question is weather radar, which does directional scans and is very sensitive to interference. Just choose the wrong regulatory domain, and you're messing up the spectrum in ways that are mostly invisible to you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_frequency_selection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_frequency_selection (some devices try to avoid this by scanning the spectrum for weather radars...user indignation at unavailable channels follows)
- pdonis 5y ago
  > The "airport radio" in question is weather radar Ah, ok. Weather radar is very different from "airport radio". For the latter I have a very hard time seeing how someone's ordinary wifi router could cause interference, but weather radar antennas have to be much more sensitive.
  - Piskvorrr 5y ago
    Sure, but news channels usually don't distinguish this. "It's some sort of wireless problem at the airport, therefore airport radio."