5 ms·

Thank you Tom Wheeler, just when I thought there was the slightest chance you might be on the side of the consumer... While this is probably the most effective

by tw04 11y ago

Thank you Tom Wheeler, just when I thought there was the slightest chance you might be on the side of the consumer... While this is probably the most effective route to curb the behavior, it also seems like the most sleazy. If you didn't want DD-WRT allowing non-region channels, why didn't you go after them directly? Probably because the uproar would have been deafening. Instead you go after the router manufacturers because they're easier to control. If you can remove their product from the market, you can instantly curb the behavior.

tjohns 11y ago
To be fair, DD-WRT isn't an FCC licensed entity, so I don't think there's much the FCC could actually do to them directly. There's no license to revoke, and I don't think we want to be in a world where the FCC can issue a civil forfeiture for simply publishing code to the web. The router manufacturers are the FCC licensees, so going after them is the easiest route to compliance. (The other option, going after users who are broadcasting on disallowed channels or above rated power levels, is practically untenable due to issues of scale.)
- tw04 11y ago
  Shouldn't DMCA shoot this in the head? My right to repair is essentially eliminated when they can completely lockdown the firmware. The second they decide to stop releasing updates, I no longer even have the ability to repair.
  - bjt 11y ago
    The "right to repair" under the DMCA is not freestanding like the rights to free speech or a jury trial. It's an affirmative defense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense) to an anti circumvention charge brought under the DMCA. Maybe having such a free standing right would be good policy, but it's not current US law.
matthewmcg 11y ago
This is likely because the FCC's regulations cover "intentional radiators" (i.e. hardware devices designed to emit radio signals). They don't have the authority to regulate software that may be available independently of that hardware.

by tw04 11y ago

tjohns 11y ago

To be fair, DD-WRT isn't an FCC licensed entity, so I don't think there's much the FCC could actually do to them directly. There's no license to revoke, and I don't think we want to be in a world where the FCC can issue a civil forfeiture for simply publishing code to the web. The router manufacturers are the FCC licensees, so going after them is the easiest route to compliance. (The other option, going after users who are broadcasting on disallowed channels or above rated power levels, is practically untenable due to issues of scale.)

tw04 11y ago
Shouldn't DMCA shoot this in the head? My right to repair is essentially eliminated when they can completely lockdown the firmware. The second they decide to stop releasing updates, I no longer even have the ability to repair.
- bjt 11y ago
  The "right to repair" under the DMCA is not freestanding like the rights to free speech or a jury trial. It's an affirmative defense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense) to an anti circumvention charge brought under the DMCA. Maybe having such a free standing right would be good policy, but it's not current US law.

matthewmcg 11y ago

This is likely because the FCC's regulations cover "intentional radiators" (i.e. hardware devices designed to emit radio signals). They don't have the authority to regulate software that may be available independently of that hardware.