The FCC is asking for comments on a proposal to require manufacturers to lock down computing devices

[red_pope]

https://www.federalregister.gov/art...-and-electronic-labeling-for-wireless-devices

https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=1UiSJRK869RsyQddPi5hpw==&desc=594280 D02 U-NII Device Security v01r02&tracking_number=39498



Basically the FCC is trying to force companies that manufacture WiFi devices to lock them down so that downstream users and developers can't change the firmware.

They specifically ask manufacturers how they plan to prevent third party firmware from being installed. They use the example of DD-WRT, but it would impact all other firmware's including OpenWRT and LibreCMC.

Some have said otherwise,

"FCC is only wanting to control VERY SPECIFIC things, like transmission power and frequency. The FCC has zero interest in any other aspect of the devices. The FCC ONLY cares about the settings that have any (direct) impact on the RF transmissions."

Unfortunately that's utter nonsense.

In reality the regulation apply to everything. WiFi in your computer, Bluetooth, cell phones, etc. Literally everything would be negatively impacted.

We need to save WiFi!

Please take the time to read the link above and send in comments. We need to get an overwhelming amount of backlash against this or you won't have control over your devices/computers/etc going forward.
Please read up on the issue above and start getting the word out. Talk to any media outlets that will listen. And explain how to the media how people can get involved. Send them to the link above. Send the media emails. Call the media. There is very little time to get people to send in FCC comments so we need all the help we can get.

At this point we did get the FCC to extend the deadline for comments until October, but we need a *ton* of publicity fast to actually get them to do anything. And this won't be over after the comments are in because there are already rules which are hindering installation of third party firmware now in effect. These rules just clarify older rules basically and extend them to *everything*.

This is going to be an on-going campaign and the only chance we have to get anybody to listen to revising the rules already in effect will be to show that we have an overwhelming amount of support now.

The EFF, FSF, OpenWRT, LibreCMC, Software Freedom Law Center, Qualcomm, the prpl foundation, and other groups/people are in the loop and involved now.

I like to read the comments from the owners of this web site.

How it will affect you? lets be real honest about it.

 

[coxhaus]

I think it would create a large black market operation. People would start buying routers not through local channels but that had been brought in from other countries.

 

[System Error Message]

I totally disagree with the FCC because 5Ghz range is so much less that the signal drop outside the house is very high. Theres nothing to stop someone hooking up amplifiers to their router. Making rules such as limitting hardware and firmware isnt going to stop people from doing it and the more rules made the more people are going to break it for being selfish.

Instead FCC should change the rule for wifi manufacturers that sell wifi in the unlicensed band to design their hardware to work within sensible limits. Locking down the firmware is going to make things worse. A lot of consumer wifi manufacturers already manufacture their hardware to work within the rules and the FCC should consider educating people that their devices which connect to wifi routers have a lower maximum transmission power that it is useless to increase it above a certain amount and expose your data sent over wireless to anyone around the area. There lacks common sense regarding client transmission limits and security when a router's wifi transmission power is set higher.

The FCC should instead create a rule to punish wifi equipment owners if their wifi equipment goes over sensible limits and causes interference especially if it causes any accidents. So basically let people use wifi as long as they dont cause any deaths or injuries because they were interfering with important services. I mean how badly does wifi effect other things? 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz range for 1W using omni antennas are very low and using directional still isnt going to go far while the maximum consumer wifi is designed to do is 500mW. I mean what about gun rights in the US? More deaths would've been prevented if guns were only allowed to be owned with a hard to get permit and still you dont get anyone trying restrict the performance of guns allowed to be sold in the US.

How near is the nearest residential area to an airport or a military base or radar installation that consumer wifi equipment will interfere with them? Im sure some idiot who equips a 1W amplifier to his router will burn out the wifi chip before doing any damage. Many modern widely available wifi equipment do use algorithms to get around interference. Not to mention within these installations that open to public will have wifi available within as well.

 

[red_pope]

I totally disagree with the FCC because 5Ghz range is so much less that the signal drop outside the house is very high. Theres nothing to stop someone hooking up amplifiers to their router. Making rules such as limitting hardware and firmware isnt going to stop people from doing it and the more rules made the more people are going to break it for being selfish.

Instead FCC should change the rule for wifi manufacturers that sell wifi in the unlicensed band to design their hardware to work within sensible limits. Locking down the firmware is going to make things worse. A lot of consumer wifi manufacturers already manufacture their hardware to work within the rules and the FCC should consider educating people that their devices which connect to wifi routers have a lower maximum transmission power that it is useless to increase it above a certain amount and expose your data sent over wireless to anyone around the area. There lacks common sense regarding client transmission limits and security when a router's wifi transmission power is set higher.

The FCC should instead create a rule to punish wifi equipment owners if their wifi equipment goes over sensible limits and causes interference especially if it causes any accidents. So basically let people use wifi as long as they dont cause any deaths or injuries because they were interfering with important services. I mean how badly does wifi effect other things? 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz range for 1W using omni antennas are very low and using directional still isnt going to go far while the maximum consumer wifi is designed to do is 500mW. I mean what about gun rights in the US? More deaths would've been prevented if guns were only allowed to be owned with a hard to get permit and still you dont get anyone trying restrict the performance of guns allowed to be sold in the US.

How near is the nearest residential area to an airport or a military base or radar installation that consumer wifi equipment will interfere with them? Im sure some idiot who equips a 1W amplifier to his router will burn out the wifi chip before doing any damage. Many modern widely available wifi equipment do use algorithms to get around interference. Not to mention within these installations that open to public will have wifi available within as well.

Sir
Please, the same comments you are posting, copy and paste them in their web site make your opinion to be heard, it it is your right.
https://www.federalregister.gov/art...-and-electronic-labeling-for-wireless-devices

 

[red_pope]

I think it would create a large black market operation. People would start buying routers not through local channels but that had been brought in from other countries.

Sir
Please, the same comments you are posting, copy and paste them in their web site make your opinion to be heard, it it is your right.
https://www.federalregister.gov/art...-and-electronic-labeling-for-wireless-devices

 

[Deleted member 22229]

I have thought this for some time now. With all these third party firmwares and many of them purposely allow all channels and full power operations it would just be a matter of time before the FCC would step in and put a stop to all third party code. To bad though because people like Merlin and John are keeping it legal and there work has made a good router even better but as they say a few bad apples spoil the bunch. I am afraid in the coming years maybe less this will come to an end at least here in the USA.

 

[red_pope]

I have thought this for some time now. With all these third party firmwares and many of them purposely allow all channels and full power operations it would just be a matter of time before the FCC would step in and put a stop to all third party code. To bad though because people like Merlin and John are keeping it legal and there work has made a good router even better but as they say a few bad apples spoil the bunch. I am afraid in the coming years maybe less this will come to an end at least here in the USA.

Sir
Please, the same comments you are posting, copy and paste them in their web site make your opinion to be heard, it it is your right.
https://www.federalregister.gov/art...-and-electronic-labeling-for-wireless-devices

 

[System Error Message]

Sir
Please, the same comments you are posting, copy and paste them in their web site make your opinion to be heard, it it is your right.
https://www.federalregister.gov/art...-and-electronic-labeling-for-wireless-devices

I cant because i dont live in america.

 

[coxhaus]

I posted.

 

[red_pope]

I cant because i dont live in america.

Sir
I believe you can! They have a drop down list of all the countries in the world able to post.

 

[red_pope]

I posted.

Thank You

 

[coxhaus]

If this happens then I think everybody will run routers without wireless and run separate wireless APs because the routers will not be governed like the wireless radios.

 

[System Error Message]

If this happens then I think everybody will run routers without wireless and run separate wireless APs because the routers will not be governed like the wireless radios.

A great idea, pfsense APs. A bunch of Intel NUCs with i3s running pfsense and with mini-PCIe wifi cards.

 

[red_pope]

A great idea, pfsense APs. A bunch of Intel NUCs with i3s running pfsense and with mini-PCIe wifi cards.

We already have one desktop I-3 running PFSENCE in our home network. It was my wife idea not mines.

 

[System Error Message]

We already have one desktop I-3 running PFSENCE in our home network. It was my wife idea not mines.

The intel NUCs brings the size down to that of a wifi router. They probably cost a bit more than broadcom ARM based routers but you do get more for your money i suppose including the IGP.

 

[Ronv42]

The normal government solution, use a sledge hammer when a scalpel is needed. It's not the firmware that is the issue its the FCC changing rules on power and frequencies. If the FCC and other controlling organizations cannot commit to regulations then all the market can do is to make products that are flexible enough to adapt. If they lock out this flexibility a single ruling the FCC could kill an entire product line.

 

[red_pope]

The normal government solution, use a sledge hammer when a scalpel is needed. It's not the firmware that is the issue its the FCC changing rules on power and frequencies. If the FCC and other controlling organizations cannot commit to regulations then all the market can do is to make products that are flexible enough to adapt. If they lock out this flexibility a single ruling the FCC could kill an entire product line.

Well I believe, If you take time to read the whole manifesto, you will understand the FCC suggestion IT IS MORE THAN JUST changing rules on power and frequencies. It is total control and monopoly at the end.

Please, the same comments you are posting, copy and paste them in their web site make your opinion to be heard, it it is your right.
https://www.federalregister.gov/art...-and-electronic-labeling-for-wireless-devices

 

[sfx2000]

Please send your comments - one of the communities that is very much impacted by rules like this is the "maker" community that work on boards like Arduino and Galileo - if this were to pass with no ability to get waiver's from the FCC, this can and will stifle innovation from the independent developers...

It's not just the WRT community that is impacted here - when we're looking at doing innovative things for IoT as an example, these rules will make this not possible.

 

[RMerlin]

I see they amended their form, because the original one didn't specifically target third party firmware (and they certainly did not mention DD-WRT by name).

So some idiotic bureaucrat decided to go even further than the original intent. This is brain-dead, and obviously those guys have no idea what they are even talking about, or the impact of their decisions.

 

[jegesq]

RedPope's original message has links to the Federal Register version of the proposed new rules, along with a link to the current rules and analysis. Here's a link to the full text of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, with information on where specifically to send your comments on the proposed new rules.

The portions of the proposed rules that directly affect consumers who use 2.4 and 5ghz in the U.S. are found at Proposed Rule 15.407i, which provides in part:

"Manufacturers must implement security features in any digitally modulated devices capable of operating in any of the U-NII bands, so that third parties are not able to reprogram the device to operate outside the parameters for which the device was certified. The software must prevent the user from operating the transmitter with operating frequencies, output power, modulation types or other radio frequency parameters outside those that were approved for the device.​

"Manufacturers may use means including, but not limited to the use of a private network that allows only authenticated users to download software, electronic signatures in software or coding in hardware that is decoded by software to verify that new software can be legally loaded into a device to meet these requirements and must describe the methods in their application for equipment authorization."
​

The rules also require that hardware vendors must, in order to achieve certification for their devices (and thus have permission to market them in the U.S.), "describe in detail how the device is protected from 'flashing' and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT."

Perhaps more than parenthetically, this issue has arisen largely because there are users of routers who simply do not appreciate the shared nature of radio frequencies and who have and are actively modifying their consumer routers to broadcast on frequencies that are not permitted, reserved for other uses, or at power levels that can have adverse consequences for weather, civil aviation and military applications that operate near or along the edges of the same frequencies permitted to be used for consumer devices.

We've had endless debates about this subject on these forums. Some people (who shall go nameless), in European Union countries see nothing wrong with modifying their routers (by accessing settings in firmware or modifying the CFE bootloaders) to enable broadcasting on frequencies not authorized by ETSI at power levels that are also beyond what is currently allowed.

Same in the U.S. too. Indeed there is a currently active thread in one of the Asus subforums that is still on the first page of message threads in which various people are asking "How Do I Modify My Firmware to Achieve Higher Power Outputs and Use Other Channels" (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of the thread). We have others who have previously posted active links to firmware that enables others to do just this, and several people who advocate boosting their output power to the highest levels possible to "overcome" all the "noise" of their neighbors, who think nothing of doing that.

Well, welcome to the consequences of that sort of behavior. I think Merlin is right, ultimately we're going to see only signed firmware permitted and it will be only through "official" channels. Hackers will hack, and someone will figure out a way to modify the signatures, but it won't be easily done, and it will certainly diminish the scope and number of people using something other than "official" firmware from manufacturers. As for talk about a burgeoning black market for imported routers in the U.S., well, dream on, that's just not going to happen, at least not in the U.S. Maybe in the EU or elsewhere when other countries' or groups of countries' governing bodies adopt similar rules to what the FCC ultimately adopts, but not in the U.S.

It is interesting that the FCC is proposing these rules now, given that the current FCC head is so pro-open internet, but there are other forces at work that are driving this bus (and no, I'm not paranoid enough to think it's the NSA, because they'll have ways of gaining access no matter what firmware you're using if they really want to). There are legitimate aviation, weather and military concerns and those are going to gain priority over hobbyists, makers, and consumers who want to improve the performance of their wifi devices.

Anyway, the FCC wants your comments, not here on the boards, but at the FCC itself. Here's a link to the FCC Electronic Filing site where you can leave a comment. The FCC has extended the time to submit comments to October 19, 2015, and oddly there have only been 16 officially noted comments to the proposed rules logged thus far. So send your statement to the FCC and let your voices be heard.

And not because I want to say "I told you so" but to those with whom I've had disagreements and debated with on this subject, well, you might want to think twice before turning up the output power of your wireless router, or using channel 12 or 13 just because you don't see anyone else in your neighborhood using those channels.