Asus locking down routers to comply with new FCC rules

[DrTeeth]

The United Kingdom is a member of the EU, and it is the EU which governs the channels that can be made available on devices that are manufactured for sale in the EU, just as the FCC does in the U.S.

You are just plain wrong. So super-wrong in fact, that I am really having to hold myself back, this being the season of goodwill and all .

There are MANY differences between EU countries in the radio allocation stakes - IF you were correct, all allocations would be uniform.

 

[jegesq]

DFS and TPC implementations are different in the EU than the DFS and TPC implementations used in U.S. The EU's DFS and TPC requirements are prescribed by ETSI, not the FCC. The different technical requirements are because radar used in the EU is different than that used in the U.S. Some of those differences are discussed in this paper by ElliotLabs.

I think you'll find that discussions here in these forums concerning DFS and TPC and their impact on wifi performance have been confined to U.S.-coded Asus products (e.g., the threads discussing why some users can't get 5ghz to function or stay connected in the upper band channels 149, 153, 157 and 161, which channels aren't available in the EU at all).

As for the power question, I'm not completely sure why Asus has lowered max tx power to 80mW in the EU. I have an idea, but haven't researched the issue fully. My best guess though is that the answer is found within the structure and framework of the EU/EC regulations, i.e., if one country adopts a more restrictive standard, all other members are required to follow suit.

And btw, I did not say that "ASUS hardware doesn't support DFS and TPC". Nor would I say that because DFS and TPC aren't hardware issues, but are driver-side implementations.

What I did say was that Asus and other manufacturers have chosen not to implement the EU-form of DFS and TPC, and as such, they can't expose those channels on their routers that require DFS and TPC. I never said that Asus hardware "doesn't support" DFS or TPC. It does support DFS and TPC (and has since Broadcom's drivers first included DFS and TPC in early 2013, giving manufacturers the option to include DFS and TPC or not as they chose). But the point is that if a manufacturer decides not to implement DFS and TPC in a wireless router that is going to be sold in the EU, they can't expose channels other than 36-48 because the other channels require DFS and TPC.

And as for "most people don't" live near airports, you obviously don't live in my area (Western U.S.). In my area, there are no fewer than 7 airports and several government facilities (a major regional airport, the second busiest international airport in the U.S, three regional mixed commercial and non-commercial civil aviation airports, and two major military facilities) all within 20 miles of my home. More than 3 million people live within that same 20 mile radius, and we are all subject to the potential impact of weather, aviation and military radar that is used in adjoining 5ghz frequencies that routers are permitted to use.

 

[jegesq]

You are just plain wrong. So super-wrong in fact, that I am really having to hold myself back, this being the season of goodwill and all .

There are MANY differences between EU countries in the radio allocation stakes - IF you were correct, all allocations would be uniform.

I have no doubt you'd disagree. I've read similar arguments and statements you have posted on the ThinkBroadband forums, and while you stridently insist that routers should be "localized" "properly" the fact of the matter is that's your opinion only. You don't explain how or why EU regs impact this topic, and you appear to just ignore the R&TTE Directive's impact on what manufacturers can and cannot do, or deny that the R&TTE is even applicable in the UK. Devices aren't "certified" by the Ofcom; they may be allowed by Ofcom regs to be used in a non-licensed (or licensed) manner in the UK, but that doesn't mean that such devices don't also have to comply with EU regulations pertaining to DFS and TPC if they wish to use some of those upper channels beyond 36-48, even those that are permitted to be used in the UK. And while the UK regs don't talk about DFS or TPC, the UK is an adoptee country of the R&TTE, a member of the EU, and is bound as is every other EU country to those regulations, even in the use of shared frequencies within their borders. The frequencies, and in particular, meteorological radar doesn't give a rat's butt about the border of the UK, or France or any other EU country. It goes where it goes, and everyone has to share the same frequencies.

BTW, I also just reread that particular ThinkBroadband forum thread in which you discussed your views, and I see that you also never responded to user "Hulkin-the-Goth" who posted the following on August 16, 2014:

"The reason the upper channels are not accessible is because this part of the 5GHz band contains radar systems. These channels are subject to DFS requirements.

These DFS requirements are complex and costly to get regulatory certification from FCC/ETSI. Following are the typical requirements for access points (AP) operating on 5GHz DFS channel:

Before starting operation on DFS channel, scan the channel for Radar devices for 1 minute. If radar is detected follow step 4 otherwise start operation of DFS channel.

Must detect non-Wi-Fi Radar devices with pulse width as small as 5us

When radar device are detected stop operation on the channel within 500 milliseconds.

For AP vendors, this also means informing wireless clients to move away from this channel.

Do not become operational of this DFS channel for at least 30 minutes and after that go to step 1 before becoming operational again.

Given the above complexity many small office-home office vendors as well as some enterprise AP vendors don’t allow operation on DFS channels in the 5GHz band at all. Many client devices are also not certified for DFS band operation. Even when APs are certified and support DFS channels AP vendors often recommend operation exclusively on non-DFS channels given the uncertainty of DFS channels support at the client device level.

 

[jegesq]

And one last add for the Dr.:

Changing the country code to expose more channels does not mean that DFS and TPC are being used on the channels that require them to be used. So the fact that you can change your router to access channels that you couldn't with the country code set to "EU" doesn't mean that it will be utilizing the required method of implementing DFS or TPC to be legal within your jurisdiction. In fact, you may be running without DFS and TPC, in which case, your router is now doing exactly what it shouldn't be doing, i.e., potentially interfering with radar that is used for air safety.

But then I guess you've already decided that whether your router is actually using the required DFS and TPC in the channels you've now made available by changing country code isn't as important as air passenger safety, because in your mind you've concluded that not everyone lives near an airport. Well, at least that you don't.

And not that I think this will persuade you, but you might be interested in the actual regulatory framework involved. Take a look at this link to the ECC's draft report on 5ghz, and in particular please read Section 1.2 which describes the history and background of DFS implementation and codification across the entire EU (including the UK), where you will find the following:

The DFS principle is recognisant of the fact that WAS/RLAN operating co-channel with a radar may interfere with the radar and therefore there is a need to avoid co-channel operation. To do so, the WAS/RLAN DFS mechanism has to perform radar signal detection on the channel it intends to use prior to have any transmissions on that channel. If a radar signal is identified, then this channel becomes unavailable for use by the WAS/RLAN.

Following WRC-03, both the ECC and the European Commission translated this International regulation into European regulations, adopting respectively ECC Decision ECC/DEC/(04)08 (9 July 2004) and EC Decision 2005/513/EC (11 July 2005) on “the harmonised use of the 5 GHz frequency bands for the implementation of Wireless Access Systems including Radio Local Area Networks (WAS/RLANs)“. ECC/DEC/(04)08 [6] has been implemented by 41 CEPT administrations in May 2013.

The implementation of EC Decision 2005/513/EC [7] into national regulation has been mandatory and therefore has resulted in a general authorisation status for WAS/RLANs across the EU. Without derogation, Member States cannot impose additional requirements in their national regulations beyond those specified in the EC Decisions.

.

In other words, if a router is going to be sold within the EU, it must comply with EU and EC standards, and member states are prohibited from derogating or imposing additional requirements. So while the upper-band channels beyond 36-48 are permitted to be used in the UK, even there such use MUST comply with the EU requirements that DFS and TPC be implemented in the manner and ways that the ETSI requires (not in a manner that Ofcom may simply allow).

Oh, and you really have to read Section 2.3 and all that follows it. You will appreciate that it perfectly describes why a single-market EU regulation scheme has been implemented everywhere in the EU, which is fully applicable to devices sold in the UK.

I mean, if you really want to get down to the nub of all of this, and get back to the original topic of discussion in this thread (which started some 19 pages ago), the real impact of enthusiasts and hobbyists unlocking their router channels, boosting tx power, operating on channels without assuring whether DFS or TPC are implemented (or worse, turning off DFS completely), and modifying their routers in ways that may or may not comply with existing governmental regulations, is precisely why both the ETSI and the FCC, working independently, but clearly in consultation with one another, have both separately mandated that router manufacturers...all of them... must now "lock" down their firmware to prevent end-users from changing country codes, using power settings that can potentially interfere with weather, military and aviation radar, or be used in ways that can violate rules applicable to shared frequencies. So keep on maintaining the position that you're entitled to do whatever you want because you bought the router and its your's, because it's only going to result in yet more governmental restrictions on all of us. You may think you can decide how best you will use the shared radio frequencies, but it's not your decision alone, at least not if you live in the EU, U.S., Canada, Australia, or Japan, each of which has different implementations of DFS and TPC.

 

[ColinTaylor]

To be fair to DrTeeth it was me not him that mentioned not living near an airport. I just mentioned it because you seemed to be implying that because some people in the UK might live near an airport then there was no point selling a router that operated in the upper bands. If you do live near an airport then DFS should automatically change to a lower channel.

Also, at no point was DrTeeth or I suggesting that routers should be modified in such a way as to disable or incorrectly set DFS. Quite the reverse in fact.

There is nothing that you have quoted that is in conflict with our basic premise. Namely, there are no current EU or UK regulations that disallow the use of the upper channels provided that it is implemented in the proper manner. Again, I refer to Cisco products as proof of this. There is no hardware or software limitation, it is purely a decision by ASUS. Regarding the different DFS and TPC implementations in the EU, as far as I can tell by the looking at the driver this is already catered for.

So basically the only valid reason you have put forward for ASUS disallowing the upper channels is that they took a commercial decision based on the cost of certifying the router to be EU DFS compliant. Now that, strangely, I would accept if they came out and said it. In which case, we as customers still have the right to moan at them in the hope that they'll change their mind and think that it's worth spending the extra money on the certification.

 

[jegesq]

Now that, strangely, I would accept if they came out and said it.

They've said it. Loud and clear. Look at how your own Asus router purchased in the EU...er, I mean the UK...is configured. Can you access channels on 5ghz spectrum above channel 48 without in some way modifying your settings in ways that the manufacturer doesn't provide in native firmware? No? See, they've told you how Asus wants the router configured.

I've given you all the reasons that exist as well as the regulatory framework by which Asus must abide if they wish to sell their units (without individual country-specific modifications) across the EU in a standardized manner. You refuse to believe that unless you hear it straight from Asus. Again, look at your router and the channels exposed by Asus and without your modifications. That should tell you all you need to know.

You can insist that "there are no current EU or UK regulations that disallow the use of the upper channels provided that it is implemented in the proper manner" and I won't disagree with you, because what you said just means that if DFS and TPC are implemented according to ETSI standards, the upper channels can be used. I agree with that.

But likewise, what part of that regulatory framework don't you seem to understand which allows a manufacturer to opt to not expose channels that would impose additional burdens on the manufacturer to implement more stringent and costly testing in order to obtain EU compliance, if it doesn't need to do so and can still get that compliance by exposing only those 5ghz channels that don't require it to go through those more costly and expensive steps? Put differently, find me the regulation applicable in the UK or in the R&TTE Directive that requires a manufacturer to implement DFS and TPC when just making channels 36-48 available for use in the 5ghz band.

What you guys seem to be saying is that Asus and other router manufacturers that don't enable the higher channels in the UK are engaging in false advertising or "bait-and-switch" tactics by describing these routers as "dual band" 2.4ghz/5ghz devices because they don't allow you to use every conceivable channel that you want which the radio may be capable of accessing (with software modifications). And that's just silliness. These devices do use both bands, just not every conceivable channel available or that may be allowed. They could, but then they would have to implement DFS and TPC for those other channels, and as you note, Asus has chosen not to do that for reasons that apparently have to do with economics and to insure that their devices will be compliant everywhere in the EU at a minimum cost to them.

Your "basic premise" appears to be (or at least Dr. Teeth's premise) is that regardless of what the EU's regulations state, he refuses to acknowledge that they apply to him, and he insists that he's still entitled to alter the country code on his router to use channels that the manufacturer has elected not to expose because he believes under UK law he's entitled to do so. And I disagree with that because in this instance, UK law is indeed subservient to the EU R&TTE Directive that the UK subscribed to and agreed would be applicable in the UK. So you're not supposed to change your country code and if you do, and operate on channels or at power levels that you shouldn't, or operate without DFS and TCP on those channels, you're operating in an illegal manner. But you guys do what you think you need to do.

You could just as easily buy another AP or extender if your coverage is crappy. But rather than do that, Mr. Teeth wants to boost his power. Good for him. Have at it. But just understand what you're really doing and that if you and others continue to do so, it will just engender further restrictions on manufacturers, and will likely result in the ETSI and EU requiring signed bootloaders, and then, as Merlin has said repeatedly, that will be the end of all third party firmware for all of us.

But you guys just keep on keeping on.

 

[jgrove]

Ultimately it makes no difference what we as users think, the manufacturer will ultimately decide how to implement any requirements based on law or regulation. It may be that Asus offers 2 hardware versions, it maybe they don't who knows, but what is clear that in the US the requirements are set in stone and Asus must comply in order to continue selling those products there.

 

[wh7qq]

I can understand (sorta) that a user might want to operate on an otherwise unavailable channel and the risk of creating harmful interference with a device that has a hard time getting a signal across a home is small. What I have a hard time with is understanding why folks want to expose their equipment to higher operating temperatures by jacking up the router tx power when the transmitters on the remote device end are fixed and limited in their tx power and have ridiculously small and randomly oriented antennas. It does absolutely no good to increase your router tx power if your ability to receive (and/or the remote device ability to tx) are not increased as well. It's just so much self abuse.

The regulatory bodies understand this and set limits so that a horsepower race doesn't make these bands useless. Remember all the morons who put linear amplifiers on their CB rigs?

 

[Deleted member 22229]

I can understand (sorta) that a user might want to operate on an otherwise unavailable channel and the risk of creating harmful interference with a device that has a hard time getting a signal across a home is small. What I have a hard time with is understanding why folks want to expose their equipment to higher operating temperatures by jacking up the router tx power when the transmitters on the remote device end are fixed and limited in their tx power and have ridiculously small and randomly oriented antennas. It does absolutely no good to increase your router tx power if your ability to receive (and/or the remote device ability to tx) are not increased as well. It's just so much self abuse.

The regulatory bodies understand this and set limits so that a horsepower race doesn't make these bands useless. Remember all the morons who put linear amplifiers on their CB rigs?

10-4 on that good buddy. What am i hitting you with now.

 

[wh7qq]

I got no ears on this rig ;=)

 

[Deleted member 22229]

I got no ears on this rig ;=)

Swing those beams to the east Paul. I am a licensed ham myself since 2007.

 

[Chrysalis]

Incidently I am getting brillaint performance on channel 100, legal to use in my country but only useable when I use the test region mode.

I am also using legal power output (set to 80 in router).

I think its disgusting how asus have treated EU consumers with their crippled firmwares and not caring about it.

 

[System Error Message]

Incidently I am getting brillaint performance on channel 100, legal to use in my country but only useable when I use the test region mode.

I am also using legal power output (set to 80 in router).

I think its disgusting how asus have treated EU consumers with their crippled firmwares and not caring about it.

I agree with you on this one. ASUS being a premium brand yet not caring to give the right firmwares.

 

[jegesq]

You guys still just refuse to acknowledge that individual member nations of the EU (i.e., countries) no longer regulate the use of radio frequencies with complete sovereignty they may have once enjoyed prior to the formation of the EU. Well, they do not do so, and everyone within the EU is bound to follow the EU rules and regulations.

All of the EU is regulated by the R&TTE Directive authorized by European Parliament legislation and subscribed to by all EU member nations. Common spectrum allocations for "Short Range Devices" (SRDs) for countries within the CEPT ("European Conference of Postal and Television Administrations) have completely harmonized and standardized the use of all radio frequencies across Europe. While individual member countries are permitted to continue to adopt national legislation, all such national regulations must comply with the provisions of the R&TTE Directive.

Read the prior posts, and you will understand why Asus has exposed only channels 36-48 on the 5ghz frequency band on their routers that are issued for sale within the EU.

Asus is not the only SOHO consumer-oriented manufacturer to do so; look at TP-Link. Look at Netgear's routers sold in the EU. And on and on.

Used to be that TP-Link's routers were sold to end-users with the very easy ability to set whatever country you wanted (regardless of where you actually were using the device). No longer. Under the R&TTE Directive (just as with FCC rules in the U.S.), that is no longer possible and manufacturers can no longer sell their wireless devices in a manner that allows the end-user to change the country code.

I've read various postings from System Error Message touting the fact that in his country, Microtik routers are not locked in such a fashion and can be set to use other channels. That certainly may be the case with routers that are already on the market, but as a manufacturing entity, Microtik is based in Latvia, a country which itself is also bound to follow the R&TTE Directive and you can bet that as of this summer anything that Microtik offers for sale within the EU will be locked down as well to comply with the rules that will now prohibit end-users from circumventing the R&TTE Directive by changing country codes or exposing channels that the manufacturer has not made exposed within the installed firmware.

Look, I don't necessarily agree with the decisions of either the EU agencies (or with the FCC's similar rulings), but they are what they are, and it's kind of silly to complain that it's somehow just Asus that is doing this, and that other manufacturers are the "good guys". Everyone is doing it, and it's important to set the record straight. Also, the issue of which channels to expose is, as I've mentioned before, further complicated in that all other channels in the EU require the manufacturer to implement both DFS (Dynamic Frequency Selection) and TPC (Transmit Power Control). This adds to EU testing and certification costs, and even if it was implemented by all manufacturers, DFS is, as user Kenhlan can attest, not a bed of roses due to radar and other military uses that, when detected, virtually reduce the 5ghz band on some of those channels to unusable (because when radar is detected, the channels must shift and the channel on which radar is detected is required to shut down for a minimum of 30 minutes per DFS/TPC criteria). So even if these channels were made available, there's no guarantee that your user-experience would be a good one. Just ask Ken....

Lastly, if you really want to complain, it would be far more useful to write to your country's representative agency that sits on the CEPT (assuming you are living in the EU), or to the FCC if you're in the U.S..

 

[Chrysalis]

Well I brought 2 modern routers recently.

The billion 8800nl
The zyxel vmg8324-b10a

Both allow UK region wireless. They do not have a EU region.

http://www.ip-performance.co.uk/blog/5ghzwlanfrequencybandregulation

 

[jegesq]

Right. No doubt you can purchase stuff now from manufacturers who have elected to implement DFS and TPC and which therefore expose those channels which require both DFS and TPC. But as of June 2015 when the R&TTE mandate goes into effect (and when similar FCC restrictions go into effect for the U.S.), products that are approved for sale within the EU will require firmware that will not allow the end-user to change country codes. As for what is out there now and what is available from other manufacturers, all of them will have to change their firmware to comply, not just Asus.

BTW, I just finished reading the Billion 880NL manual, and as you know, it's only a single band 2.4ghz combo router-modem-wireless device that only exposes channels 1-7 (see Manual, page 90). There is no setting for selecting any other channels other than "Auto". Any discussion of upper band 5ghz channels and the DFS and TPC requirements for channels above channel 48 on the 5ghz band is completely irrelevant to this device.

Likewise, the Zyxel Model No. VMG8324-b10a is also only a 2.4ghz combo modem-router-wireless device, and citing it in a discussion of which channels a company elects to expose to end-users on the 5ghz upper band (i.e., those channels beyond channels 36-48, that require implementation of DFS and TPC) is also utterly irrelevant because it's just not a 5ghz device.

 

[Chrysalis]

Still there is a region option, and UK is there not EU.

I understand what you saying about forbidding country changes, but what regulation requires UK routers to use a generic EU region?

As clarification I can use channels all the way upto channel 14 on my billion. That manual is simply wrong.

 

[jegesq]

Still there is a region option, and UK is there not EU.

Yes, there's a region button. So you can select UK. That should eliminate, for example, channels 12, 13 and 14 on the 2.4ghz band in the UK(which can be used in parts of Asia). That it doesn't though is actually pretty meaningless in the context of this discussion which is about the fact that Asus and other manufacturers are now required to lock down the country codes in future sales of devices in the EU, and the fact that Asus and other manufacturers have not exposed to end-users those 5ghz-band channels above channel 48 that are otherwise available for usage in particular EU-member countries (for example, in UK, the four channels available between 52-64 and the other 11 channels between 100-140, all of which require DFS and TPC be implemented). DFS and TPC aren't used for the 2.4ghz band at all. A router that you bought some time ago, which doesn't have a second band, IMHO doesn't exemplify manufacturers who allow customers to change channel settings to use those channels that require DFS/TPC on a transmit/receive frequency not used by a device.

I understand what you saying about forbidding country changes, but what regulation requires UK routers to use a generic EU region?

I cited the provisions earlier in this thread. But to make it simple: By agreeing to become a member of the EU, the UK has agreed to be bound by the R&TTE Directive, which is the set of rules that has harmonized all use of radio and television frequencies within and across the entire EU. Ofcom (the British enforcement agency) issues rules that are consistent with, and which cannot be in derogation of the R&TTE Directive. I would suggest you go back into the thread where the legislative and regulatory framework was discussed to get a clearer picture of what this means.

The fact that your Billion 8800NL exposes channel 14 (which is not permitted for use anywhere in the UK or Europe) is hardly an example of a company acting in a responsible manner, is it? Or is it your contention that Asus and other manufacturers should also expose channels that are not permitted to be used in the UK too?

 

[Chrysalis]

Yes, there's a region button. So you can select UK. That should eliminate, for example, channels 12, 13 and 14 on the 2.4ghz band in the UK(which can be used in parts of Asia). That it doesn't though is actually pretty meaningless in the context of this discussion which is about the fact that Asus and other manufacturers are now required to lock down the country codes in future sales of devices in the EU, and the fact that Asus and other manufacturers have not exposed to end-users those 5ghz-band channels above channel 48 that are otherwise available for usage in particular EU-member countries (for example, in UK, the four channels available between 52-64 and the other 11 channels between 100-140, all of which require DFS and TPC be implemented). DFS and TPC aren't used for the 2.4ghz band at all. A router that you bought some time ago, which doesn't have a second band, IMHO doesn't exemplify manufacturers who allow customers to change channel settings to use those channels that require DFS/TPC on a transmit/receive frequency not used by a device.



I cited the provisions earlier in this thread. But to make it simple: By agreeing to become a member of the EU, the UK has agreed to be bound by the R&TTE Directive, which is the set of rules that has harmonized all use of radio and television frequencies within and across the entire EU. Ofcom (the British enforcement agency) issues rules that are consistent with, and which cannot be in derogation of the R&TTE Directive. I would suggest you go back into the thread where the legislative and regulatory framework was discussed to get a clearer picture of what this means.

The fact that your Billion 8800NL exposes channel 14 (which is not permitted for use anywhere in the UK or Europe) is hardly an example of a company acting in a responsible manner, is it? Or is it your contention that Asus and other manufacturers should also expose channels that are not permitted to be used in the UK too?

14 has always been allowed in the UK.

The UK also doesnt have to follow all EU directives, it can and has chosen to opt out of many. Although I am not sure if these EU wifi directives you speak off are one of those.

But as it stands, my asus router's are the only ones that appear to have these new strict wifi settings.

I tried to look for some ofcom recent wifi legislation changes but couldnt find any.

 

[jegesq]

...I tried to look for some ofcom recent wifi legislation changes but couldnt find any.

And I don't think you will find anything recent on this subject because Ofcom has no recent legislative changes that affect the area of concern (country codes and implementation of DFS and TPC). All the latest rules changes are part of CEPT-issued regs and R&TTE rules.