Asus locking down routers to comply with new FCC rules

[System Error Message]

It depends on the Mikrotik routerboard you are talking about, i can guarantee that ASUS ARM routers (AC56U, AC68U/P and AC87U) outperform most of Mikrotik routerboards in terms of CPU/Memory performance, i advise you to benchmark them and see by yourself.

The dual core PPC routerboards are actually faster than the dual core ASUS router while being slightly cheaper and running at lower frequency.

For example the RB850Gx2 has 2 500 Mhz PPC cores that can do 2 Gb/s of NAT without hardware acceleration tricks while the best ASUS can achieve is 1.5Gb/s requiring hardware acceleration.

Edit: Not slightly cheaper, much cheaper(even with case + PSU) and i cant get ASUS routers to work reliably without adding some active cooling to them. the ARM9 will beat the old MIPS that mikrotik still sells but they do sell a lot of newer ones that use the newer MIPS and PPCs.

But lets take price and performance into the matter too. my Asus AC68U costed me £160 while my CCR1036-8G-2GS+ costed me £700. My CCR can handle wired L3 throughput(28Gb/s) but my ASUS (overclocked) can probably handle up to 1.5Gb/s. So in terms of price performances my CCR wins easily while also having SFP so i wont need a modem if not on DSL. The ARM based ASUS only beat the older routerboards in performance, not the new ones. The new lower end ones arent meant to be dedicated routers.

 

[hggomes]

You should know better that those number are inconsistent, thats not NAT performance.
Have you really benchmarked your Mikrotik router? I guess not.

http://forums.vr-zone.com/networkin...rz-mikrotik-meetup-rb850gx2-order-now-99.html

About ASUS routers, in the past i had ASUS routers models N16,N66,AC66,AC68U (overclocked @1.4GHZ) and now AC87U (overclocked @1.4GHZ) running 24h/day without a glitch without active cooling.

To be honest you seem to be talking about Mikrotik Routerboards as a fanboy on these last statements, do you really think ASUS would release passive routers to the market not running stable?

We all should complain about it if that was the case, i guess you are the only one.

I have tested almost all Mikrotik routers on the market, so im not shooting numbers to the air.

Are you really comparing Mikrotik CCR1036 Professional Router (no wireless) with 36 Cores / 8-16GB RAM with a ASUS homeuser wireless router?

And btw you are doing non-sense comparing prices on different devices, RB850Gx2 (also CCR1036) is not a wireless router and ASUS routers are, and you cannot even have wireless on it, would you expect ASUS having lower price?

Dual Core ARM 800MHZ outperforms Dual Core PPC 500MHZ in all benchmarks i've tested, try it and see by yourself.

The dual core PPC routerboards are actually faster than the dual core ASUS router while being slightly cheaper and running at lower frequency.

For example the RB850Gx2 has 2 500 Mhz PPC cores that can do 2 Gb/s of NAT without hardware acceleration tricks while the best ASUS can achieve is 1.5Gb/s requiring hardware acceleration.

Edit: Not slightly cheaper, much cheaper(even with case + PSU) and i cant get ASUS routers to work reliably without adding some active cooling to them. the ARM9 will beat the old MIPS that mikrotik still sells but they do sell a lot of newer ones that use the newer MIPS and PPCs.

But lets take price and performance into the matter too. my Asus AC68U costed me £160 while my CCR1036-8G-2GS+ costed me £700. My CCR can handle wired L3 throughput(28Gb/s) but my ASUS (overclocked) can probably handle up to 1.5Gb/s. So in terms of price performances my CCR wins easily while also having SFP so i wont need a modem if not on DSL. The ARM based ASUS only beat the older routerboards in performance, not the new ones. The new lower end ones arent meant to be dedicated routers.

 

[System Error Message]

My main point is that while ASUS routers and routerboards are not equal things to compare routerOS that provides the speed and features that ASUS routers cant give. For example if you were to use NAT acceleration in broadcom ARM routers you cannot use QOS while in routerOS you can have many queues + firewalls with a bit of performance penalty. I have used older MIPS routerboards with NAT, firewalls and queues and got 200Mb/s from an RB450G. Thats from something thats more than 5 years old. Why dont you try use ASUS routers without any NAT acceleration, use QoS and see what speeds you get. Comparing that to something i got at half the price of an ASUS AC router while achieving half the speed in a similar configuration.

The ARM9 CPU is actually meant to be a lower performing one. Im surprised broadcom decided to use ARM Cortex-A9 CPUs instead of A15. To the home user that just want NAT and basic firewall its obvious they would benefit from this sort of routers but for the expert user routers routerOS or even 3rd party firmware works best. This thread is about consumer router manufacturers locking down their firmware and as i mentioned mikrotik doesnt do that. you can install openWRT directly onto an RB450G as an example without using mikrotik's virtualisation.

Aside from NAT i use my CCR for VPN, firewall, cache and run up to 4 networks on the same wire. So yes i have benchmarked my routerboards with really heavy stuff it does achieve it at wirespeed. They also do too well when given consumer router configurations which is actually quite minimal. Show me a consumer router that can do the same thing without any 3rd party firmware. If you take a look at consumer router specs they all have a connection limit while routerboards do not.

What im really annoyed about is that you see every consumer router on this website even ubiquiti but never any mikrotik routerboards

As for ASUS routers their price/benefit is worse compared to other brands. They still are nice routers but they cost more. I compared a 36 core router because i wanted to show that when it comes to the value of what you get for what you paid for ASUS is much lower now. Sure i could even add a usb wireless adapter to my 36 core router for wireless.

 

[hggomes]

Sell your unstable and expensive AC68U wireless router, and buy another cheap RB850Gx2 no wireless then.

 

[System Error Message]

Thats not the point i am trying to make. What i am trying to say is that ASUS routers are much more expansive than other brands for the same thing. I use mikrotik because it lets me do what i need in a complex network with the speed that i need which even 3rd party firmware cant do right. I still do run openwrt on one of my routers to run some things while not using as much electricity as an x86 box. If you compare what you can do with a consumer router to one like mikrotik or ubiquiti consumer routers become expansive while you could use 3rd party firmware but more and more restrictions pop up.

now this thread is saying that ASUS routers will have more restrictions for firmware and wireless region. non-consumer manufacturers dont have the same problem and you can get their wireless APs for a similar price to consumer wireless APs.

 

[RMerlin]

now this thread is saying that ASUS routers will have more restrictions for firmware and wireless region. non-consumer manufacturers dont have the same problem and you can get their wireless APs for a similar price to consumer wireless APs.

Once the new FCC rules become effective, Microtik will also have to comply, or they won't be allowed to sell their products in the US. The rules aren't making a difference between consumer or business products, they apply to anything that is sold on the market and uses those radio bands.

 

[jegesq]

Its a good thing i use a mikrotik routerboard. They dont have to comply with FCC rules..."

Really? Really? Microtik doesn't have to comply with FCC rules? If they are sold in the U.S., they sure as sh*t do.

From what I understand of Mikrotik Routerboards (which is only what I have read) they operate in the U-NII-1/2/3 bands. FCC rules limit power in band 1 to 50 mW; band 2 to 200 (if I recall), and band 3 to 1000 mW. If you intend to use Mikrotik routerboard in the U.S., you must set your compliance region to U.S. standards, in which case the power limits will be automatically enforced.

In fact, you are NOT allowed to use Mikrotik radios at all in the US on the lower U-NII bands. Period. I don't believe they ever received FCC approval in the U.S. . It's my understanding that even if you have one, and even if you set the country to US, it will only offer channels in the ISM-band 5745-5825 range (and then only 20 MHz wide). So this whole discussion of trying to compare Asus consumer SOHO routers to Mikrotiks is really moot, isn't it? You may be getting great results with your stuff outside of the U.S., but that has not much to do with what the FCC requires everyone in the U.S. to do. And I'm not even going to get into DFS and whether Mikrotik's stuff is DFS-compliant (it wasn't for years; it may be now, but still beside the point).

The new FCC rules require that any approval after June 1, 2015, or anything sold after June 1, 2016 in the U.S., has to be "locked" to US rules. Period. The FCC does not want consumers changing the transmit power of their home routers. Period.

So that's the issue for everyone. Sure, you can set up a Mikrotik without setting the region code and blast away. But then the FCC (or perhaps the NSA and the FBI) will come knocking on your door asking what the f*ck you think you're doing.... And guess what? That more expensive Mikrotik stuff you think is more cost-effective than the $199 Asus SOHO wifi router? You'll have to try to get it back from the U.S. government when the Justice Dept files a case and obtains a seizure order for your wilful violation and non-compliance with U.S. laws. And that's going to just ruin your cost-benefit comparison analysis because of all the legal fees and fines you'll have to pay.

Ok, maybe that's a bit extreme, but the point is, no matter where we're located, we all have to share the radio space available. In the U.S. that means compliance with maximum transmit power settings in the unlicensed bands available to those of us who want to use wifi SOHO networks. Me, I'm in the U.S., and I don't need to be a pig about it. My nice little weak, consumer-oriented AC66U's work just fine, and if I need more coverage, I can add another AP or another repeater/extender. I don't need to kick my neighbors off "my" channel, because it's not "mine." It's a shared channel in shared airspace.

So either learn to share or don't. But if you don't, just realize that you're stepping on others. And that's just really a crappy thing to do, and very selfish, IMHO.

 

[System Error Message]

They do comply to the rules but they dont lock their firmwares. It is most likely that they will just have a region setting. They can enforce automatic setting via region but they wouldnt go further. It would hurt their revenue significantly if they did a firmware lock. Many of their customers do use their wireless as a WISP or point to point networks.

One of the things they did to follow US law in having user data available to police is by having a package called calea which is an optional downloadable package. It is an OPTIONAL package even though it is required in the US.

I doubt even ubiquiti would do a firmware lock either.

its a good thing i dont live in the US.

And thats the thing, these manufacturers target the business world rather than home. Theres literally nothing stopping you from buying one of those cisco core routers that level 1 and 2 ISPs use in their networks to use at your home for many Tb/s of routing or from operating your own online service from home. it hasnt come to the point where you would need a licence just to own something and some of the ISPs have the licence for different wireless bands. Although buying radio hardware for such would be illegal without a licence but the brands i mentioned cater to this market. its a good way to have wifi without complying to FCC but thats just inviting the feds to your door if they find out.

Not being in the US i would hate to have to comply to FCC rules because of how saturated wifi is from ill-configured routers hence its a good thing i have looked away from the consumer market. Sharing airspace isnt a problem, its when you have many crappy wifi routers in the airspace that dont like to share and screw up your neighbour friendly wifi. So having a wifi AP that can operate on those non standard channels in a country where there isnt much wireless laws is definitely helpful.

 

[jegesq]

Well, I agree, it's a good thing you don't live in the U.S., because you just don't know what you're talking about when it comes to U.S. laws or FCC regulations. Just as I have no idea what the rules and laws are where you live.

But the point I was making, and the point Merlin made is that the new FCC rules apply to every manufacturer, whether of business-class or consumer-class devices, and that includes Microtik....oh yeah, they don't import or sell wifi devices in the U.S. (so they don't have to worry about locking their firmware). If a manufacturer wants to sell in the U.S., they are going to have to lock their firmware so that end-users can't change the country codes to access channels that are not authorized for such use in the U.S., and so that transmit power can't be increased beyond the authorized limits.

And if Ubiquiti intends to continue to sell in the U.S. after June 2015 (and they most certainly will), they really won't have any choice about locking their devices either in order to comply. You can doubt all you want, but that won't make it so.

Lastly, when you say Microtik does "comply with rules" what rules are you talking about? Yes, they "comply" with FCC radiation emission testing, but you should know that is completely different than complying with the FCC regs governing broadcast radios.

 

[System Error Message]

Mikrotik is based in the EU and have a large customer base in asia. They might sell to the US because it is distributed via vendors and distributers. Im guessing its going to be very disappointing for wifi users in the US and probably a good call to avoid buying wifi hardware thats sold in the US. I think many consumer manufacturers already lock their firmware for this that you cant change it without some really deep changes and it really annoys me that they have the same thing globally. Im guessing the new FCC rules are going to add even more restrictions.

Lowering transmission power helps significantly in a crowded network but many people would just run things at the highest setting without caring about others around them or understanding that their network would suffer from very high transmission power in a crowded area.

One example of compliance with rules is CALEA. There is a wikipedia page on it which in some countries (US being a big example) there is a requirement for ISP to be able to tap into your data to reveal to the feds when requested. Since a lot of mikrotik customers are ISPs they implemented the feature as an optional downloadable package instead of forcefully including it in every product.

Im hoping ASUS isnt going to blindly add the restrictions to every product globally except the US. They are a premium product and although i have an EU variant i still get wifi restrictions and cant even change the ram speed.

 

[jegesq]

You mentioned CALEA already. It's not relevant to this discussion. As you noted, it's merely an optional software module that someone can opt to use.

Frankly, if Microtik can sell the hell out of the Asian markets, by all means, they should do that. But if they intend to sell fully manufactured products at retail to end-user consumers (or at wholesale to business/commercial professionally licensed installers) in the U.S. after June 2016, they will need to comply with the new FCC regs.

 

[jegesq]

One more observation about two of your statements in particular in two of your earlier posts above that deserve additional comment:

Its a good thing i use a mikrotik routerboard. They dont have to comply with FCC rules....

and

... non-consumer manufacturers dont have the same problem and you can get their wireless APs for a similar price to consumer wireless APs.

You will be interested in reading a very interesting story at this link, The CommLaw Blog. It's a story about how Motorola manufactured devices that were not FCC compliant, sold them outside the U.S., and somehow, they got "re-imported" back to the U.S. (to Puerto Rico, which is a U.S. Commonwealth and subject to U.S. laws). Apparently these devices manufactured and sold by Motorola had no FCC ID numbers, which was a dead give-away that they were not FCC compliant, and they were broadcasting signals on frequencies and at levels that interfered with weather radar at nearby airports, and thus posed a threat to public safety. They also had no DFS implemented. The FCC came down on Motorola, and also disclosed documents to the third party who researched this issue that exposed various materials that Motorola claimed were trade secrets (and thus which it claimed should not be disclosed to competitors). The bottom line is that Motorola was fined and the devices were seized.

The blog's author notes the following:

The mystery continues, as does occasional interference to airport radars. Users of the Canopy transmitters have no easy way to check the operating frequency or the presence of DFS capability. But those within the U.S. can – and should – look for an FCC ID number on the unit. If the number is missing, the user is on notice that the device is not only unlawful, but also a potential threat to air safety. For the sake of all air travelers, please turn it off.

Just a little something to think about and consider before modifying your router's country codes and before you ramp up the transmit power of your device in the 5ghz frequencies.

 

[System Error Message]

Interesting fact i guess it means mikrotik wireless devices wont be in the US but the wired ones will. However my main concern is all the brands locking down their firmwares globally and not just the US but having all their products follow FCC rules globally when it is only required in the US. Or perhaps mikrotik like some vendors will only sell wireless to licensed people in the US for use of non legal limits or channels?

As i said ASUS is a premium brand based in taiwan. I hope they dont lock down their routers outside the US.

 

[DrTeeth]

Just a little something to think about and consider before modifying your router's country codes and before you ramp up the transmit power of your device in the 5ghz frequencies.

I fully agree with you. The whole problem would not have arisen if Asus had *correctly* localised their devices in the first place.

I am allowed many more channels and higher power than that supplied by Asus. My router is configured to a non-existent locale (EU) which is the lowest common denominator of all the European countries channel and power-wise. All I want is the capability to use my router legally and at the maximum capability allowed by my country's laws. I am in the United Kingdom.

Asus had been useless in trying to resolve this issue. Head office said I should contact the UK Office, and the UK office suggesting that I contact the Head Office.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.

Cheers DrT (G4DWV/4X1LT)

 

[jegesq]

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. While there may be many more channels in the spectrum, which if unlocked on the router, you could access, most of those are not permitted for use within the EU (including the UK).

It's not Asus' fault nor are they to blame. If they want to sell their products in countries which are member nations of the EU, they have to comply with the EU's rules and regs.

What channels would you like to use that you believe Asus' firmware has wrongly locked you out of? Let's talk about specific channels and then we can discuss whether those channels are permissible under EU regs. You sound like it's Asus' problem or fault that the UK joined the EU...well, it's not.

And if you think it's just the FCC that has studied the issue of manufacturers that don't implement DFS or who improperly implement it, or that it is the FCC "imposing" some sort of U.S. standard on those outside its borders by enacting rules that prohibit firmware that permits end-users to unlock certain frequencies or to change country codes, or boost power beyond certain thresholds, you're just not paying attention to what's going on in the EU. In fact they conducted their own study and the EU has recommended essentially the same rules and they will be implemented just the same as the new FCC rules will be implemented (and when they are, you'll be just as limited as we in the U.S. will be about changing your firmware to avoid DFS implementation, and that means changing country codes and unlocking channels you shouldn't be using in your particular jurisdiction). Don't take my word for it, read this PDF from the European Radio equipment, Television and Telecommunications Commission

You know, I just hate to sound chauvinistic about this, but it's not Asus that made the decisions about which channels to make available on its routers in certain geographic areas, and it's sure as shirt not the U.S. imposing its will on Britain, or France, or anywhere else. Nope, it was the IEEE that developed the standards for 802.11 and they also developed the DFS protocol standards as well, and it's up to each sovereign jurisdiction to decide how to regulate manufacturers so that radio frequencies are properly utilized. And in the case of Britain its the EU and its specific commissions that have that jurisdiction, not the FCC.

But sure, keep right on blaming Asus, and keep on blaming the U.S. FCC if it makes you feel better. But it just ain't so.

 

[jegesq]

And Dr. Teeth, just for the sake of clarity:

In Britain certain radio operations are governed by the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (the ‘2006’ Act’), which empowers OFCOM (the British Office of Communications) to regulate certain licensed types of radio, and which also defines certain exemptions. This type of radio is governed entirely by British internal laws. However, when it comes to wireless routers, i.e., wifi devices, such equipment is subject to the Radio Equipment and Telecommunications Terminal (‘R&TTE’) Regulations 2000 enacted by the EU and which have been adopted in the UK (along with all other EU-member nations). These give force and effect to the EC R&TTE Directive, which specifically sets out the regulations and use of such devices and which channels can be made available, how DFS is implemented and the issuance of approvals for the manufacture and sale of devices such as wireless routers. The R&TTE Regulations also set out the procedures, including conformity assessment, that must be applied before radio (or telecommunications terminal) equipment can be placed on the market.

Just so you know that I'm not exaggerating this or making it up. Really, it's not Asus who decided to "lock" firmware in some willy-nilly way, and it's not the FCC either (at least not outside the U.S.).

And for System Error Message, Latvia is also an EU member nation, so it also must abide by the same R&TTE Directive, at least as to devices sold in the EU. The fact that you've been able to use their devices in an improper way doesn't mean that's a good thing, or that it's desirable.

 

[ColinTaylor]

What channels would you like to use that you believe Asus' firmware has wrongly locked you out of? Let's talk about specific channels and then we can discuss whether those channels are permissible under EU regs. You sound like it's Asus' problem or fault that the UK joined the EU...well, it's not.

Sorry jegesq, I think you're missing the point here. It is ASUS "locking firmware in some willy-nilly way". They are not implementing those regulations that you mention in the way they are meant to (or in the way that, for example, Cisco do). For example here are the officially allowed channels for GB and France. ASUS's firmware only enables channels 36, 40, 44 & 48 @ 80mW in the whole of the EU.

GB 5GHz:
36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64 @ 200 mW
104, 108, 112, 116, 120, 124, 128, 132, 140 @ 1W

France 5GHz:
36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64 @ 200 mW

 

[jegesq]

Asus (and Netgear, TP-Link, D-Link and others) don't expose channels in the 1W upper band (104, 108, 112, 116, 120, 124, 128, 132, 140) or in the upper half of Band A (52-64) because of the requirements of the EU and the R&TTE Directive that devices must implement both TPC and DFS if those channels are used. Put differently, under EU regs, channels 36-48 do not require DFS or TPC, so if a manufacturer does not want to have to incur the additional costs of compliance with EU DFS and TPC, the other channels will not be exposed.

I think you will find that almost all commercially manufactured consumer routers offered for sale anywhere within the EU (and within GB) do not expose channels other than the 4 that are exposed by Asus (36, 40, 44, 48). Again, this is because DFS and TPC are not required to be utilized with those channels. If a manufacturer doesn't want to have to implement DFS and TPC, the firmware will only expose channels 36-48. This is done in order to comply with the requirements imposed by the EU only. Is that unfair to UK users? Perhaps. But there's a solution: Don't buy Asus, Netgear, TP-Link, and only buy equipment that has DFS and TPC implemented.

I will agree with you in one respect, and that is that ultimately it is the manufacturers who make the decision about what technologies to include in their routers, i.e., whether or not to implement DFS and TPC in routers sold within the EU. Does it cost more to implement DFS and TPC? Undoubtedly. Are the testing requirements for compliance greater with DFS and TPC. Undoubtedly. Does this increase costs for manufacturers. No doubt. Could the manufacturer opt to implement TPC and DFS in the EU and adjust its price to cover the additional costs? Sure, and evidently some manufacturers do that (e.g., Cisco). But is a manufacturer required to do this? Only if they want to sell devices in the EU that are going to use channels that require DFS and TPC.

As you say, there are other manufacturers who sell wireless routers in GB that do make these other channels available (Cisco for one). While this may appear arbitrary to you and Dr. Teeth, with all due respect, it's not. As a consumer, if you purchase a router that only implements channels 36-48, there's some good news: None of those channels will suffer from shut-downs due to radar interference in GB, so you can use the full 80mhz channel width with confidence that it will actually be available; if you were to use the other channels at 80mhz widths, and there was any radar interference, you'd quickly find that your 5ghz radios just wouldn't work at all on those channels (given how DFS and TPC work....if they detect radar interference at all, they shut off completely for at least 30 minutes).

You and Dr. Teeth have the option to exercise choice within the regulatory framework yourselves: Don't buy an Asus, Netgear, TP-Link, or any other router that only makes the lower four 5ghz channels available in the EU. Buy another brand that does expose more channels if that's what you want. And learn to live with the impact of DFS and how that ultimately cripples the 5ghz band in the presence of airport, weather or military radar on those channels.

 

[ColinTaylor]

I think you will find that almost all commercially manufactured consumer routers offered for sale anywhere within the EU (and within GB) do not expose channels other than the 4 that are exposed by Asus (36, 40, 44, 48). Again, this is because DFS and TPC are not required to be utilized with those channels. If a manufacturer doesn't want to have to implement DFS and TPC, the firmware will only expose channels 36-48. This is done in order to comply with the requirements imposed by the EU only. Is that unfair to UK users? Perhaps. But there's a solution: Don't buy Asus, Netgear, TP-Link, and only buy equipment that has DFS and TPC implemented.

I have to disagree with you here. In my experience other routers sold in the UK do allow access to the other channels. But as thet say, YMMV.

Also, you say that the ASUS hardware doesn't support DFS and TPC, it does. Just look around these forums. Earlier versions of the firmware enabled this, hence the reason for people staying with older firmwares.

Even ignoring the "number of channels" issue, why have ASUS changed the maximum power from 200mW to 80mW for non-US users?

P.S. I think your reference to living near an airport is rather superfluous as most people don't.

 

[somms]

P.S. I think your reference to living near an airport is rather superfluous as most people don't.

TDWR LAT-LONG Information

You can use the google map link above to see if you are anywhere near one of the 47 total FAA TDWR sites nationwide.

Attached FAA newletter reference pg4 for UNLICENSED NATIONAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE (U-NII) INTERFERENCE TO THE TDWR SYSTEM...