Asus locking down routers to comply with new FCC rules

[nmt1900]

There is no difference between EU countries, previously there may have been, but it is now clear all local laws are superseded by the EU definition.

Anybody care to tell it to Apple? These kind of do not look same to me...

9.03.15 20:44:22.000 kernel[0]: en1: 802.11d country code set to 'EU'.
9.03.15 20:44:22.000 kernel[0]: en1: Supported channels 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 36 40 44 48

9.03.15 19:38:18.000 kernel[0]: en1: 802.11d country code set to 'FI'.
9.03.15 19:38:18.000 kernel[0]: en1: Supported channels 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 100 104 108 112 116 120 124 128 132 136 140

 

[sfx2000]

Unfortunately, the FCC already requested that manufacturers take steps to ensure that end-user cannot change this themselves, and they even ask manufacturers to document the exact procedures they are using to ensure that this is the case. So leaving it up to the end-user wouldn't comply with the FCC's requirements. The FCC leaves no real wiggling room there.

Take a look at the FCC forms, especially that second PDF:

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?id=39498&switch=P

They aren't just "suggesting", they are "requiring" things out of manufacturers here. And the FCC wording is scaring me enough to fear that we might someday be facing manufacturers being forced to completely lock down the firmwares, preventing any third party firmwares from being flashed into devices.

How is this bad? Depends on how one reads the rules - how I read it is that the Firmware for the WiFi chipset must not be modifiable - so this raises challenges and opportunities perhaps - see GPL2/GPL3 and EFF orientation there.

That's why I am being *VERY* careful there, despite what some of you might think. I'm not going to help killing third-party firmware projects.

Wise move perhaps - if you don't touch the wireless drivers, I think you'll be fine...

And locking down third party firmwares isn't that far-fetched. Most embedded device manufacturers are already doing so, through the use of encryption and signing keys. The WDTV for instance (since that's one case I'm quite familiar with) requires that the Linux kernel be signed with a private key, making it impossible for any third party to flash a modified Linux kernel.

Code-signing and sandboxing is not a bad thing - but it does put the 3rd parties out of business... sadly enough, and I think this is the real source of angsty teenage rants on this thread... "It's not fair!!! I hate you!!!"

And before this thread devolves - Hitler and the Nazi's invented WiFi - just kidding...

So if the FCC decides that router manufacturers aren't doing enough, and starts requiring device lockdowns against third party firmwares, it will be game over for all of us. You won't just be missing a few extra mw or a few extra channels, you will be missing *everything* that can be obtained through Asuswrt-merlin, OpenWRT, Tomato, DD-WRT...

The vendors will comply at the end of the day if they want to do business in the US - and most likely in Canada, Mexico, and South America - as these SDO's appreciate the FCC's technical abilities and generally follow in line - let the FCC do the heavy lifting and the FCC has the budget that they don't...

At the end of the day - the FCC gave and took - for most folks, the 95 percent, it's a win - better coverage in 5GHz and hopefully more stable firmware from the vendors - what they took away was the ability for the 5 percent that do like to tweak their wireless gear...

sfx

 

[sfx2000]

Anybody care to tell it to Apple? These kind of do not look same to me...

9.03.15 20:44:22.000 kernel[0]: en1: 802.11d country code set to 'EU'.
9.03.15 20:44:22.000 kernel[0]: en1: Supported channels 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 36 40 44 48

9.03.15 19:38:18.000 kernel[0]: en1: 802.11d country code set to 'FI'.
9.03.15 19:38:18.000 kernel[0]: en1: Supported channels 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 100 104 108 112 116 120 124 128 132 136 140

Member countries don't have to follow EU dictates - they have the freedom to manage their own wireless spectrum as they have legacy concerns with Radar and other spectrum owners that they have licensed out.

The ISM 2.4GHz band was a major win, as this is about as close as you'll find to a global spec - 802.11b Channel 13 not withstanding...

 

[jegesq]

Member countries don't have to follow EU dictates - they have the freedom to manage their own wireless spectrum as they have legacy concerns with Radar and other spectrum owners that they have licensed out....

C'mon....after 16 pages, you're going to make the argument that EU members can "manage their own wireless spectrum"? They "manage" but only in a manner that is consistent and in compliance with ETSI and the R&TTE Directive. And with wireless 5ghz, if you look back a couple of pages and examine the Linux kernel database file for country and region coding posted by Nullity, you will see that every single EU member country's coding is exactly the same, i.e., DFS and TPC are required for mid and upper-band channels, and tx and power are all in conformity with ETSI En 302 567 (see http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/sforshee/wireless-regdb.git/plain/db.txt?id=HEAD ).

And you'll note that in this kernel, the codes for FI (Finland) and the rest of the EU members are the same. No accounting for what Apple may have done with their coding prior to the current regs under the EU Directive.

In short, no member country does what they want; they all comply with the same EU requirements and manufacturers who want their devices certified for sale in the EU have to comply too, which means effective Jan 1, 2015, no more user modifiable region coding, no more user-modifiable power transmit above the specified ETSI maximums for use in the EU, and must have DFS and TPC enabled for those channels that require it.

Apple and other manufacturers no doubt have products already out there in consumer hands that were sold prior to the effective date of the new rules. Those devices are what they are, but they tell us nothing about the current regulations that all manufacturers are now required to be compliant with going forward.

 

[GoNz0]

Thanks for the tip GoNz0

Mind you, if our products don't live up to expectations, that is to a degree what I'm here for...

People do not like the lack of regions supplied, it is far easier to supply an EU to all in one part of the world, like a lot of other manufacturers. On the plus side it is a very moddable router, I bought it to mod it, ie region unlock it so I can run UK specs on the thing at the allowed power levels/channels.

The real problems are with motherboards and lack of UK support.

 

[Magnus33]

I am a little less worried about this then some since in the end companies are about profit before anything else.

A perfect example is netflix which has to provide a area restricted version for different countries.
But as many know there is a huge number of people watching the us netflix through vpn and the like to which netflix basically has put little effort into stopping.
Why should they since they make money and its not there responsibility to enforce this.

Asus is going to be required to lock the firmware down for the US but there not going to want to loose the market outside the US and there nothing requiring to force people not change the firmware or for them to provide a locked one for outside the US.

I don't trust there altruism but i certainly trust their greed to pay little more then lip service to the FCC out the US.

Its not like this hasn't happened before and been gotten around or someone else came out with a better product people can improve.

 

[sfx2000]

There's a reasoned discussion over in one of the other threads - While the FCC is doing their rule-making and soliciting public comments, it's not unreasonable to believe that regulatory bodies in other domains are watching this closely, as many of the concerns that the FCC is attempting to address are global concerns, not just the US...

There's a lot of things at play in the unlicensed bands - not just WiFi, but things like LTE-U/LTE-LAA, and there's big money involved here.

There's been some good discussion in both threads - folks should at least stop by the Wireless Article Thread to review the discussion there. This goes well beyond just ASUS, this affects everyone that does 3rd Party development - from the *WRT community to makers to 3rd party ROM images on Android phones and tablets, and one might even consider Linux on the desktop with some WiFi adapters. The thread below is not specific to ASUS, but does address some of the general and macro concerns.

http://www.snbforums.com/threads/th...cturers-to-lock-down-computing-devices.26712/

Please be reasonable - some very good comments there, and much good discussion here as well.

sfx

 

[Chrysalis]

android 5.x allows region selection again on CM and omnirom afterr pessure from users. Samsung also re added it. Shame about asus stance.

 

[RMerlin]

android 5.x allows region selection again on CM and omnirom afterr pessure from users. Samsung also re added it. Shame about asus stance.

Shame on them for following legal requirements to avoid being banned in the US? Ask Buffalo how their US market share fared following their US ban due to patent issues...

And again, for the xth time, those regulations exist for a reason, not just because the FCC wants to spite you. There must be a hundred posts on this forum explaining why, so I won't repeat that again.

CM does not have to validate any hardware with the FCC. Asus does, and if it doesn't conform, its sale is FORBIDDEN in the US. No ifs or buts.

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk

 

[Flying Dutchman]

In Europe there is a statutory regulation regarding the maximum transmit power for Wireless products on 2.4Ghz of 100mW(20dBm) EIRP, for example. This however does not mean that a radio exceeding 100mW transmit power does not meet the standard (CE) requirements. This has been commonly mis-interpreted incorrectly as 100mW. The correct interpretion is 100mW EIRP.

Wireless Datacom devices

• 2 400-2483,5 MHz, maximum e.i.r.p. of 20dBm (100 mW) (indoor/outdoor, no license or approval required)
• 5 150-5 350 MHz, maximum e.i.r.p. of 23dBm (200 mW) (indoor only, no license or approval required)
• 5 470-5 725 MHz, maximum e.i.r.p. of 30dBm (1000 mW) (indoor/outdoor, no license or approval required)

EIRP (Equivalent isotropically radiated power) is normally referred to the total power output of the radio plus the gain of the antenna, deducting loss in cables and connectors. (check wikipedia here)
{EIRP (dBm) = radio power (dBm) + antenna gain ( dB) – cable/connector loss (dBi)}

So wireless router/AP manufacturers should use fixed mounted antennas in order to stay in control of the EIRP-output.

Like BMW has to mount an intelligent speed limiter in their cars to prevent the consumer of speeding.
Is this likely to happen ?

 

[Chrysalis]

Shame on them for following legal requirements to avoid being banned in the US? Ask Buffalo how their US market share fared following their US ban due to patent issues...

And again, for the xth time, those regulations exist for a reason, not just because the FCC wants to spite you. There must be a hundred posts on this forum explaining why, so I won't repeat that again.

CM does not have to validate any hardware with the FCC. Asus does, and if it doesn't conform, its sale is FORBIDDEN in the US. No ifs or buts.

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk

Whilst I respect your point, its their own fault, they moved the goal posts after original ratifying it, I say tough luck to the FCC.

Is it really that hard to allocate a wide frequency that is not conflicting with anything else? They should just change frequencies of any conflicting radar, far easier than getting millions of people to change. The locked down EU channels on asus routers in the EU is tiny, its barely different than 2.4ghz. So for americans who have a wider range, its very easy for them to tell us EU users off, but the FCC pushing for locked devices has trashed 5ghz now.

 

[Chrysalis]

In Europe there is a statutory regulation regarding the maximum transmit power for Wireless products on 2.4Ghz of 100mW(20dBm) EIRP, for example. This however does not mean that a radio exceeding 100mW transmit power does not meet the standard (CE) requirements. This has been commonly mis-interpreted incorrectly as 100mW. The correct interpretion is 100mW EIRP.

Wireless Datacom devices

• 2 400-2483,5 MHz, maximum e.i.r.p. of 20dBm (100 mW) (indoor/outdoor, no license or approval required)
• 5 150-5 350 MHz, maximum e.i.r.p. of 23dBm (200 mW) (indoor only, no license or approval required)
• 5 470-5 725 MHz, maximum e.i.r.p. of 30dBm (1000 mW) (indoor/outdoor, no license or approval required)

EIRP (Equivalent isotropically radiated power) is normally referred to the total power output of the radio plus the gain of the antenna, deducting loss in cables and connectors. (check wikipedia here)
{EIRP (dBm) = radio power (dBm) + antenna gain ( dB) – cable/connector loss (dBi)}

So wireless router/AP manufacturers should use fixed mounted antennas in order to stay in control of the EIRP-output.

Like BMW has to mount an intelligent speed limiter in their cars to prevent the consumer of speeding.
Is this likely to happen ?

indeed the channels are allowed in the EU, its all the vendors just tip toeing round the issue and deciding to just disable it.

 

[RMerlin]

Whilst I respect your point, its their own fault, they moved the goal posts after original ratifying it, I say tough luck to the FCC.

Is it really that hard to allocate a wide frequency that is not conflicting with anything else? They should just change frequencies of any conflicting radar, far easier than getting millions of people to change. The locked down EU channels on asus routers in the EU is tiny, its barely different than 2.4ghz. So for americans who have a wider range, its very easy for them to tell us EU users off, but the FCC pushing for locked devices has trashed 5ghz now.

Then blame the FCC, not Asus. The FCC are the ones setting the rules, which does not always mean they are right. Asus can do nothing but follow these rules, or face a sales ban in the US.

 

[Chrysalis]

I blame both.

Asus as I said are not strictly following the rules, they are disabling channels that are allowed, thats just plain lazy. But perhaps they got sick of the regulators changing their mind every 5 minutes.

Also the FCC didnt force asus to lock the region selection worldwide.

 

[jegesq]

With all due respect, "blame" is irrelevant. Your feel

In Europe there is a statutory regulation regarding the maximum transmit power for Wireless products on 2.4Ghz of 100mW(20dBm) EIRP, for example. This however does not mean that a radio exceeding 100mW transmit power does not meet the standard (CE) requirements. This has been commonly mis-interpreted incorrectly as 100mW. The correct interpretion is 100mW EIRP.

Wireless Datacom devices

• 2 400-2483,5 MHz, maximum e.i.r.p. of 20dBm (100 mW) (indoor/outdoor, no license or approval required)
• 5 150-5 350 MHz, maximum e.i.r.p. of 23dBm (200 mW) (indoor only, no license or approval required)
• 5 470-5 725 MHz, maximum e.i.r.p. of 30dBm (1000 mW) (indoor/outdoor, no license or approval required)

EIRP (Equivalent isotropically radiated power) is normally referred to the total power output of the radio plus the gain of the antenna, deducting loss in cables and connectors. (check wikipedia here)
{EIRP (dBm) = radio power (dBm) + antenna gain ( dB) – cable/connector loss (dBi)}

So wireless router/AP manufacturers should use fixed mounted antennas in order to stay in control of the EIRP-output.

Like BMW has to mount an intelligent speed limiter in their cars to prevent the consumer of speeding.
Is this likely to happen ?

You are correct about how EIRP is calculated. And of course I see that Chrysalis "liked" your post, but he also apparently misunderstands what you're saying. For example, his argument has repeatedly been that Asus is locking down its routers to transmit at 80mw which is clearly lower than the 100mw EIRP allowed. Of course, the point that Chrysalis ignores is that he's comparing apples and oranges, and forgets the gain added by the multiple antennas which must also be factored into the equation. Asus is simply insuring that it is operating (and obtaining certification from ETSI) so that its devices sold in the EU are operated within the authorized transmit limits, and not outside of them (which they would be if one boosted the radio transmit power to at or above 100mw without factoring in the antenna gain).

As for not opening up channels which he has argued are permitted in England, that's a different story entirely. And I'm not going to go back into a thread with 314 messages just to find the ones that explain that situation to Chrysalis. With all due respect, before posting in this thread at this stage, he should probably have already read those messages and would then know why the argument he's making "doesn't hold water" (to quote Joe Pesci).

 

[snb008]

Just notice this ''Asus' complying with FCC'' issue. I have a practical question.

How will this affect, in any practical way, my using of my RT-AC87U (which currently uses Merlin 378.55)? Say, for example, will Windows 10 detect it as 'illegal hardware' and reject it?

Will I have to revert back to Asus' official FW soon in order for the router to work at all?

 

[L&LD]

Just notice this ''Asus' complying with FCC'' issue. I have a practical question.

How will this affect, in any practical way, my using of my RT-AC87U (which currently uses Merlin 378.55)? Say, for example, will Windows 10 detect it as 'illegal hardware' and reject it?

Will I have to revert back to Asus' official FW soon in order for the router to work at all?

It cannot affect it the way you surmise. If anything would happen, it will happen on the router itself and will affect all clients, whether they run Windows or not.

 

[geo44]

So why is it that range extenders are permitted to run 700mw and routers are not? Ive tried to find an answer , but no luck.

 

[hank81]

So why is it that range extenders are permitted to run 700mw and routers are not? Ive tried to find an answer , but no luck.

I think that's because range extenders are receivers, they only have Rx antennas.

 

[thiggins]

So why is it that range extenders are permitted to run 700mw and routers are not? Ive tried to find an answer , but no luck.

Please cite your reference that says this.