FCC rules impact on wifi routers

[Deleted member 22229]

Safety issues in the USA , not anywhere else, it is the USA and FCC that have issues with the use of WiFi bands affecting radar etc.

Other Countries and continents do NOT have these issues ........... so why do they get affected by the inadequacies of the USA?

Because Asus and others have decided to let the FCC dictate the rules for all. Because it's cheaper and easier that way.

 

[pete y testing]

Because Asus and others have decided to let the FCC dictate the rules for all. Because it's cheaper and easier that way.

next time you jump on a plane any where in the world think about that when you are landing and the radar goes mental on the plane you are on

 

[AndreiV]

You better not fly over Europe or into the UK then as we are about to release many more 5Ghz channels for WiFi use .

The problem stated by the FCC was the affect on American radar systems , those systems were said to operate on different frequencies than used in other countries.........

 

[Deleted member 22229]

next time you jump on a plane any where in the world think about that when you are landing and the radar goes mental on the plane you are on

Do you honestly think there is even a slight chance a home wifi router could actually bring a jumbo jet to the ground ? If this was even a remote possibility routers would be ban straight up.

People have been using and modifying electronic devices since they were invented and I have yet to hear about one single plane that has fallen out of the sky because of it. If there truly is interference issues with routers then simply block the channels that radar uses from the router and make it so they can not be restored by modifying the firmware.

 

[pete y testing]

all countries have max erip limits and limits on what channels can be used , just like in australia the acma control those rules and regs , and yes where ever you live there will be a government department called something that look after that as well

the reason the fcc and manufactures have taken these steps is that some code monkeys have taken it upon them selves to negate this per country power transmit level and per country channel selection and yes this in some way effects all of us

 

[Deleted member 22229]

Other then John's fork that uses older base code and will probably have no choice but to stop building because of the no go back, unless one never uses the newer code. Xvortex and HGgomes seem to think its no issue and will continue breaking the law and just build off Merlin releases. Whats in the new code that will stop this ?? Unless this is stopped i see no point in the new policy anyway. What will Asus do tell Merlin to stop releasing the code in public ?

 

[pete y testing]

What will Asus do tell Merlin to stop releasing the code in public ?

it may well come to that if the exposure comes back on asus and the fcc go after them only time will tell

 

[stevech]

I don't get why there are issues here at all. Cisco and other professional grade WiFi has long had regulatory domain controls in the firmware. So too most of the consumer gear, e.g., WiFi channel 13 not legal in the US., Japan and France have unique channel power limits; some middle eastern countries prohibit use of WiFi outdoors, and so on.

The products have to be configured and sold with regulatory domain proof of certifications anyway, and have customs ID to be sold.

Readers here old enough to have watched the US 27MHz Citizen's Band get ruined in urban areas and in sunspot cycle years - that the FCC gave up on enforcing the regulations. We don't want that to happen to the 2.4 GHz ISM band that is world wide unlicensed.

 

[L&LD]

Readers here old enough to have watched the US 27MHz Citizen's Band get ruined in urban areas and in sunspot cycle years - that the FCC gave up on enforcing the regulations. We don't want that to happen to the 2.4 GHz ISM band that is world wide unlicensed.

I see the problem as plain as day. The FCC gave up on enforcing the regulations in place.

So, the easy way out is to paint everyone with a 'guilty' stamp on their forehead and, what, problem solved?

 

[stevech]

I see the problem as plain as day. The FCC gave up on enforcing the regulations in place.

So, the easy way out is to paint everyone with a 'guilty' stamp on their forehead and, what, problem solved?

Imagine you are one of the tiny few FCC enforcement division employees. You don't have the staff or technical means to locate interference-producing WiFi devices.

Personally, an abundance of caution in spilling RF outside the ISM band edges is what I want, rather than giving an ATC controller confusion or a moment's distraction to a busy pilot on final approach in bad weather.

 

[L&LD]

Imagine you are one of the tiny few FCC enforcement division employees. You don't have the staff or technical means to locate interference-producing WiFi devices.

Personally, an abundance of caution in spilling RF outside the ISM band edges is what I want, rather than giving an ATC controller confusion or a moment's distraction to a busy pilot on final approach in bad weather.

The appropriate action then is to hire more employees.

And 'an abundance of caution' has also not proved to be required (ever) if the lack of responses on that is any indication.

Creating fear and then preying on people's (natural) weakness of that fear is not beneficial. It is a simple method of controlling people.

Can anyone give an example of a current WiFi installation that was a safety concern for any public, private or federal level?

Yes, I didn't think so. There are none. Fearmongering at it's best.

 

[stevech]

The appropriate action then is to hire more employees.

And 'an abundance of caution' has also not proved to be required (ever) if the lack of responses on that is any indication.

Creating fear and then preying on people's (natural) weakness of that fear is not beneficial. It is a simple method of controlling people.

Can anyone give an example of a current WiFi installation that was a safety concern for any public, private or federal level?

Yes, I didn't think so. There are none. Fearmongering at it's best.

we'll have to agree to disagree.

FCC's enforcement division has shrunk to effectively nothing, esp. for ISM and ham bands. It isn't going to change. Despite the $B (yes, $B) taken in by the FCC in the decades going back to the first AMPS spectrum auctions.

 

[sfx2000]

Do you honestly think there is even a slight chance a home wifi router could actually bring a jumbo jet to the ground ? If this was even a remote possibility routers would be ban straight up.

It's probably not going to crash a jumbo jet...

However - since weather radar runs in the same band - an out of regulation AP can jam/mask TWDR - and that can be a problem in severe weather situations...

And that, perhaps, strikes a bit closer to home in Tornado Alley (here in the US, there is a clear area where doppler radar saves lives)

If you don't care, that's fine - put a big fat middle finger towards Joe Six-Pack, and explain to him why you're tweaking your router while he's sorting out his household goods now spread about his neighbors yard...

 

[sfx2000]

If you don't care, that's fine - put a big fat middle finger towards Joe Six-Pack, and explain to him why you're tweaking your router while he's sorting out his household goods now spread about his neighbors yard...

In other words - you should care - FCC has limited staff, and they do take care of complaints when they can -

Seriously though, be a good neighbor, ok?

You all know "that guy" that everyone hates - runs his motorcycle up and down the street, parks on everyones curb, blazes that music (Who let the dogs out, whoop, whoop, whoop)... basically telling the rest of the world to fsck off, as it's his freedom to do so...

That guy, even in a country where we have the right to bear arms, it's a close call...

Hint...

Don't be "that guy"...

 

[stevech]

an abundance of caution ... in licensing ethical flight school operators, may well have prevented 9/11.

 

[pete y testing]

Seriously though, be a good neighbor, ok?

and i guess this is what it comes down to , simply not flooding your neighborhood and bragging that you can get wifi streets away etc

in testing the conclusion is that most larger homes need more than 1 transmission to cover the boundaries successfully , just over driving a single transmission or using non legal channel doesnt achieve the same anyway

if you have 2 transmission points there is no need for high power or even non reg channels and the throughput and speeds will be better anyway

 

[L&LD]

we'll have to agree to disagree.

FCC's enforcement division has shrunk to effectively nothing, esp. for ISM and ham bands. It isn't going to change. Despite the $B (yes, $B) taken in by the FCC in the decades going back to the first AMPS spectrum auctions.

When the system is stinking to high heaven you change the system. You do not put more draconian actions into place that affect most users (and compliant users at that).

We will have to agree to disagree. But I do not see the long term sense of the current actions benefitting anyone in the long term except, yes, the ones in power (at any given time).

If the system is broken (and it obviously is, as the more info that is revealed here plainly shows), then fix the system. Nothing else is even an option, no matter what the excuse may be.

Again, USA specific concerns do not affect the rest of the world. That is one of the important aspects most don't consider or address effectively when defending the FCC's and the manufacturer's position's.

I am not saying what should happen in an area I don't live in. But with the same token, I don't want to be forced to do the same when those issues are not relevant in my part of the world either.

This isn't that hard of a concept to grasp? Respect for all, fairly, truthfully and universally.

 

[thiggins]

Points have been made....repeatedly and no one is likely to change their point of view. So move on and let others comment, please.

 

[sfx2000]

Again, USA specific concerns do not affect the rest of the world. That is one of the important aspects most don't consider or address effectively when defending the FCC's and the manufacturer's position's.

I've dealt with the FCC over the years, and I've always found their engineering side to be pretty solid in my experience.

Folks might have issues might have issues with the firmware thing, but it's based not on arbitrary rulings - there's a sound reason for the policy making - and the vendors had more than a fair amount of comments and discussion around it.

And the other regulatory agencies are following their lead in the 5GHz space - not just to limit things, but also to open things up - I don't hear anyone complaining about the additional 5GHz spectrum proposed rule and order by the FCC...

 

[L&LD]

sfx2000, I thought I was being specific? If the concern is a worldwide issue, then yes, it should be implemented worldwide.

If it is not, which seems to be the cases I'm talking about, then it shouldn't be implemented worldwide, nor even have to be discussed as to why that is a bad idea for most of the world.