NETGEAR Suing ASUS For Wireless Hanky Panky

[Razor512]

This fcc crap shouldn't even matter.

The FCC rules are just as arbitrary as as the speed limits on the roads. (eg the straight section of highway where the speed limit is 55 but at a random location where nothing physically changes on the road, the speed limit drops to 45, then at another location, it goes back to 55, and sure enough there will be a cop at the 45 section seeing how many people he or she can ruin the day of.

 

[stevech]

Actually, I think the FCC's regulations, including Part 15 (where unlicensed WiFi is), were good until OFDM came along with 11g. But the FCC doesn't spend its resources on Part 15 regulations updates, nor do they enforce violations or truly scrutinize the certification of test labs.

Fortunately, WiFi has not suffered the chaos that 27MHz Citizen's Band did - where 1KW amplifiers were used illegally, to the point where the FCC just gave up even trying to license users.

I had a CB license back in the early days, just before I passed the Amateur Radio code test and got that license - which I still have!

I hope that streaming video doesn't ruin WiFi's use in suburban/urban areas.

 

[sfx2000]

I hope that streaming video doesn't ruin WiFi's use in suburban/urban areas.

You and I both - scary thing is that commercial operators are leveraging the unlicensed bands for things like uVerse's wireless cable box extender thingies - and folks don't know/care.

Tragedy of the commons...

sfx

 

[Razor512]

For me, I get the NY style of wifi environment.

In range are 135 access points, with the majority of channel 6 and a bunch others spread out over all 11 channels.

auto channel select does not work properly in this environment as it constantly changes channel.

In my environment, a low transmit power = a very unreliable signal.

eg a router such as a westell 327w or any other low transmit power router will not offer a reliable signal more than 25 feet away. (though when I set it up at a friends house when his DSL modem crapped out, the whole house had good coverage, and only 3 other very weak access points in range.

With the wrt54gl, I got full house coverage but speeds were horrible if you are not close to the router, but installing tomato and boosting the transmit power to 150mw solved the speed issues.

and with my WNDR4700, 2.4GHz is perfectly reliable on the download, though on all but my newer higher output clients, the upload is not very reliable.

Higher transmit power helps combat a noisy wifi environment, and when in an environment where many apartment buildings are around 135 access points, all strong enough to connect to= annoying.

I would prefer a router and some clients that can transmit at 5 watts

5GHz is overall faster for me though not all of my devices support it.

 

[thiggins]

Higher transmit power helps combat a noisy wifi environment, and when in an environment where many apartment buildings are around 135 access points, all strong enough to connect to= annoying.

Your higher transmit power is helping to create the noisy environment. It would be better, although admittedly impractical, to get your nearest neighbors to reduce their transmit power, use 20MHz bandwidth only and adopt a frequency allocation plan.

 

[Razor512]

then in that case it will be improving my wifi while adding more noise for the neighbors.

kinda like being in a crowded room, if you shout over everyone else, the person you are talking to can understand you better, though it becomes harder for everyone else in the room to hear each other over the person shouting.

But it is either high transmit power, or multiple routers to cover a single home

With tomato on my older WNR3500l V2, it reads the interference level as severe on every single channel. So even without my router transmitting at 600+mw, the location sucks for 2.4GHz

funny thing is a scan on the 5GHz band shown only my network and with my HP touchpad tablet, it only finds 1 other 5GHz network outside, and with a yagi, I only get 2 other than my own

Now if only they can make low cost printers that use 5GHz instead of 2.4GHz

 

[JosephB]

I think that this is the correct thread to ask this question about the whole Netgear suing Asus Issue:

I am confused about the Netgear vs Asus fcc compliance issue and concept, in terms of ....

1. What was the default "Transmit Power - mw" value set to the ASUS Firmware that Netgear observed was not right for a default shipping configuration ?

2. What is the default "Transmit Power - mw" set in the ASUSWRT Firmware for the AC66U, after ASUS's released Firmware Update to comply with the fcc requirements for default shipping configuration ?

3. What is the maximum "Transmit Power - mw" that a user is allowed to set it to in the ASUS (or ASUS-Merlin) Firmware in the US to comply with fcc "user usage" requirements ?

 

[thiggins]

It's not really a matter of settings in the admin GUI. The GUI numbers bear an indirect relation to the actual transmit power.

It should not be possible to change the settings so that the product violates FCC limits.

 

[sfx2000]

I think that this is the correct thread to ask this question about the whole Netgear suing Asus Issue:

I am confused about the Netgear vs Asus fcc compliance issue and concept, in terms of ....

1. What was the default "Transmit Power - mw" value set to the ASUS Firmware that Netgear observed was not right for a default shipping configuration ?

Netgear is claiming that the equipment used for FCC Part 15 testing was/is not the same gear that is shipped currently by ASUS, and that the test results themselves were not conducted properly.

Many vendors submit results via independent labs, and there is a level of trust that the testing was done properly, and the report reflects the work.

3. What is the maximum "Transmit Power - mw" that a user is allowed to set it to in the ASUS (or ASUS-Merlin) Firmware in the US to comply with fcc "user usage" requirements ?

Shouldn't be an option - once testing is completed, and FCC certs awarded, the radio is basically done for all intents and purposes.

Same goes with other regulatory agencies on a global scale where the gear is offered.

sfx

 

[TheGuy38123]

Worried?

They further claim that [all] ASUS wireless routers don't meet FCC test limits for Radiated Emission band Edge Test, Power Density, Radiated Emission, RF Antenna Conducted Test and Occupied Bandwidth.

Are there any reasons to be worried about health issues, since their products are failing in radiation tests? (if this is the case) (Could be that someone in here knew something about these kind of issues.)

- and are these failures only the case if the tx power is all cranked up? - Mine is at 80 atm and i believe that it always have been at that value also in earlier firmware versions. (I'm inside EU, Router - AC66u)

 

[RMerlin]

Are there any reasons to be worried about health issues, since their products are failing in radiation tests?

No, because the emitted radiations are a bare fraction of what you get by standing in a room with a microwave oven running, or by using a cell phone right against your head.

Those regulations are intended to control the amount of interference, not for health reasons.

 

[paddy]

Does anyone know of an archive link where I can download earlier Asus AC66U firmware?
(Asus doesn't have one on their site)
I'm buying a new one and would like to 'downgrade' to a firmware version before they throttled it down.

According to the link below, they did indeed, decrease the power in the more recent firmware updates.
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-reviews/32177-asus-rt-ac66u-second-wireless-retest

 

[jerry6]

I asked the same question , problem is older FW might not have security patches . If you find something let me know , I'd like to get a bit more out of the AC 66 as well . I think 3.0.0.4.354 was the last "high " output FW
USING MERLIN 4. 354 BETA signal went fro -77 to -65 on inssider , nothing changed besides FW version . Went from latest Merlin bback to 4.354 beta and signal improved big time on both bands . computer in exact same position , no changes in surroundings

 

[kert]

some numbers from the QuieTek for rt-ac66u

Not sure if this was posted before, but here are some numbers from the testing:

http://wikidevi.com/wiki/ASUS_RT-AC66U

from there you can go to this page:
https://fcc.io/MSQ/-RTAC66U

at which point you can look up this link:
(click on "Details" of the provided links on that page)
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/repo...me=Y&application_id=365917&fcc_id=MSQ-RTAC66U

There you will find a report with test results for this router. Here's that report:
(once you are in "Details" page following instructions from previous step, click on "RF exposure" test results)
https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=1709263

Another link that should get you there:
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/repo...e=N&application_id=929239&fcc_id='MSQ-RTAC66U'

Looks like they measured the antenna gain to be ~2dBi (combined). Looks a bit low, but possible.

The reported maximum power on 802.11n (2.4GHz) is 640mW (sent into output antenna) with power density result of 0.2mW/cm^2 (at 20cm distance from the router antenna). Not sure if they somehow took into account antenna efficiency as i couldn't find any references to antenna measurements. Nevertheless, according to the report, passing value must be <1mW/cm^2.

For 802.11n on 5GHz band has shown max power of 800mW, which gave power density about 0.25mW/cm^2.

For 802.11ac on 5GHz band, the maximum power was 760mW with power density of 0.24mW/cm^2.

If we assume that all three standards and 802.11g (338mW) are blasting at maximum capacity simultaneously (or asus decided to increase power on one of the standards), we get (approximating with linear power addition) 2540mW of power blasting into output antenna (i.e. ~2.5Watts). using the same equation that was presented in the report, this gives about 0.8mW/cm^2 power density (antenna gain doesn't seem to change much for different measurements and stays about 2dBi). It is still lower than 1mW/cm^2 required to pass the test (at 20cm distance from antenna).

It would take about 3.17W of power to get to the test limit (assuming antenna gain and PA efficiency don't change - unlikely in practice), i.e. almost 25% higher than the max theoretical power during the FCC compliance test. It is true that no test should get to the limit, but looks like the router did have some margin which might have been partially utilized for initial production units (to gain good reviews?). It is not known whether they used worst-case units to conduct the test, which is why I would personally like to see some margin remaining. The retest with latest FW (which reduces power allegedly) still shows asus ahead of the pack on long reach up/down links. I may have incorrect info, but even from SNB retest article and some user comments it appeared that the power reduction was ~10-15%? -- need better source to quantify it. If asus was scared of possible scrutiny, the latest FW release must have brought the power back down to what was used in FCC compliance test or a maybe just slightly above it. If so, it looks like the only claim netgear has against asus is that production units are not the same as FCC compliance test devices, even though they all should still be within or close to the limit.

Summary:
Overall the numbers indicate that initial compliance passed with margin and even if asus did bump up the power on production units, it would've probably still pass the FCC compliance for most devices, but with a smaller margin (if any). Doesn't look like netgear will have an easy time winning this case.

 

[njweb]

Does anyone know of an archive link where I can download earlier Asus AC66U firmware?
(Asus doesn't have one on their site)
I'm buying a new one and would like to 'downgrade' to a firmware version before they throttled it down.

According to the link below, they did indeed, decrease the power in the more recent firmware updates.
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-reviews/32177-asus-rt-ac66u-second-wireless-retest

Same question here:
I have 3.0.0.4.354 firmware at home on my AC66U but I am about to install Ooma Telo at my fiancee's place and wanted to put the 3.0.0.4.354 firmware on her RT-AC66u but of course it is nowhere to be found...

Can anyone PM me a valid link to Asus official 3.0.0.4.354 firmware?

Thanks in advance!

 

[stevech]

Not sure if this was posted before, but here are some numbers from the testing:

http://wikidevi.com/wiki/ASUS_RT-AC66U

from there you can go to this page:
https://fcc.io/MSQ/-RTAC66U

at which point you can look up this link:
(click on "Details" of the provided links on that page)
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/repo...me=Y&application_id=365917&fcc_id=MSQ-RTAC66U

There you will find a report with test results for this router. Here's that report:
(once you are in "Details" page following instructions from previous step, click on "RF exposure" test results)
https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=1709263

Another link that should get you there:
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/repo...e=N&application_id=929239&fcc_id='MSQ-RTAC66U'

Looks like they measured the antenna gain to be ~2dBi (combined). Looks a bit low, but possible.

The reported maximum power on 802.11n (2.4GHz) is 640mW (sent into output antenna) with power density result of 0.2mW/cm^2 (at 20cm distance from the router antenna). Not sure if they somehow took into account antenna efficiency as i couldn't find any references to antenna measurements. Nevertheless, according to the report, passing value must be <1mW/cm^2.

For 802.11n on 5GHz band has shown max power of 800mW, which gave power density about 0.25mW/cm^2.

For 802.11ac on 5GHz band, the maximum power was 760mW with power density of 0.24mW/cm^2.

If we assume that all three standards and 802.11g (338mW) are blasting at maximum capacity simultaneously (or asus decided to increase power on one of the standards), we get (approximating with linear power addition) 2540mW of power blasting into output antenna (i.e. ~2.5Watts). using the same equation that was presented in the report, this gives about 0.8mW/cm^2 power density (antenna gain doesn't seem to change much for different measurements and stays about 2dBi). It is still lower than 1mW/cm^2 required to pass the test (at 20cm distance from antenna).

It would take about 3.17W of power to get to the test limit (assuming antenna gain and PA efficiency don't change - unlikely in practice), i.e. almost 25% higher than the max theoretical power during the FCC compliance test. It is true that no test should get to the limit, but looks like the router did have some margin which might have been partially utilized for initial production units (to gain good reviews?). It is not known whether they used worst-case units to conduct the test, which is why I would personally like to see some margin remaining. The retest with latest FW (which reduces power allegedly) still shows asus ahead of the pack on long reach up/down links. I may have incorrect info, but even from SNB retest article and some user comments it appeared that the power reduction was ~10-15%? -- need better source to quantify it. If asus was scared of possible scrutiny, the latest FW release must have brought the power back down to what was used in FCC compliance test or a maybe just slightly above it. If so, it looks like the only claim netgear has against asus is that production units are not the same as FCC compliance test devices, even though they all should still be within or close to the limit.

Summary:
Overall the numbers indicate that initial compliance passed with margin and even if asus did bump up the power on production units, it would've probably still pass the FCC compliance for most devices, but with a smaller margin (if any). Doesn't look like netgear will have an easy time winning this case.

FCC Part 15 used to/still does allow higher EIRP as the antenna beamwidth narrows. I recall, in 5.8GHz, the max is 5W EIRP with certain narrow beamwidth. These are OLD regulations, from the omni vs. yagi days.

The Part 15 rules don't deal with fast, electronically steered beam antennas as in some MIMO systems. Vivato was a startup in steered beam WiFi and they were unable to get the FCC to take a clear stance and change the rules. Another example of fuzzy rules is the EIRP for a base station (access point/WiFi router) with rather low gain antennas, vs. a user/subscriber device with a very narrow beam antenna (immobile). The user device, arguably, can use lots more power than the base stations' sector.

I get confused about thinking the FCC rules call out "IEEE 802.anything". They don't. They constrain the out of band power and they constrain the EIRP no matter if you have a baby monitor or WiFi. Expressed in power per MHz of occupied bandwidth, or some such. The FCC doesn't talk about IEEE 802. Indeed, they don't require CSMA/CA to avoid interference. The rules do require frequency hopping if the power exceeds x per MHz. (The first 2.4GHz I can recall was freq. hopping, not DSSS; it was called RangeLAN).

WiFi is moving in this direction. IEEE 802.16e mobile WiMax has/had steered beam MIMO. Later generations of 700MHz LTE have/will-have it. The rules apply there too, but at different power limits than in Unlicensed Part 15.

Now all this is in the context of FCC rules to reduce interference in the unlicensed bands.
The power vs. range for human health (tissue heating), "SAR", is a different matter entirely.

 

[Razor512]

Why cant netgear just stop wasting time with this, and then join in on the fun?

and just add an option to unlock higher transmit powers in their routers.

most amplifiers (if you look at their data sheets), they will still pass the fcc if it is sold fully complying, but the user then happens to discover a few hidden options.


Even if they outright go and violate the FCC rules, nothing will happen as the wifi industry has no real oversight.

(how many other businesses can advertise things that are impossible to deliver and get away with it)

Imagine if canon decided to make a new camera and advertise it as 30 megapixels but in reality the most a user would get is 10 megapixels?

I say, just make a router with a 1500 watt transmit power, and a wifi adapter for client devices that also does 1500 watts (they allow it for HAM radio, so why not wifi )

It can even make a great ad campaign. Just imagine, the family comes home after a long and cold day, then they ask "what is that warm feeling" and one of them replies, that will be the new 802.11ac router, it gives 1500 watts of wifi goodness, that that makes everyone feel warm inside. Then everyone lives happily ever after, and buys 3, 1500 watt range extenders for each room of the house.


If they can get away with advertising 1300mbit on the 5GHz band and only deliver around 500mbit in ideal conditions, and get away with it, then 1500 watts is nothing, most likely anything short of 100kW will fail to get the governments attention, so they should let the consumers receive the benefit of getting the transmit power needed to get the job done.

(PS, While I understand that there is overhead with wifi, the overhead should not be included in the advertising because it is not useful or meaningful to the real world use of the product.


Some cars are advertised to reach a top speed of 254MPH, and people such as those on shows like top gear have been able to take those cars to those speeds.

Now imagine if the car company advertised the top speed as being 2-3 times those speeds, and then consider the air to be the overhead that prevents you from reaching the speeds (but if you were to somehow run the car in space, on some special race track in space, then you will totally hit those speeds.

Or what if a car company advertised a car as being able to do 500 miles to the gallon but read world you only get 30 MPG because certain overheads causes the internal combustion engine to be less than 100% efficient?

 

[MaxGrit]

Cheating pays, until you get caught. Then you pay.

 

[MaxGrit]

Why cant netgear just stop wasting time with this, and then join in on the fun?

and just add an option to unlock higher transmit powers in their routers.

most amplifiers (if you look at their data sheets), they will still pass the fcc if it is sold fully complying, but the user then happens to discover a few hidden options.


Even if they outright go and violate the FCC rules, nothing will happen as the wifi industry has no real oversight.

Kid, how old are you?

 

[njweb]

Does anyone know of an archive link where I can download earlier Asus AC66U firmware?
(Asus doesn't have one on their site)
I'm buying a new one and would like to 'downgrade' to a firmware version before they throttled it down.

According to the link below, they did indeed, decrease the power in the more recent firmware updates.
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-reviews/32177-asus-rt-ac66u-second-wireless-retest

Same question here:
I have 3.0.0.4.354 firmware at home on my AC66U but I am about to install Ooma Telo at my fiancee's place and wanted to put the 3.0.0.4.354 firmware on her RT-AC66u but of course it is nowhere to be found...

Can anyone PM me a valid link to Asus official 3.0.0.4.354 firmware?

Thanks in advance!

I guess I am going to have to get the firmware file from home (other laptop).
I thought I had e-mailed 3.0.0.4.354 for the RT-AC66U to myself but I could not find it which makes sense since the file appears to exceed my e-mail server limit.