Perhaps overstated that this is a direct quote from the FCC. But according to this ArsTechnica article (http://arstechnica.com/information-...wi-fi-routers-but-the-truth-is-a-bit-murkier/), it seems that at least several telecom and chipmaker insiders (who do have access to sources inside the FCC) believe that the only thing the FCC really wants is to lock down are the radios (and not other aspects of firmware or hardware) so that end users 1) can't change transmit power or 2) use frequencies they shouldn't be on that interfere with civil, military and weather radar.
and this
And @ Chrysalis:
It's not that any about 5ghz is "bad". But the FCC is concerned about the issues noted above. I think the talk about limiting open source and locking out firmware from third party sources has largely been a result of some overzealous staffers (not the FCC commissioners themselves) who have written some very bad text in the call for public comment, which specifically identified, e.g., locking out firmware such as DDWRT and other open source, and, as the Ars article suggests, there's been a lot of push-back because of that overly broad and badly worded text.
1. The FAA, NOAA and the U.S. military aren't going to relocate weather, civil aviation or military installations, not at all reasonable. Better and far cheaper to keep you and your wireless router (and me and mine) off of their channels than vice-versa;
2. The solution has been to implement DFS (Dynamic Frequency Selection) and TPC (Transmit Power Control) on wireless routers for SOHO use, but as some here have discovered, DFS isn't always implemented properly by manufacturers, it hasn't always been enabled (even when it was supposed to be), and a lot of people who think their "tiny" transmitter can't affect radar (and thus can't affect civil aviation or weather radar which affects the life and safety of so many) mod their CFE so that they can avoid TPC and boost transmit power to silly levels; so the FCC's primary objective has been, for several years, to lock this aspect of router hardware down so it can't be modified.
3. And radar is different here in the U.S. than it is in Europe (different types of radar, different frequencies, really completely different technologies) and the logistical concerns and jurisdictional issues are also far different for the EU than they are for the U.S., so this is why you need differently configured devices for different world regions.
4. And lastly, it's not the FCC that limits manufacturers as to what they can and can't do outside the U.S.. It is of course true that the FCC has enormous influence over all of North America (including Canada and Mexico), but it's only real jurisdiction is over the U.S. states and territories (as well as offshore commonwealths like Puerto Rico, which is neither a state nor a territory of the U.S.). But in Europe there is ETSI, and the Japanese largely influence much of Southeast Asia (and interestingly, Chile too and a couple of other regions). While ETSI shares the same concerns about locking down wifi routers so that 1) users cannot modify transmit power above what is authorized in the EU and 2) wants to also insure that users cannot access frequencies on which their particular radar is used, and the two generally trade and share information all the time, they are really completely different regulatory bodies with entirely different jurisdictional mandates.
I think from the perspective of a small network user, our concerns are probably a lot different than the HAM guys who want to mod low power equipment for use in creating emergency mesh networks, and from what I've read (I'm not a Ham and know literally nothing about that stuff), they have other concerns than those that would interest folks like you and me and most of us here at SMB.
Last edited:
).
