Linksys WRT Routers Won't Block Open Source Firmware, Despite FCC Rules (arstechnica.com)

The FCC requires all manufacturers to prevent users from having any direct ability to change RF parameters (frequency limits, output power, country codes, etc). The easiest way for a router manufacturer to comply with FCC's guideline is to block the open source router firmware -- which is what TP-Link has been doing. But thankfully, at least one router manufacturer doesn't think blocking the firmware is the right way to go about it. Ars Technica reports: Linksys has been collaborating with chipmaker Marvell and the makers of OpenWrt to make sure its latest WRT routers can comply with the new rules without blocking open source firmware, company officials told Ars. Linksys' effort stands in contrast with TP-Link, which said it would entirely prevent loading of open source firmware on its routers to satisfy the new Federal Communications Commission requirements. "They're named WRT... it's almost our responsibility to the open source community," Linksys router product manager Vince La Duca told Ars. Cybersecurity experts have urged the router manufacturers to not block open source firmware.

Comments

Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent decision. I know what my next router will be.

Re:Excellent

[ccubedd]

I dont know who down-voted you, but I agree with you.

Re:Excellent

[negRo_slim]

While I'm not sure I'll go with Linksys, I am certainly disappointed I picked up a TP Link right before all this came to light. At least I can enjoy knowing that most people only buy TP Link to flash custom firmware and their foolish decision will most likely hurt their bottom line.

I still don't understand what lead to all this, I highly doubt putting a few more milliwatts out or using a few MHz on either side of the allotted spectrum was causing much (if any) actual harm.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be deceived, it's still possible to flash custom firmware on a TP-Link device even after all their work. You can find more information via search on the openwrt forum.

Re:Excellent

[fustakrakich]

I still don't understand what lead to all this, I highly doubt putting a few more milliwatts out or using a few MHz on either side of the allotted spectrum was causing much (if any) actual harm.

It's not like it's difficult to shunt the excess power to ground via a fuse of sorts. But it's definitely not cool if your mods cause interference... well, at least during peacetime.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Fuck no. People are morons and we must not let people decide if it's OK to "[put] a few more milliwatts out" or using parts of the spectrum they're not supposed to. That's begging for localized shouting matches and overuse of allocated spectrum... where both are problems we already have.

The FCC absolutely did the right thing here, and so is Linksys.

Re:Excellent

[BitZtream]

. . . Asus?

Cause Linksys isn't the only ones doing it and otherwise they are pretty shitty devices.

Re:Excellent

[Solandri]

I still don't understand what lead to all this, I highly doubt putting a few more milliwatts out or using a few MHz on either side of the allotted spectrum was causing much (if any) actual harm.

The "open" 5 GHz band spans from 5030 - 5835 MHz. Right smack dab in the middle of it at 5600 MHz is terminal doppler weather radar. That's one of the radars used to make the pretty rainfall pics you see on the news reports. More crucially, airports use it to detect wind shear conditions which have brought down several airliners in the past.

The problem is, because it's doppler radar, the frequency shift of the radar signal is crucially important, not just the return signal strength. So the FCC has carved out a band from 5250 - 5730 MHz and declared it DFS - dynamic frequency selection. Equipment can use these open frequencies, but if they do they have to monitor to see if weather radar is being used, and immediately shift to a different frequency outside this band if they detect weather radar.

A few routers do implement this frequency shifting. The vast majority simply block out those frequencies in their firmware (which is why your 5 GHz channel selection is limited to channels 36-48 and 149-165). But most third party firmwares are made in countries which don't have airports with TDWR radar (in fact most U.S. airports don't yet), so their governing agencies don't restrict these frequencies, so the firmware authors make no effort to limit use of these frequencies. Loading the third party firmware onto a router in the U.S.allows your router to spam these frequencies indiscriminately, leading to TDWR possibly being unable to detect wind shear or detecting it later than it could have without the interference, possibly causing another airliner to crash.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a brilliant idea. Let's put critical life/safety frequencies adjacent (on both sides) to frequencies we assign to mobile, unregulated consumer devices that number in the millions. What could go wrong?

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent explanation. Visually, devices that interfere with TDWR displays appear as a wedge that is several degrees wide. The wedge obscures everything from the center of the display to the edge. Here's an example:

http://fpvlab.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=69438&d=1452686140

Re:Excellent

[EndlessNameless]

There is finite usable spectrum, and Wifi had to go somewhere.

Usable spectrum in this case means:

* not absorbed by the atmosphere
* reasonable effective range per unit power
* harmless to organic tissues
* capable of penetrating typical construction materials

If you're aware of an unallocated band that you think the FCC has overlooked, feel free to contact them to ensure the oversight is corrected.

Re:Excellent

[danbob999]

The problem with the new WRT routers is that they sell for twice the value of comparable hardware from other vendors. And if you look carefully, you can find models which are just as good, if not better, in running 3rd party open source firmwares such as OpenWRT.
The original WRT54G was cheap, that's why it succeeded.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to admit: My most recent purchases were ASUS brands, and then slapping Tomato on them as soon as I got the wrappers off. However, my original post was more of praising Linksys for going that extra mile, rather than being ignorant to all other router manufacturers that are on the market now that do support third-party firmware. In the end, it will at least make it to my short list when considering my next router. The ability to flash third-party firmware is important to me, and I always look for that when deciding on my next router purchase, whether it is for me or for work.

Even in the same story, the other manufacturer took the cheap way out. I know that brand will not be my next 100 routers, even if there is a way around their restriction. I may even exclude them when considering other products as well (devices that were not affected by this FCC "rule": switches, powerline, etc). That is the repercussion of that extra mile (Linksys) / cheap way out (ToiletPaper ;) ).

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a WiFi doofus but I've always had problems reconciling those last two. :)

Re:Excellent

[The-Ixian]

Yet you still are supporting their practices by buying a TP-Link device....

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

he's still got tp for his bunghole though

Re:Excellent

[epyT-R]

Radio is not reliable when shared, regulation or not. It only works when the players work together perfectly. When does that ever happen? It's like cooperative multitasking os's expecting applications to behave. It's a fool's game. If this radar is crucial, maybe we shouldn't share this band with consumer electronics. The FCC failed hard here.

Re:Excellent

[epyT-R]

maybe the wifi shouldn't have happened at all..at least not on that band.

Re:Excellent

[SeaFox]

What's the point of custom firmware when you have to put it on crap Belkin hardware?

Re:Excellent

[davecb]

They seem to be use in a few locations in Puerto Rico, and were interfered with by non-wifi point-to-point devices. An image of a screen showed fixed straight lines a few pixels wide. Teapot, meet tempest.

To be fair, one should arguably reserve that channel in countries that use these oddly low-frequency radars...

Re:Excellent

[Solandri]

* not absorbed by the atmosphere

Actually, 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz were chosen because they're absorbed more by the atmosphere. 2.4 GHz matches up closely with the resonance of water molecules (which is why microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz - they heat up food by pumping energy into the water molecules). And 5.6 GHz is absorbed readily by raindrops for some reason I haven't yet been able to learn (which is why it's handy for weather radar).

Broadcasts on both bands thus attenuate more quickly relative to other frequencies. This not only makes them less useful for long-distance transmissions, but it makes them ideal for unregulated transmissions. The signal blasted by an unregulated device at these frequencies doesn't travel as far through the atmosphere, so the radius of its noise footprint is smaller compared to a different frequency. Basically, you can squeeze more devices closer together without interfering with each other at these frequencies. Both of these "features" make them ideal choices for open frequencies.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

The peak absorption rate for water is around 22GHz. 24GHz goes down hard in rain.
60GHz is right around the oxygen absorption area, which is why you can coordinate multiple 60GHz links very nearly on the same azimuth with no interference issues.

Re:Excellent

[mattventura]

The reason it's an issue is because in the typical race to the bottom, a combination of things is happening:
1. Routers are more often being built using an SoC that includes (at least one) wireless chipset.
2. Wifi cards are more often being built without builtin firmware storage, meaning it has to be loaded at runtime.
Thus, you've got a device with a wireless chipset whose firmware is either stored along with the main firmware stoarge, or has to be loaded by the OS. Think of it like a computer where the ethernet firmware was stored on the hard drive along with the OS. It would be difficult to make it impossible to modify the ethernet firmware without also preventing the user from installing an OS of their choice.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm very familiar with DFS, but these rules seem highly restrictive. I buy a *lot* of Mikrotik outdoor AP/routers, and they all have the option to enable "SuperChannel" mode, which bypasses license control, and allows the radio to use all frequencies and power settings that it supports, including channels outside the ISM bands. I always understood that it is the operator of radio equipment's responsibility to ensure that they comply with all relevant laws and regulations. I have on occasion used SuperChannel mode, in conjunction with a local license for licensed spectrum, and if they removed this functionality it would be a pain in the ass, because I would have to move to much more expensive non-802.11 for my licensed trunks (already using some that I bought earlier, but its no longer competitive with 802.11ac on private spectrum). I've also used SC mode in conjunction with a transverter to manage to hit the right frequency, so as to use 802.11 gear on HAM SHF bands. If they removed SC, I, and other HAMs and AREs, would have to spend more on tunable transverters, as the wide frequency coverage of SC mode currently means I can get away with a fixed frequency transverter, and use SC to tune to a suitable IF.

I'm not really that caring about whether I have open firmware on my WNIC, and I don't know why you would need to ban opensource router firmware to ensure that third party WNIC firmware isn't loaded, since you can change the "firmware" (OS kernel) of a notebook computer or cell phone, or all manner of other wireless containing devices that have locked down wifi firmware. But it does seem like a bit of a blunt hammer approach to ban open source firmware when at the same time you can buy a BladeRF, Ettus B200, or a YIG oscillator from mini-circuits, attach it to a power amplifier and cause all manner of stupid interfence. Banning hardware sounds like a very Australian approach; most countries make it the responsibility of operators to ensure their radio emissions are compliant, as it should be.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a thought, though, maybe a contrary opinion: with the huge number of wifi devices now, it's probable that even with no intentional misuse of channels, that some wifi devices will malfunction, either failing to do DFS correctly, or skipping onto the wrong channel; Shouldn't we maybe modernise the doppler radar, adding spatial diversity and time of flight characterisation to their systems.

Cellular networks are all moving to SDMA and beam forming, 802.11ac accesspoints already incorporate spatial diversity. It's getting to the point where to deliver the throughput people want from any wireless communication system, we have to employ SDMA, as there isn't any more bandwidth left.

Secondary surveillance radar (ADSB and co.), already employs multilateration, a form of spatial integrity check. By adding spatial diversity and ToF to doppler radar , they could both greatly reduce the system's vulnerability to unintentional, *and* deliberate interference, and greatly increase it's resolution. Both RFoG (fiber radio) and CPRI are pretty mainstream now, the technology is available, they just need a few more monitoring stations, and perhaps diversity of interrogators (the multi-kw pulse generators that produce the backscatter). The monitoring stations could be hosted practically anywhere there is a clear view of sky and access to a fiber network, and could potentially be as simple as an off the shelf CPRI headunit with an appropriate antenna and LNB.

Looking at that picture, it looks like if you had two interrogators, you could easily turn that wedge into a spot and discard it with a decluttering algorithm. Probably with a secondary monitoring station alone, with a coherently locked LO, you could do the same.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but the firmware doesn't do that by nature, and firmware isn't as easy to change as software (its machine code, not source code). Its mostly just a dick move by the FCC. I don't think their stick is at all justified. Pointing a laser pointer at an aircraft: that's easy. Adjusting the firmware of a router to disrupt doppler radar on a device that doesn't transmit with hardly enough power to make a difference one way or another even if you do turn the transmit power up and add on additional antennas. Not saying what the FCC is doing is heavy handed, its just that they are cracking an egg that could potentially cause problems if you genetically re-engineer the egg by sending a microscopic needle through the shell without disrupting the yoke, and in order to stop that, they drag out a 60 pound post maul on a 48 inch handle, pick it up, swing for the fences and smash the egg to bits. Just a wee tiny bit of overkill to stop a potential theoretical problem which may or may not occur (but likely has never happened and most likely would never happen). If a terrorist wanted to disrupt doppler radar, there are a million easier ways than modifying the software in a low power wifi router.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

A few milliwatts more wont hurt. Even if you manage to double the power that only gains you 3dB or around 1.4x the range. Of course the power amplifier in the WLAN card may start distorting badly so the actual performance could be worse than without the boosting, unless you use some form of external amplifier.

Changing the frequency can absolutely cause problems, for example right in the middle of the wifi spectrum there is a part (5600-5650MHz) used by airport weather radars. A WLAN station transmitting here will seriously degrade the picture. The transmission power of the radar is very high, but the return from the clouds is rather weak, much weaker than even a crappy wifi box.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

All that's been done so far is activation of a region code and dissemination of hyperbole. Other router models that are popular for OpenWRT use have similar, or even more stringent, protections in place.

If you want to make a stand on principle, go for it. I don't like how quickly they jumped to implement this either, but they're saying more than they're actually doing right now. Real life, budgets, capabilities, etc...

Re:Excellent

[Agripa]

Actually, 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz were chosen because they're absorbed more by the atmosphere. 2.4 GHz matches up closely with the resonance of water molecules (which is why microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz - they heat up food by pumping energy into the water molecules). And 5.6 GHz is absorbed readily by raindrops for some reason I haven't yet been able to learn (which is why it's handy for weather radar).

The absorption peaks for water and other gases in the atmosphere are significantly higher than the 2.45 and 5.8 GHz bands; they played no role in the selection of the ISM bands. As a practical matter, the original microwave ovens which operated at 915 MHz were more efficient and heated food more evenly but were less convenient mechanically because they had to use easily damaged finger stock instead of a choke ring to shield the door.

In general the ISM bands combined with the Amateur radio bands have a roughly fixed integer relationship so harmonic distortion in the lower frequency bands is contained within higher frequency bands instead of spilling over into the commercial and other bands.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought most people bought TP-Link because TP-Link are cheap. Remember most people aren't geeks, people who post here aren't representative of the general population.

Re:Excellent

[bodster]

What's the "Oregon Cost" in your sig? Is it really the Oregon Coast, or some other obscure reference?

Re:Excellent

[peawormsworth]

There is finite usable spectrum

And here I thought the wave was analogue.

"Despite FCC Rules"

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC rules do not mandate, either directly or indirectly, that OS firmware be blocked. Stop spreading this FUD.

FCC statement

Re:"Despite FCC Rules"

[amicusNYCL]

It literally says in the first sentence of the summary that the FCC rule requires that manufacturers prevent users from changing the RF parameters. There's no claim that the FCC rule says that you have to block OS firmware. It should be obvious to anyone that the easiest way to prevent users from changing the RF parameters is to block OS firmware (that's the second sentence of the summary, by the way), but the story is that Linksys is going to find another way to lock down the RF module without blocking OS firmware.

Re:"Despite FCC Rules"

[Anonymous Coward]

You say "Linksys is going to find another way" like this isn't the most obvious, default option that anyone other than shitty Chinese engineering is going to do. The FUD I'm referring to is the idea that the default option is to block system software updates because that's "easier", when anyone with even a cursory background in how this kind of hardware is designed disagrees with the notion.

Re:"Despite FCC Rules"

[epyT-R]

No, but the chip radio vendors are too cheap to hide the secret bits in the silicon, so the router vendors tivo the firmware...

Re:"Despite FCC Rules"

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that is exactly what they're doing here.

Re:"Despite FCC Rules"

[epyT-R]

no.. they're allowing the driver to set out of band behavior. The chip itself should limit that.

WRT1900 AC w/OpenWRT

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the best routers I've owned!

Re:WRT1900 AC w/OpenWRT

[danbob999]

How is 802.11ac support in OpenWRT?

Re:WRT1900 AC w/OpenWRT

[jofas]

Not good. The ASUS Broadcom SOC-based routers are a good bet, but many routers like D-Link, TPLink and Cisco/LinkSys themselves implemented 802.11ac by means of a secondary chip on the USB bus, which has sketchy support.

Re:WRT1900 AC w/OpenWRT

[danbob999]

Weren't broadcom the worst for not open sourcing their drivers?

Re:WRT1900 AC w/OpenWRT

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Mostly, you either go with Atheros, or you're screwed. Intel is so-so, the drivers are there and are open-source, but the firmware is quite troublesome. And the thing doesn't work right.

Re:WRT1900 AC w/OpenWRT

[danbob999]

Intel doesn't make chip for home routers. It's either Qualcom Atheros, Broadcom, Marvel, Realtek, and maybe others.

A good decision

[cyriustek]

I certainly hope that the FCC does not begin enforcing this with fines and threatened jail time. Having the ability to install new firmware can improve the security of the device.

Another thing to consider is that 2.4g is pretty much open game. You have to accept any interference that comes along in this frequency range due to its designation. The FCC should not care so much, as long as no one is putting out so much power that they are cooking meat.

Re:A good decision

[Anonymous Coward]

This action is not a violation of the FCC rule in question. That rule defined a chain of responsibility for purposes of assigning blame when and only when someone is using their wireless router beyond the scope of FCC approved frequency/intensity ranges.

For a fine to come about, someone has to flash the firmware (easy it seems) with another firmware that does not respect the FCC mandated boundaries (I think that would require changing the source and recompiling for most of them) and then pick a frequency and power level that is prohibited for WiFi use.
While I forget the order of blame that the FCC decided on, this announcement indicates that Linksys has run the numbers and determined that the increased fanaticism from OSS enthusiasts for their routers will more than offset any anticipated culpability when people misuse their hardware.

Re:A good decision

[Anonymous Coward]

I certainly hope that the FCC does not begin enforcing this with fines and threatened jail time

Nothing Linksys is doing is violating any of the new FCC rules. Linksys, being a competent engineering company, is implementing the rules in the most reasonable way, rather than completely locking down the system like a dumbshit Chinese design team. I'd bet dollars to donuts that the level of effort to do either is relatively similar: it simply requires a team that doesn't have its collective head up its ass.

Another thing to consider is that 2.4g is pretty much open game...The FCC should not care so much, as long as no one is putting out so much power that they are cooking meat.

It's open game provided you meet the requirements to be on the band in the first place, and these rules dictate that the configuration of your software-controlled radios be forced to operate in the conditions that they were tested. I don't see this as any different than the FCC rules dictating that you can't ship a router with a standard F-Connector for the antenna: it's just common sense.

Re:A good decision

[SeaFox]

I certainly hope that the FCC does not begin enforcing this with fines and threatened jail time.

Threats of jail time for router manufacturers?

Re:A good decision

[Anonymous Coward]

The first time someone releases an open source firmware with a cell phone jammer mode built in, you'll see them change their tune rapidly.

Re:A good decision

[wolrahnaes]

The first time someone releases an open source firmware with a cell phone jammer mode built in, you'll see them change their tune rapidly.

Because cell phones work in frequencies a WiFi router would be capable of transmitting in? Or consumer WiFi hardware has enough power to jam a cell phone?

You might, and I stress *might* be able to push a 2.4GHz WiFi device far enough out of spec to affect the SNR on a Sprint 4G signal using the 2.5GHz band, but I still don't think it'd be powerful enough to actually jam unless you were at the fringe (though having used Sprint 2.5GHz back when they ran WiMax on it, there were a lot of fringes...)

Re:A good decision

[Anonymous Coward]

Enforcement that gives fines and threatened jail time to people who interfere with airport doppler radar doesn't sound bad. They could use the money from the fines to promote awareness that the interference could result in plane crashes.

Re:A good decision

[Anonymous Coward]

just what we need, another reason to grow the prison industry. Lets jail people who bought some booster just to get wifi in their bedrooms.. Heil to the state, comrade!

Re:A good decision

[Agripa]

I certainly hope that the FCC does not begin enforcing this with fines and threatened jail time. Having the ability to install new firmware can improve the security of the device.

Security of the device is not the FCC's concern. Interference to other operators is.

Re:A good decision

[Agripa]

Linksys, being a competent engineering company,

Ok, that was funny.

Compromise

[Espectr0]

Firmwares that ask the country you are in. Choosing US greys out the appropiate sections. If clients lie, then the company shouln't be at fault.

Re:Compromise

[freeze128]

Great. Then thousands of people could be violating FCC regulations due to ignorance or stupidity. Terrific idea.

Re:Compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how it's been handled for a long time, but too many people were selecting the wrong thing and causing problems.

Re:Compromise

[Grishnakh]

Since the US seems to have the most restrictive radio requirements, set the router to default to US rules, and only allow the user to change it if they put in their GPS coordinates which lie outside the US. Most users probably won't bother.

Re:Compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

Far from it. EU is much more strict in most aspects.

Re:Compromise

[Espectr0]

They could put up a big warning when you change the values. Don't be so closed minded. All products already do in the manuals anyway (which nobody reads)

The world is a lot bigger than the USA

Re:Compromise

[Grishnakh]

How so? To my knowledge, the EU doesn't reserve a big band smack in the middle of the 5GHz WiFi spectrum for some kind of weather radar related to airports, and has more 2.4GHz channels available to it too (except channel 14 which only Japan has).

Re:Compromise

[Agripa]

Firmwares that ask the country you are in. Choosing US greys out the appropiate sections. If clients lie, then the company shouln't be at fault.

That is how Ubiquiti handled it until the FCC went after them. Now Ubiquiti radios intended for the US market are locked to prevent this.

Why was there ever really any doubt...

[mark-t]

... that some router manufacturers were going to do this?

Re:Why was there ever really any doubt...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there was plenty of doubt from people who buy into the EFFs scare tactics without question. Those of us who design this kind of hardware were never worried.

Re:Why was there ever really any doubt...

[EvilSS]

... that some router manufacturers were going to do this?

Because it's easier to just lock the firmware than go to the trouble to lock down part of the hardware. Linksys went out of their way in this case to meet the requirement and allow 3rd party firmware. Counter example is TP Link, who just locked their routers firmware.

Re:Why was there ever really any doubt...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's easier to just lock the firmware than go to the trouble to lock down part of the hardware.

Only if you're a shitty engineer.

Re:Why was there ever really any doubt...

[mark-t]

Or a lazy one.

Which to be truthful is probably most of them... but that doesn't make the excuse any better.

Re:Why was there ever really any doubt...

[SvnLyrBrto]

Of if a manager looked the cost of the engineering time to lock down the hardware and allow 3rd-part firmware vs. just locking down the firmware; and demanded that engineering just lock out alternate firmwares. The best engineers in the world can be crippled by a PHB.

Re:Why was there ever really any doubt...

[Agripa]

Going to do what?

The cost competitive nature of the consumer access point market is going to lead to all of the manufacturers doing this eventually. It will be less expensive for integrated radio hardware to support restrictions through the firmware so eventually that is how they will all work.

Re:Why was there ever really any doubt...

[Agripa]

If that is the least expensive option, then the engineer is doing a fine job.

Re:Why was there ever really any doubt...

[mark-t]

Going to do what?

Allowing end-user updates to the firmware (ie, not necessarily only vendor approved firmware images), while not allowing the end user to make updates to power utilization or frequencies used by the on-board radio.

I always figured that some might lock their firmware down entirely in response to the new regulations, but I also figured there would be some that wouldn't... and competition will probably drive virtually all of the manufacturers who would have otherwise allowed such end-user upgrades to their firmware to take place at all to still do so, while doing what linksys is doing, and prohibiting end-user alteration of the parameters needed for the radio transmitter.

Come on, man!

[Anonymous Coward]

"doesnâ(TM)t"

This makes Slashdot look like a shit-hole. Do you guys have no pride?

Re:Come on, man!

[Anonymous Coward]

My unscientific survey has concluded that people would rather complain about burnt toast instead of adjusting the setting. In other words, you will hear crying about no unicode, instead of the editors correcting the type. Your political elections operate under the same rules. It's all complaints and denials.

Attn: Slashdot
We don't need no stinking unicode! Don't let the crybabies ruin this place.

I have to post AC due to the karma damage my opinion suffers for speaking out.

Re:Come on, man!

[Anonymous Coward]

I doe suh not mit know what you're talking about.

Re:Come on, man!

[mark-t]

From your comment, I believe that it may have escaped your attention that we are no longer living in the 20th century.

Re:Come on, man!

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes this site look like it was designed by 5th graders. No, they would probably do a better job.

Re:Come on, man!

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Shame on submitters for ever using curly quotes for anything.

Re:Come on, man!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are also people who actively dislike the unicode character set, I've had a HLDS instance running for years that automatically bans anyone who connects with a non-ASCII character in their name.

Re:Come on, man!

[lister king of smeg]

My unscientific survey has concluded that people would rather complain about burnt toast instead of adjusting the setting. In other words, you will hear crying about no unicode, instead of the editors correcting the type. Your political elections operate under the same rules. It's all complaints and denials.

Attn: Slashdot
We don't need no stinking unicode! Don't let the crybabies ruin this place.

I have to post AC due to the karma damage my opinion suffers for speaking out.

how about letting us us the degree symbol or the cents sign or umlaut or ae ligature. we can still ban emojis and I would be quite content.

Re:Come on, man!

[Anonymous Coward]

The risk/benefit ratio simply doesn't justify it. Regular ASCII offers up all the accents and umlauts you need. You have nothing to complain about.

Re:Come on, man!

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean like this? - æ

or this? - ü

The other shit? Oh well, can't win 'em all. It's not worth the trouble

Re:Come on, man!

[epyT-R]

support for that would turn this place into emoticon hell. Fuck that.

Re:Come on, man!

[mark-t]

I would imagine that any risks would depend on encoding. If utf8 is used, for instance, then filtering out the invalid characters amounts to at most a half-dozen or so extra lines of C code beyond that of what you would find in a very naive decoder, any risks beyond that are non-existent, and the benefit gained is access to international character sets, as well as many symbols that cannot be adequately represented in ascii.

The only excuse to not implement it in this day and age now is laziness.

And hey, if that's the excuse, then at least be honest about it instead of trying to justify inaction by saying that unicode doesn't offer significant enough advantages (which is subjective) or making some claim that proper unicode handling is hard (which it isn't).

As a European, I am worried.

[Anonymous Coward]

We get to use more frequencies than the US. I've owned wireless devices which couldn't connect to networks on channel 13, because they were hard locked to US rules, despite being sold in Europe. I sincerely hope that they only strictly enforce a chosen set of rules, instead of enforcing which set of rules the users can choose.

Re:As a European, I am worried.

[jofas]

Typically, wrt-based firmwares unlock this "region" stuff. If you don't have access to 13 on a device with stock firmware, that device is not certified for sale in your region and you should return it.

Re:As a European, I am worried.

[wolrahnaes]

We get to use more frequencies than the US. I've owned wireless devices which couldn't connect to networks on channel 13, because they were hard locked to US rules, despite being sold in Europe. I sincerely hope that they only strictly enforce a chosen set of rules, instead of enforcing which set of rules the users can choose.

Don't use channel 13.

Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

1, 6, 11, and 14 where available are the only channels anyone should use. They allow the most non-overlapping use of the available spectrum. If you use anything else, you've now limited the choices of everyone around who wants to avoid interference.

IMO AP vendors should really lock down the channel selection. The legitimate reasons to use any other channels are so rare and specialized that it at least shouldn't be easy to do.

Re:As a European, I am worried.

[Anonymous Coward]

While it is common in Europe to use the same channels as in the US (1, 6, 11), we can make better use of the spectrum with four channels, 1, 5, 9, 13. See the link you provided. Even with 802.11b, the overlap is small and limited to the attenuated edges of the channel bandwidth. The gained fourth channel more than offsets the negligible problems caused by interference. Channel 14 is not available in Europe.

Summary

[DrYak]

The FCC rules do not mandate, either directly or indirectly, that OS firmware be blocked.

Which was already explained in the Summary.

I know this is /. and nobody reads TFA, but you could at least read a little bit past the title and at least read the summary.

A title has limited number of words and characters: "despide FCC rulins" is as mush as the author managed to cram into it.

And the FCC *IS* causing most manufacturer to lock their firmware. FCC doesnt madante litteraly against opensource and user-upgradeable firmware, but the ruling is strict. No unlawful signal shall be emitted by a device. Under no circumstances.

- Either a manufacturer has to jump through some complex hoops to find a solution which both open and user accessible (following the spirit of the GPL license used by some component. And litteraly following GPLv3) AND at the same time prevent the end-user from emitting signals that fiolated FCC rules (e.g.: emitting on a EU-only frequency in USA).

- Or the manufacturer could just lock everything in a box, and only let cryptographically-signed firmwares in, and call it a day. (and hope no GPLv3 got violated in the process).

Nearly every constructor goes for the latter. Only LinkSys Fritz and a few other go for the former

Re:Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that it's clarified in the summary makes the headline even more inexcusable in my opinion.

Re:Summary

[EndlessNameless]

Or the manufacturer could just lock everything in a box, and only let cryptographically-signed firmwares in, and call it a day. (and hope no GPLv3 got violated in the process)

It does not violate the GPL if they only allow signed firmware.

As long as they provide the source code, they are fulfilling their licensing obligations.

Re:Summary

[EvilSS]

And yet... https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9105595&cid=52105989

Re:Summary

[kimvette]

True of <= GPLv2.
Untrue of >= GPLv3.

Re:WRT sposed to mean something to me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your question makes no fucking sense.

Re:great editing

[Anonymous Coward]

ibid

Gross Misrepresentation of the Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC rules do NOT, I repeat, do NOT forbid allowing users to adjust output power. Nor do they prohibit allowing users to change frequency.

They do, however, prohibit allowing users to increase the power beyond that for which the device is type certified, or adjust the frequency outside the range for which it is certified. All type certified devices are allowed to operate at lower than the maximum output power.

Also, the rules apply ONLY in the 5GHz U-NII band and NOT ANY OTHER BAND.

If you actually read the goddamn letter, here is what it says,

"The purpose of this rule is to prevent modifications to the software that could, for example, disable dynamic frequency selection (technology necessary for preventing interference to radars), enable tuning to unauthorized frequencies, increase power above authorized levels, etc."

You can still adjust the RF output power all you want, and adjust frequency selection except that you may not disable the software that protects radar frequencies.

The nerd media has been misrepresenting this since day 1, so you should not be surprised that the manufacturers are in a panic - apparently not even they know how to read the actual letters.

Re:WRT sposed to mean something to me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the early WRT54G series of routers were known to be easily flashable with third party firmware. Later version were nerfed to reduce cost, but Linksys relented after a backlash from the community, and released WRT54GL, which is third-party-firmware-friendly again, even if it is at a considerable cost (last time I checked these were still going for CAD$60-70 a pop, despite it having obsolete BG-only hardware). Now, it is more synonymous to allowing third-party firmware to be installed on them, even releasing a number of other products with N and AC wifi under the same "WRT" label (look at this; a WRT1900 router that supports AC and marketed as third-party-firmware-friendly and continues its proud tradition).

If you are not that much into flashing alternative firmwares for your router, of course, you are not going to care about it anyway. However, even Google seems to know what I mean: define:WRT

Features

[Frederic54]

I do not not install a 3rd party firmware to use channel 13 or crank power output, but for features:

• Wireless bridge
• OpenVPN client
• OpenVPN server
• Powerful QOS
• IP traffic monitoring
• IPv6
• Multiple SSID
• Full USB support (printer, HDD, 4G, etc)
• VLAN
• MultiWAN
• etc

All this on a $79 router.

Re:Features

[wierd_w]

Some devices are even cheaper. The ZSUN sdcard sharing adapter is only 11$ off amazon. It can run openwrt, meaning basically all of your listed features are possible (vlan not so much, only 1, unconnected, physical ethernet header).

I has 2 wifi radios, so it makes a very cheap repeater, and has a reasonably fast internal SDCard slot, so it could do light duty fileserving. With a little hardware modification, it could do USB print serving as well. (Designed to be powered from a USB port, but is wired in host configuration, not gadget. This means that if you supply power to the voltage pins, and put a gender changer on the connector, it should be able to see a connected printer and still operate.)

Mostly the FCC just doesnt want to deal with people in the US telling the router that they live in Japan, and thus using spectrum on the far edge of the 2.4ghz and 5ghz bands that are not public license in the US.

The chip makers are cheap fucks and control the radios with a volatile software blob (looking at you broadcomm) which means that an open platform like linux is able to push custom blobs on at boot time. Because the chip makers wont right thier wicked ways, the router oems just lock the device down in order to comply. The FCC would have done better to go after broadcomm and pals, if you ask me. Marvel, mentioned in the article, does things right with actual honest to god firmware controlling the radio.

Re:Features

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you are being facetious, but basically every router on the market that costs more than 40$ supports all of those features. Really, just buy a router whose stock firmware is based on openwrt, such as an asus router.

Re:Features

[Anonymous Coward]

I [sic] has 2 wifi radios

No, it doesn't have 2 wifi radios. Like all devices based on the Atheros AR9331 chip, it only has one wifi radio, but it can be operated as a client and an access point simultaneously.

Re:Features

[JohnFen]

But then I have to trust that the stock firmware doesn't do nefarious things like phone home or present a back door. And I don't have that level of trust at all.

So TP-LINK router has the features you want then?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what does it matter then if WRT is hackable? Is that all TP-LINK that have that or only new ones?

Suckers for scare tactics???

[davecb]

Vint Cerf and Dave Taht?

Linksys is misleading people about the openness

[Anonymous Coward]

The device is dependent on chipsets which need proprietary software. This is why the suck for things like mesh networking. The community isn't able to add the features that are needed. If Linksys built there product off open source software then we would have a problem. Linksys has not solved the problem here. They merely getting upstream chipset vendor to modify the firmware to support reading a read-only EEPROM chip which contains the specifications for the region the product is being sold it- or something to this effect. It doesn't solve the problem *at all*. We're really talking about a locked down device still.

FCC: "protect from flash & installation of DD-

[raymorris]

Here's the exact wording of what the FCC required manufacturers to do before they can sell a device in the US. This is copy-paste from the FCC rule:

          Describe in detail how the device is protected
from "flashing" and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT.

After we wrote thousands of letters to the FCC, the wording was slightly changed. The practical effect is still that most manufacturers will in fact lock the firmware, because the FCC's requirements are most readily met by doing so.

FCC: must protect from flashing DD-WRT

[raymorris]

Here's the exact wording of what the FCC required manufacturers to do before they can sell a device in the US.
> The nerd media has been misrepresenting this since day 1

This is copy-paste from the FCC rule:

                    Describe in detail how the device is protected
from "flashing" and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT.

AFTER we wrote thousands of letters to the FCC, the wording was slightly changed. The practical effect is still that most manufacturers will in fact lock the firmware, because the FCC's requirements are most readily met by doing so.

Ps: the stated purpose of Patriot Act is for terro

[raymorris]

Ps, it is error to just read the part about "the purpose of this law is to ______" and then assume it does exactly that and nothing else, as you have done. The Patriot Act says "the purpose of this act is to protect Americans from terrorism ". That must mean it's a good law, right? Protecting people from terrorism is good.

      No, you actually have to read what the law REQUIRES. That's more important than its claims about WHY it exists. In this case, the FCC rule did explicitly require that manufacturers prevent "flashing" and the installation of dd-wrt.

Router?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this was about Wi-Fi. Has the technical competency of the /. crowd really gone down this much?

Which router model?

[antdude]

WRT54GL? Can it do gigaspeed with these open source firmwares?

RF parameter?

[RockDoctor]

ability to change RF parameters (frequency limits, output power, country codes,

Since when was a country code (up there in the datagram levels of the network model) a parameter of the radio frequency?

I know that different ranges of properties are permitted in different countries, and those may be keyed by lists under country codes - but if that's what they mean they've chosen a really shitty way to express it.