Slashdot Mirror
FCC Requires TP-Link To Support Open Source Router Firmware
An anonymous reader writes: Earlier today, the FCC reached a settlement with TP-Link over Wi-Fi router interference. Most of the agreement was routine, addressing compliance with radio emission rules.
But the FCC also did something unprecedented. It required TP-Link to support open source firmware on its routers. You might recall that, last year, the FCC caused a ruckus when it mistakenly suggested it was banning open source router firmware. In fact, the FCC only required that router vendors implement protections for specific radio emission parameters. But the FCC didn't work with router vendors in advance to maintain open source compatibility, resulting in certain vendors (including TP-Link) trying to lock down their routers.
The FCC eventually issued a clarification, but the damage was done. Only recently have a couple router vendors (Linksys and Asus) affirmed that they will continue to support open source firmware.
Today's settlement is a milestone for the FCC. The agency is finally doing something, with deeds and not just words, to demonstrate its support for the open source community. It would be better if the agency hadn't created this mess, but they deserve serious credit for working so hard to fix it.
But the FCC also did something unprecedented. It required TP-Link to support open source firmware on its routers. You might recall that, last year, the FCC caused a ruckus when it mistakenly suggested it was banning open source router firmware. In fact, the FCC only required that router vendors implement protections for specific radio emission parameters. But the FCC didn't work with router vendors in advance to maintain open source compatibility, resulting in certain vendors (including TP-Link) trying to lock down their routers.
The FCC eventually issued a clarification, but the damage was done. Only recently have a couple router vendors (Linksys and Asus) affirmed that they will continue to support open source firmware.
Today's settlement is a milestone for the FCC. The agency is finally doing something, with deeds and not just words, to demonstrate its support for the open source community. It would be better if the agency hadn't created this mess, but they deserve serious credit for working so hard to fix it.
Now do the same for ISP's that force you to use there routers
... we were boycotting TPLink for its snubbing of the open source community. Now it'll be the easiest target for OpenWRT.
Maybe they can sell the company to competent management and we can buy from them..
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
TP-Link routers have been faves for the Hacking community for a while now.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Nowhere in that document does it say the FCC REQUIRES TP-Link to allow open source. What it says is:
“While manufacturers of Wi-Fi routers must ensure reasonable safeguards to protect radio parameters, users are otherwise free to customize their routers and we support TP-Link’s commitment to work with the open-source community and Wi-Fi chipset manufacturers to enable third-party firmware on TP-Link routers.”
They SUPPORT a company working with open-source, not REQUIRE,
Later on it says:
TP-Link has also agreed to take steps to support innovation in third-party router firmware by committing to investigate security solutions for certain 5
GHz band routers that would permit the use of third-party firmware while meeting the Commission’s security requirements and maintaining the integrity of critical radio parameters.
So the requirement is that any open-source stuff must meet the security requiements and maintain correct operation, not that they MUST allow open source,
I mean, the regulation was meant to make manufacturers restrict users from changing radio parameters (turn off DFS, for instance). That was not possible with stock firmware, only with customized OpenWrt/LEDE. So, what's the point of the regulation, now, after this precedent? What difference does it make for the users or for TP-Link?
How is such a mandate any better than a ban? A free country should have neither...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I like my Asus routers. I get very good wifi bandwidth through them and their manufacturer firmware benefits from features being added to its open source codebase.
They're not cheap, but I think they're value for money.
..in the heart of the interwebs,
Stolen from NewEgg,
brought to America,
Opensource on arrival,
routing for survival
You can plug any router directly into the FiOS ONT's Ethernet port and it will work. Sometimes you have to clone the MAC address of their router and reset the ONT though. I've done this on several FiOS installations in various states for years, it works.
It would be nice to have open source on Netgear R7000/8000 series routers or anything they make!
Don't think any ISP can force you to use their's. FIOS ones i guess could force their's on you but you should be able to bridge it and use your own anyway.
Sure they can:
1. Break the user's feed by reconfiguring things in the company's plant - and do it incorrectly.
2. When the user calls in to get things fixed, tell him that the problem is in his modem and you don't support that modem - or any modem not purchased from the ISP.
3. The user must buy a modem from the ISP before the ISP will bother to fix things at their end.
4. Profit!
I recently had a ONE MONTH! (to the day) AT&T DSL outage. (My town doesn't have fiber to the home, and fiber to the curb got bundled with the U-verse tarbaby and had several other downsides. So I was on legacy DSL. And as an early adopter it was VERY OLD technology - in Internet Time.)
In the process of decommissioning some of the now-nearly-redundant DSLAMs (as they get most of their customers moved over to U-verse), they moved my legacy DSL line to a new box. This box didn't support the modem I had, and they also screwed up the propagation of the routes so the packets didn't reach the new DLSAM. But they didn't bother to tell me (until they finally let me talk to an actual tech, nearly a month later after purchase of two replacement DSL modems) that they'd made any changes.
My legacy DSL modem was old enough that the web configuration interface was an extra-cost option - which AT&T hadn't chosen to buy. They gave me instructions for getting to the interface (IF it had been present) - and we were both convinced that the modem had failed.
I was unable to find the replacement that they recommended at any (silicon valley!) dealership - including the AT&T phone store. So I purchased a Linksys DSL modem at Best Buy that claimed AT&T (non U-verse) capability. Hooked it up, got the web interface. Had ATM sync (yay!) but no ping (boo!).
Called service to get things running. "Sorry, we don't support that modem. We don't support any modem that we don't sell."
So I bought ANOTHER DSL modem - from an AT&T store - that the store claimed was supported. Also a Linksys. An older model with fewer features, but with AT&T approved firmware and from their own store. And about 1 1/2 times the price.
NOW they were willing to debug the problems in their own plant. After another week, being switched to still another DSLAM (becaue the first one they'd put me on was on a router that had also been decommissioned), and having the routes re-propagated, I was able to get ONE of my (changed!) fixed IP addresses live.
And by this time I was past the return date for the modem from Best Buy. So I ended up with store credit, rather than a refund.
And the new DSL connection is PPPoE over ATM, rather than Ethernet over ATM (which the new DSLAM doesn't support). That adds 8 extra bytes to every packet.
And the official modem I bought from AT&T doesn't support a subnet, so I have to run in bridge mode to get more than the router's own address. I won't get the rest of my (changed!) fixed addresses up until I have time to configure a PPPoE daemon on the firewall/router machine (which is currently running software from before the PPPoE standards were finalized...).
B-b
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Weird then that ATT provides instructions on how to use your own router
Another user has pointed out that the instructions are for DSL, not for U-verse. So far, U-verse modems are only available from AT&T.
But you missed the line at the end of the page:
Note: AT&T Tech Support does not support non-AT&T provided routers. Please contact the manufacturer of your router for further assistance.
Which means that if THEY break your service at THEIR end, they won't FIX it until you hook up one of THEIR modems - buying it if necessary.
This happened to me a couple months ago. It took a full month - and the purchase of TWO modems (the second from them after I bought a replacement from not-them for the supposedly failed modem - and they "refused to support it") before THEY bothered to even look at, let alone fix, the problems on THEIR end of the wire.
Now I could use a non-ATT modem. But if my service ever breaks again I'll have to hook up a "supported" modem to get it fixed again. (And you can count on it breaking.)
As you can guess, I'm now looking at other service providers. But from what I hear so far they may be even worse. B-b
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I understand the FCC's position here and all of this makes sense from a legal standpoint.
But all I'm saying is, as a customer who has to implement wireless devices in the workplace as well as what I use at home? TP-Link is pretty much off my list of brands I'll even consider. I believe there are some serious questions about the quality and reliability of what they sell, which may be a reason this "out of compliance" issue came up too. It's part of a larger problem.
EG. We purchased a TP-Link access point recently, as a means to get a networked laser printer onto the office wi-fi network, so it could be moved to an area with no Ethernet jack on a nearby wall. Since then, we've not only had the occasional problem where it has to be unplugged and plugged back in to get the printer back on the network, but at least once - the device started *broadcasting* on its own, popping up a web "portal page" to users when they joined our wi-fi network. Nothing was ever configured in such a way where this AP should have behaved in that manner, and after rebooting the Windows PC that got the sign-in page from the TP-Link, it connected up to the regular wi-fi router with no issues on the subsequent attempt. So this was "phantom behavior" by the TP-Link box -- not easy to track down or duplicate.
And the last time I bought a USB TP-Link Wireless 802.11ac adapter for a PC at home, it only connected to my wifi router properly for about 2-3 minutes at a time. After that, it would just start disconnecting itself randomly or would report it was still connected but no traffic was actually going in or out of it anymore. I tried different driver versions but no luck. I had to conclude it was bad hardware that possibly started acting up only when it got warm from a few minutes of use?
I don't think I'd be too interested in their gear, even if I could re-flash it with custom firmware.
If you read far enough into what the FCC has actually required TP-Link to do you'll quickly realize this is worse for free and open source software than TP-Link locking down its routers. Go look at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub... (the settlement PDF links to this as a source document). In fine print:
"the Commission required . . . device software that controls the RF parameters that ensure compliance with the Commission’s technical rules for preventing harmful interference must be secured. The purpose . . . is to prevent modifications to the software that could, for example, . . . enable tuning to unauthorized frequencies, increased power above authorized levels, etc. The rule is not intended to prevent or inhibit modification of any other software or firmware in the device, such as software modifications to improve performance, configure RF networks or improve cybersecurity.”.
What this means is that the community won't be able to add features like mesh networking support to modern 802.11ac wireless firmware components (I should also point out that we don't even have source code for any 802.11ac wifi firmware... and the people trying to get it are being hindered by these FCC rule changes.. I know. I'm one of these people.). The reason we have great support for Atheros 802.11n chipsets is explicitly because the community has had access to critical bits of code. This code has now been moved to the wireless firmware which is *LOCKED DOWN*.
So no this is NOT good news. It's actually creating a security threat because we will be prevented by gaining access to the complete set of source code running on our devices.
If you want to hold government accountable, first hold yourselves accountable. What's the bigger error here. The FCC misspeaking or the media and the people making grand exaggeration and interpretation well outside of anything close to their expertise. People and organizations overlook details, it happens. It's the reaction from the media and people that really has no reasonable excuse. Your sensationalized knee jerk reactions literally make everything worse and beside the monetization of fear, anger and violence in general by the media. I see no excuse for that. At the very least individuals have no excuse to buy into obviously sensationalized claims. Media SHOULD, in my opinion, have reasonable limits on hyping things up and stirring up so much trouble. Since there is a profit motive for media, we basically have a sociological problem here. How do you allow entirely free speech and not wind up propagating a clickbait mentality in the search for more profits? News, at the very least, is a form of adult education and there is a real danger in not enforcing some reasonable level of integrity in our learning materials. If we allow it to be nothing more than ratings based, yet we continue to treat it as a viable means of learning. I think we have a major problem. You're armchair expertice times millions of people is actually damaging more often than helpful I believe. Experts are experts because they put the hard work and time in to understand the issues. Not properly weighing the years of hard work and expertise other have put in before you is not how you get anywhere fast in life. Assuming without the patience and research it takes to make proper decision is not actually useful. It's just entertainment AND NEEDS TO BE TREATED AS SUCH.
No The F/OSS community must come together with funding for both the from-scratch code AND FROM-SCRATCH HARDWARE with not one blob nor black box to be seen. Pony up the cash and the fellas on the Pacific Rim will build whatever you like. Then and only then will an thousand roses bloom (after FCC and EU certification, of course).
As someone who helped put together one of the biggest filings with the FCC on this matter, with 260+ other people...
http://fqcodel.bufferbloat.net......
(in addition to 1300? 1700? filings from other orgs)
And later met in person with many of the top people there:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filin...
I am inclined to put this result in the "win" column, provisionally.
June 2 came and went, tp-link's router firmware returned to field upgradable, and other manufacturers did nothing to make flashing other firmwares any harder than it already was. Hopefully, our arguments buttressed the legal case ongoing at the time against tplink (I knew there was one, but not against whom, or over what, I hope to get more details).
This does not mean the war is won, however. Certainly binary blob firmware that completely controls the radio remains a problem - but progress is being made with the very thin firmware in the 802.11ac mt76 chipset, I am not aware of 5ghz ath9k chips requiring blobs, and other binary only firmwares are improving to support APIs that fq_codel on wifi needs.
http://blog.cerowrt.org/post/f...
(Recently a few new *major* chipsets had wifi drivers submitted to the linux kernel, but I haven't looked at what, exactly the firmware controls. The state of most wifi drivers and firmware is thoroughly depressing - and a very smart and fast co-processor is seemingly needed to run at very high rates)
Five things I learned from this exercise:
1) If a legalistic solution can be vague, it will be. It then can be spun many ways for many audiences. Read Ed Bernays.
Still, sometimes what is said publicly, continues to matter, and the FCC has said some very nice things.
2) The FCC was not the enemy, but a harried organization attempting to fulfill its mandates. As minimally outlined, their problem was the FAA complaining about wifi interference with weather radars. The first solution was overbroad. They have a much better understanding of the roles of open source, third party firmware now - after the keruffle - of the usefulness of user control, better security, and more frequent updates.
The FCC has WAY bigger problems than linux wifi. The number of wireless capable devices requiring certification and testing is skyrocketing, among other things.
https://twitter.com/FCC is a good source for the FCC's other concerns.
3) If you really want attention in D.C., it is a good idea to make a good argument, with a lot of well known people, file it somewhere inside the agency's process, and then issue (buy) a press release, and make the biggest stink you can.
As it turned out many of the recommendations we made above cannot be implemented inside the FCC's mandates, but the FTCs.
4) Chipmakers can now no longer hide behind an argument that the FCC will not let them open up their firmware.
5) The best "proof of the pudding" I can think of would be to push through a new product with much more or entirely open wifi firmware through the FCC processes, using the CRDA library to enforce the rules. Lining up a vendor willing to try that has so far not happened, although I expected a few mt76 chipsets to enter the US by now, I have not been actively watching their RSS feed for progress.
All in all, honestly, I do think we moved the dial a few notches in the right direction, and I'm going to sleep pretty well tonight.