Better off just building your own router. The high brow option is an embedded motherboard and minipcie wifi card. If the hardware is powerful enough to MASQ gigabit, it won't be obsolete for a decade. And you can upgrade wireless standards with a new card. The only reason there's such an upgrade cycle for consumer routers is that they're built shoddily and with the slowest CPU possible.
And as much as I appreciate spectrum partitioning, we really need to get the major wifi chipsets completely reverse engineered so we can blow away this ambiguous spectre of "unauthorized" modifications and turn them into something normal. Randos stomping on ch12-15 isn't an actual problem - but that widespread rulebreaking coupled with the unknown of what further mods could do is scary to regulators. Destroy that unknown.
> And as much as I appreciate spectrum partitioning, we really need to get the major wifi chipsets completely reverse engineered so we can blow away this ambiguous spectre of "unauthorized" modifications and turn them into something normal. Randos stomping on ch12-15 isn't an actual problem - but that widespread rulebreaking coupled with the unknown of what further mods could do is scary to regulators. Destroy that unknown.
There was a lot of resistance to allowing unlicensed use of 5.25-5.35 GHz and 5.47-5.725 GHz precisely because some were afraid that unauthorized modifications would be commonplace, and devices could not be relied upon to sense and avoid the RADAR systems that also operate in those bands. So bear in mind that the more you insist on modifying, the harder it will be to persuade the FCC to open up new unlicensed bands.
> The only reason there's such an upgrade cycle for consumer routers is that they're built shoddily and with the slowest CPU possible.
A lot of this is that consumers have been taught that routing, NAT, etc isn't done by a general purpose computing device like a PC or server, but that those tasks MUST be relegated to an appliance.
But compute is compute, and antennas are antennas. And the word "appliance" has long held a secret meaning of "a Linux server on your Windows (or local area) network."
If that's the highbrow option, what's a mini-ITX motherboard with an AMD 5350, 4GB RAM, an SSD and an Intel 4-port gig-e card plus the onboard gig-e?
Scout NewEgg for combos -- you too can run a fully supported OS on x86-64 instruction sets with familiar hardware, but at a low cost of both purchase and power.
Highly unlikely and unnecessarily expensive. It's also a hassle to make a nice enclosure for what you build. Instead, you can currently consult the OpenWRT website, pick up any of many widely available $50 routers, and be set.
I don't care if it can MASQ gigabit since I don't have a gigabit connection. Whatever slowest CPU possible they put in there is more than enough to run a couple of VLANs, VPNs, IPv6 tunnel, and Samba. Not only that but you can easily recycle older hardware (for additional APs for example) or reuse what you already have.
Alright, after searching on this a little bit more, it seems that the FCC is not prohibiting the installation of software like OpenWRT or DD-WRT, but are instead mandating that there is software for the radios only that ensures they operate in the manner they are certified for.
Given appropriately designed radio hardware, this would be a non-issue. But given the radios that are on the market right now, this could be a very bad thing in the short term for the most open products that are the only affordable platforms for further R&D of Linux-based wireless router software. Anything that would take ath9k hardware off the market before an equally-open successor is available would be more damaging than any interference these products are capable of producing.
This is where technical regulations meet with real world implementation. To have a "locked down" radio will increase the cause of the Appliance, computers and other devices. Manufacturers will take the cheapest way to implement these regulations, the cheapest way will be to lock down the entire device. An example of this is the Lenovo WiFi White lists in BIOS, there are other ways for Lenovo to comply with the regulation but it is cheaper to simply only allow approved wifi modules instead of implement a more costly solution
So while the rules may not directly ban custom firmware, that will be the implementation result of these regulations. less than 1% of consumers ever customize their devices so if a manufacturer even has to Spend $0.01 more per device to enable the ability to customize they will not do it.
I recently bought an ADSL modem/router TP-Link 8970 (or something). The thing is awesome, except for that fact that it doesn't support OpenVPN... Supports PPTP or IPSec.
Now if only, I could install OpenWRT on it. Since OpenWRT makes ROUNDS around every custom software I've seen on low-end ADSL modem/routers makes me wonder why on earth companies don't just ship OpenWRT and get over with it?
Their firmware is the feature they're selling you. The hardware is generic and without their wonderful firmware, they'd be competing solely on price. This is what the skinjobs think, at least.
BTW, openvpn performance sucks eggs on the processors used in consumer routers.
Asshats brought it on themselves, don't commit felonies and mess with regulatory bodies...
There is no reason in the world to run Wifi on outlawed channels other than pure selfishness to have a better connection and not be on the same base band or expansion bands as your neighbors.
The FCC even allowed people to run low power transmitters on the restricted channels 12/13 but stated that channel 14 is banned and asked nicely for people not to dick around with it.[1]
https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/presentations/files/oct05/...
Now it doesn't matter why is that channel blocked, it's not a licensed channel in many countries (as they are used for air traffic landing assist systems, radars, medical equipment such as panic buttons for elderly and disabled people, alarms etc...) and it seems like it is causing interference other wise the FCC would not be chasing this issue again after relaxing the regulations for restricted channels and asking the users to behave.
It's a felony to tweak your Wifi beyond specs, it causes issues and regulatory bodies react, OpenWRT and DD-WRT could've saved them selves the trouble by developing a mechanism to respect local regulation own their own.
Also as it seems people panic too quickly what will happen is the same thing with the radio's on mobile SOC's each region will have it's own channels enabled, you'll still be able to use DD-WRT or w/e you want in the end you won't be able to play with the Wifi settings out of spec which there's no reason in the world for you to be able to in the 1st place.
> It's a felony to tweak your Wifi beyond specs, it causes issues and regulatory bodies react, OpenWRT and DD-WRT could've saved them selves the trouble by developing a mechanism to respect local regulation own their own.
The Linux kernel has such mechanisms and they're not trivial to bypass. You'd as a user have to go out of your way to do so, and the devs are not in favour of users doing this. (source: I had to do so to workaround a card that was configured for completely the wrong regulatory domain).
I've been using Tomato firmware for years, and I never did anything illegal with it. How did I bring it on myself exactly?
> you'll still be able to use DD-WRT or w/e you want
RTFA: Vendors will have to “describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT”
As far as I know, all of the issues at hand could be solved with baked-in hardware lockouts without otherwise affecting custom firmware, but that's not what the FCC is demanding.
Does this affect phones that can be used as hotspots? If so, you can say goodbye to any remaining Android phones that come with unlocked bootloaders, such as the Nexus series.
The unintended consequences of this will be millions upon millions of compromised devices all over the world with owners completely unable to solve the problem themselves.
Or the router manufacturers will properly modularize their designs so that the parts you need to replace to fix a compromise are separate from the parts that ensure that the radio stays on legal frequencies, under legal power limits, and uses legal modulation modes.
They release physical hardware which is capable of operating in many regions and firmware which is specific to a region.
It's straightforward to create hardware which is physically incapable of violating licensure, but it is also expensive.
That's not the point though, it's becoming a serious problem with technology enabling restrictions which weren't possible in the past and which now threaten free society through a well intentioned but misguided bureaucracy.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
There's a certain unalienable right which is being encroached more and more – the right of ownership, the freedom to tinker.
That is more specifically, everyone should be capable of learning and executing complete control over the things they own. DRM, locked firmwares, license agreements – all of these things are a serious and existing threat to your freedom.
It's a nice option as long as it (1) is still legal to buy and use in the US and (2) Chinese government does not cripple it even harder than US government, just in different ways.
I'm not sure that is a valid analogy. They're not trying to prevent "free speech", just stop idiots who don't know what they're doing from interfering with aircraft weather radar.
edit please read the background before downvoting, and you'll see what I mean. Also, there is no loss of freedom here. As long as your radio software is separate from the router software, there is no issue at all.
As a skeptic I have to wonder whether Google lobbied for this prior to their OnHub release. I'm also expecting Apple to announce some sort of router on Sep 9 to go with HomeKit + AppleTV. Both parties would have a vested interest in locking down the open source router ecosystem.
If you are not using a Google or Apple router, I don't see why they would care if you are running third party firmware on your router.
If you are using a Google or Apple router and they do not want you to replace the firmware on it they could use signed firmware already. They would not need to have the FCC tell them that they have to use signed firmware in order to use signed firmware.
If there was some way to use third party firmware on a non-Google, non-Apple router in order to interact with Google or Apple routers in a way that compromises something Google or Apple are trying to do, then maybe Google or Apple would have an interest in trying to stop that...but this would not be an effective way to stop that.
It would not be effective because people would simply build their own routers using a PC with a wifi card to attack the Google or Apple routers, instead of attacking by replacing firmware on stand-alone consumer routers with firmware that supports that attack.
I can't think of anything else. Did you have some other vested interest in mind?
nickysielicki|10 years ago
Make a phone call about this:
> 1 (888) 225-5322
Send an email:
> Chairman Tom Wheeler: Tom.Wheeler@fcc.gov
> Commissioner Mignon Clyburn: Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov
> Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel: Jessica.Rosenworcel@fcc.gov
> Commissioner Ajit Pai: Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov
> Commissioner Michael O’Rielly: Mike.O'Rielly@fcc.gov
Write a letter:
> Federal Communications Commission
> 445 12th Street, SW
> Washington, DC 20554
source: https://www.fcc.gov/contact-us
uuuusername|10 years ago
mindslight|10 years ago
And as much as I appreciate spectrum partitioning, we really need to get the major wifi chipsets completely reverse engineered so we can blow away this ambiguous spectre of "unauthorized" modifications and turn them into something normal. Randos stomping on ch12-15 isn't an actual problem - but that widespread rulebreaking coupled with the unknown of what further mods could do is scary to regulators. Destroy that unknown.
pdabbadabba|10 years ago
There was a lot of resistance to allowing unlicensed use of 5.25-5.35 GHz and 5.47-5.725 GHz precisely because some were afraid that unauthorized modifications would be commonplace, and devices could not be relied upon to sense and avoid the RADAR systems that also operate in those bands. So bear in mind that the more you insist on modifying, the harder it will be to persuade the FCC to open up new unlicensed bands.
stephengillie|10 years ago
A lot of this is that consumers have been taught that routing, NAT, etc isn't done by a general purpose computing device like a PC or server, but that those tasks MUST be relegated to an appliance.
But compute is compute, and antennas are antennas. And the word "appliance" has long held a secret meaning of "a Linux server on your Windows (or local area) network."
dsr_|10 years ago
Scout NewEgg for combos -- you too can run a fully supported OS on x86-64 instruction sets with familiar hardware, but at a low cost of both purchase and power.
blfr|10 years ago
Highly unlikely and unnecessarily expensive. It's also a hassle to make a nice enclosure for what you build. Instead, you can currently consult the OpenWRT website, pick up any of many widely available $50 routers, and be set.
I don't care if it can MASQ gigabit since I don't have a gigabit connection. Whatever slowest CPU possible they put in there is more than enough to run a couple of VLANs, VPNs, IPv6 tunnel, and Samba. Not only that but you can easily recycle older hardware (for additional APs for example) or reuse what you already have.
unknown|10 years ago
[deleted]
jaskerr|10 years ago
Also, do you have any suggestions for a motherboard + minipcie combo? I'd like to get off of our DSL router soon-ly.
wyager|10 years ago
The FCC should punish crimes, not impose prior restrictions on innocent people.
cpncrunch|10 years ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10137739
jamiesonbecker|10 years ago
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-184...
lelandbatey|10 years ago
There is much more information in the HN comments from a previous time where this was discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9959088
wtallis|10 years ago
the_ancient|10 years ago
So while the rules may not directly ban custom firmware, that will be the implementation result of these regulations. less than 1% of consumers ever customize their devices so if a manufacturer even has to Spend $0.01 more per device to enable the ability to customize they will not do it.
TD-Linux|10 years ago
atmosx|10 years ago
Now if only, I could install OpenWRT on it. Since OpenWRT makes ROUNDS around every custom software I've seen on low-end ADSL modem/routers makes me wonder why on earth companies don't just ship OpenWRT and get over with it?
mindslight|10 years ago
BTW, openvpn performance sucks eggs on the processors used in consumer routers.
AceJohnny2|10 years ago
http://www.buffalotech.com/products/wireless/dd-wrt-1
smellf|10 years ago
esaym|10 years ago
dogma1138|10 years ago
Now it doesn't matter why is that channel blocked, it's not a licensed channel in many countries (as they are used for air traffic landing assist systems, radars, medical equipment such as panic buttons for elderly and disabled people, alarms etc...) and it seems like it is causing interference other wise the FCC would not be chasing this issue again after relaxing the regulations for restricted channels and asking the users to behave.
It's a felony to tweak your Wifi beyond specs, it causes issues and regulatory bodies react, OpenWRT and DD-WRT could've saved them selves the trouble by developing a mechanism to respect local regulation own their own.
Also as it seems people panic too quickly what will happen is the same thing with the radio's on mobile SOC's each region will have it's own channels enabled, you'll still be able to use DD-WRT or w/e you want in the end you won't be able to play with the Wifi settings out of spec which there's no reason in the world for you to be able to in the 1st place.
bbrazil|10 years ago
The Linux kernel has such mechanisms and they're not trivial to bypass. You'd as a user have to go out of your way to do so, and the devs are not in favour of users doing this. (source: I had to do so to workaround a card that was configured for completely the wrong regulatory domain).
PhasmaFelis|10 years ago
I've been using Tomato firmware for years, and I never did anything illegal with it. How did I bring it on myself exactly?
> you'll still be able to use DD-WRT or w/e you want
RTFA: Vendors will have to “describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT”
As far as I know, all of the issues at hand could be solved with baked-in hardware lockouts without otherwise affecting custom firmware, but that's not what the FCC is demanding.
Sephr|10 years ago
riskable|10 years ago
tzs|10 years ago
dec0dedab0de|10 years ago
colechristensen|10 years ago
It's straightforward to create hardware which is physically incapable of violating licensure, but it is also expensive.
That's not the point though, it's becoming a serious problem with technology enabling restrictions which weren't possible in the past and which now threaten free society through a well intentioned but misguided bureaucracy.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
There's a certain unalienable right which is being encroached more and more – the right of ownership, the freedom to tinker.
That is more specifically, everyone should be capable of learning and executing complete control over the things they own. DRM, locked firmwares, license agreements – all of these things are a serious and existing threat to your freedom.
unknown|10 years ago
[deleted]
naner|10 years ago
kefka|10 years ago
cordite|10 years ago
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/2608141/internet-privacy/sn...
nine_k|10 years ago
unknown|10 years ago
[deleted]
anonbanker|10 years ago
An 8-core MT6592 with 4gb RAM makes for a fantastic laptop. And China isn't sharing their backdoors with the Five Eyes, if they have them at all.
jMyles|10 years ago
cpncrunch|10 years ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10137739
edit please read the background before downvoting, and you'll see what I mean. Also, there is no loss of freedom here. As long as your radio software is separate from the router software, there is no issue at all.
chatmasta|10 years ago
tzs|10 years ago
If you are using a Google or Apple router and they do not want you to replace the firmware on it they could use signed firmware already. They would not need to have the FCC tell them that they have to use signed firmware in order to use signed firmware.
If there was some way to use third party firmware on a non-Google, non-Apple router in order to interact with Google or Apple routers in a way that compromises something Google or Apple are trying to do, then maybe Google or Apple would have an interest in trying to stop that...but this would not be an effective way to stop that.
It would not be effective because people would simply build their own routers using a PC with a wifi card to attack the Google or Apple routers, instead of attacking by replacing firmware on stand-alone consumer routers with firmware that supports that attack.
I can't think of anything else. Did you have some other vested interest in mind?
thrownaway2424|10 years ago