The FCC publishes a 90-page document on an extremely technical subject and required any comments to be submitted within 7 weeks. It would take the average aficionado several weeks just to find out about it.
The real issue here is that government agencies like the FCC are willfully excluding all but the best organized (read: best funded) groups from participating. And just like with Net Neutrality, no matter how many comments are submitted by poor people, only when the rich (the companies) and the powerful (President Obama) say something do they even bother to listen.
Also, the FCC should not be able to make rules like this. This is why we have a three branch system. Congress doesn't have the legal power, in the constitution, to give agencies the power to make laws (Even if they call them "Rules")
Increasingly over time these rules are becoming more and more draconian and including things that most people oppose.
For instance, there was an outcry about CISPA and COPA that killed those bills... so the FCC made an 800 page ruling on "net neutrality" and people accepted it, because they wanted net neutrality. (And who has time to read 800 pages?)
A lot of community meshnet projects rely on their hardware because of the stability and low pricing. NYC Mesh is a great example, but there are dozens more that aren't known as well.
I'd be hesitant to trust what comes from a CS rep regarding a manufacturer's policy regarding the interpretation/compliance of an FCC rule. TP-Link may have just decided to lock down their devices regardless.
I'm not saying this "report" isn't accurate... I'd just rather hear this from someone other than a random CS chat.
On the OpenWrt wiki for the C7[0], which was last modified Jan 13, there is this note:
"Recent US firmware (e.g. Archer C7 v2 151014 US) do not install unsigned firmware, including earlier versions of firmware and international versions. Thank you, FCC. You need to use TFTP Recovery method to install OpenWRT until somebody replicates what DD-WRT’s KrypteX is doing."
So, it certainly seems like this has been known for at least a month.
Some people/organizations associated with this thread on ninux.org have a Gofundme page to collect funds supporting their efforts in persuading more coherent action from the FCC.
https://www.gofundme.com/save_wifi_round_2
Is this limited to devices sold in the US? They are going to impose it on every other place that sells them?
Afiu tp-link has no obligations to manage two devices trees for a niche community. Stubborn minority effect at play here.
[1] http://fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf
IIRC, the first thing my stock WDR3600 firmware asked me about was which country I am in, which means that frequency locking can be easily bypassed (not power levels, though).
To make this as bulletproof as FCC wants they would have to make separate firmware image for the US and prevent US firmwares from being "upgraded" to non-US.
edit:
And this is exactly what they did:
Recent US firmware (e.g. Archer C7 v2 151014 US) do not install unsigned firmware, including earlier versions of firmware and international versions. Thank you, FCC.
That stubborn minority chapter is really quite interesting, shame the book isn't available yet. Think I'll look into some of the authors prior books when I next run out.
As your link says, they intend to prohibit selling hardware which can be modified to violate FCC regs. Since 3rd party firmware allows such violations, devices get locked down.
How else are you going to explain the existence of separate US firmware which refuses to upgrade to international firmwares?
It's quite likely that they would prefer violating the GPL (nothing particularly unusual) or licensing VxWorks/Windows/whatever over risking being banned in the US.
> And this is why, in a nutshell, linux should switch to GPL3.
Unfortunately, given the number of developers that would have to agree, the fact that early contributions weren't attributed and the can of worms that defining what a derivative work is opens, makes relicensing very unlikely.
So sad, I got a nice tplink for my mother and installed openwrt to gain some more control over the device. Unfortunate to see this support go away due to government.
Indeed. After much research I replaced my venerable wrt-54g with a tp-link, wrt-3600 or something like that, anyway due to the ath9k WiFi chip it's supported by Linux without any binary blobs. And of course I promptly replaced the stock firmware with openwrt. Sad if this is going away..
There seems like a fairly large opportunity for manufacturers willing to release products with sufficiently locked down baseband but a hackable host OS.
Also, amateur radio operators are legally allowed to operate these devices with modified firmware (including baseband). So why am I no longer allowed to buy these?
It's really annoying that Canadian policy on this matter is basically set by the FCC. It's not like we're going to get unlocked routers when the US gets locked ones, but we don't have a voice.
Probably means that there is now a restriction on the firmware upload page of the router, so that it won't accept any arbitrary image, most likely implemented via signing.
Doesn't necessarily mean you can't load your own firmware in, but it would raise the difficulty of doing so. Finding a serial console on the board, vulnerabilities in the software, things like that - more akin to jailbreaking/rooting your phone.
I got an Archer C7 during the Winter Shopping Season, that was affected by this. In the current revision, I got around the lock by booting into recovery mode and uploading OpenWRT via TFTP. I expect that future models will close this hole, and then I definitely won’t be buying TP-LINK devices in the future.
I think it’s a bit extreme to say the C7 is the best. It never was the best performer, and already 802.11ac Wave 2 devices with MU-MIMO are on the market, potentially outperforming the C7. Maybe it’s coincidentally the best value for the money, but that will not last.
Every generation, I wearily observe the large number of router models. I thought the Buffalo WZR-600DHP was a pretty good value late in the 802.11n generation, but now it’s retailing for more than I paid for it. WiFi routers are a lemon market.
I needed to put together a VPN router because of an upcoming trip. Since I didn't want to bring a "giant" 4 port router, I went looking for an OpenWRT-compatible travel router. The TP-Link TL-WR710N and D-Link DIR-505L were my two candidates. :)
I setup OpenVPN as a bridge and configured an SSID on it so when I connect to it, it'll be as if I were still at home. (Same subnet so I have access to all my printers, tv tuners, etc).
This is disappointing news. What I just did would not have been possible for $15. I've been using OpenWRT for over 10 years and can't imagine ever using a router without some sort of customizable Linux on it. I've learned so much about Linux, networking, VPNs, etc from OpenWRT.
My assumption: it's cheaper/easier for TP-LINK to disable all flashing of 3rd party firmware than it is to implement restrictions based on the FCC's narrowly-focused instructions.
There are no 802.11ac radios that are as well-supported as the ath9k 802.11n radios. All 802.11ac radios require closed-source firmware. Qualcomm-Atheros, MediaTek, and Marvell 802.11ac platforms are getting the most open-source attention. QCA chips are really popular and the drivers are pretty mature, MediaTek's firmware is flexible enough to make it one of the more hacker-friendly platforms, and Marvell's radios are often paired with their really powerful (by router standards) processors.
Unless you really need the throughput of 802.11ac or a more powerful processor to keep up with faster WAN speeds, ath9k 802.11n devices are still a pretty good choice.
I'm been replacing ASUS RT-N16s with RT-AC56Rs. $50 refurbs in-store at Microcenter, $75 new from Walmart.com, well-supported by all the firmwares that have ARM builds.
If you can't buy them that cheap the TP-Link Archer C7 has been a better value... well, up until now.
TP-Link started doing this months ago, and as far as I can tell they did so before the FCC proposed regulation. Considering the time that it takes for a company like this to start acting, I would be very surprised if the FCC regulation has much to do with it at all.
It does make a good excuse for them, though, I guess.
[+] [-] esbranson|10 years ago|reply
The FCC publishes a 90-page document on an extremely technical subject and required any comments to be submitted within 7 weeks. It would take the average aficionado several weeks just to find out about it.
The real issue here is that government agencies like the FCC are willfully excluding all but the best organized (read: best funded) groups from participating. And just like with Net Neutrality, no matter how many comments are submitted by poor people, only when the rich (the companies) and the powerful (President Obama) say something do they even bother to listen.
[+] [-] maxerickson|10 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11125543
[+] [-] MCRed|10 years ago|reply
Increasingly over time these rules are becoming more and more draconian and including things that most people oppose.
For instance, there was an outcry about CISPA and COPA that killed those bills... so the FCC made an 800 page ruling on "net neutrality" and people accepted it, because they wanted net neutrality. (And who has time to read 800 pages?)
[+] [-] mightybyte|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] straik|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsync|10 years ago|reply
Won't all of those existing TP-Link routers continue to work and be unlocked to flash whatever you like on them ?
Further, aren't there sufficient TP-Link parts in the supply chain from the last 4-5 years that you'll continue to be able to source them ?
Genuinely curious...
[+] [-] Famicoman|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsync|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mbreese|10 years ago|reply
I'm not saying this "report" isn't accurate... I'd just rather hear this from someone other than a random CS chat.
[+] [-] throwaway2048|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] narrowrail|10 years ago|reply
"Recent US firmware (e.g. Archer C7 v2 151014 US) do not install unsigned firmware, including earlier versions of firmware and international versions. Thank you, FCC. You need to use TFTP Recovery method to install OpenWRT until somebody replicates what DD-WRT’s KrypteX is doing."
So, it certainly seems like this has been known for at least a month.
[0]http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/tp-link/archer-c5-c7-wdr7500
[+] [-] westbywest|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dbalan|10 years ago|reply
Afiu tp-link has no obligations to manage two devices trees for a niche community. Stubborn minority effect at play here. [1] http://fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf
[+] [-] qb45|10 years ago|reply
IIRC, the first thing my stock WDR3600 firmware asked me about was which country I am in, which means that frequency locking can be easily bypassed (not power levels, though).
To make this as bulletproof as FCC wants they would have to make separate firmware image for the US and prevent US firmwares from being "upgraded" to non-US.
edit:
And this is exactly what they did:
Recent US firmware (e.g. Archer C7 v2 151014 US) do not install unsigned firmware, including earlier versions of firmware and international versions. Thank you, FCC.
Source: http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/tp-link/archer-c5-c7-wdr7500
[+] [-] Robadob|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eli|10 years ago|reply
TP-Link may well be locking down firmware, but it is NOT because the FCC is forcing them to.
[+] [-] qb45|10 years ago|reply
As your link says, they intend to prohibit selling hardware which can be modified to violate FCC regs. Since 3rd party firmware allows such violations, devices get locked down.
How else are you going to explain the existence of separate US firmware which refuses to upgrade to international firmwares?
http://www.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=990535
[+] [-] tplinkxy|10 years ago|reply
Right now there is no issue for TP-link to "preenmptively" block their hardware. If there was, they would think twice about it.
[+] [-] qb45|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mariuolo|10 years ago|reply
Unfortunately, given the number of developers that would have to agree, the fact that early contributions weren't attributed and the can of worms that defining what a derivative work is opens, makes relicensing very unlikely.
[+] [-] jackinloadup|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jabl|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dogma1138|10 years ago|reply
This support went away because people were abusing it running their routers on forbidden bands at higher than allow transmission levels.
The vendors are doing what they can easily do now and it's block the firmware modification since they can't replace the baseband/wifi cards as easily.
[+] [-] tlrobinson|10 years ago|reply
Also, amateur radio operators are legally allowed to operate these devices with modified firmware (including baseband). So why am I no longer allowed to buy these?
[+] [-] shmerl|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slavik81|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rogeryu|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zymhan|10 years ago|reply
It's a trap-door upgrade.
[+] [-] geographomics|10 years ago|reply
Doesn't necessarily mean you can't load your own firmware in, but it would raise the difficulty of doing so. Finding a serial console on the board, vulnerabilities in the software, things like that - more akin to jailbreaking/rooting your phone.
[+] [-] manyxcxi|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Decade|10 years ago|reply
I think it’s a bit extreme to say the C7 is the best. It never was the best performer, and already 802.11ac Wave 2 devices with MU-MIMO are on the market, potentially outperforming the C7. Maybe it’s coincidentally the best value for the money, but that will not last.
Every generation, I wearily observe the large number of router models. I thought the Buffalo WZR-600DHP was a pretty good value late in the 802.11n generation, but now it’s retailing for more than I paid for it. WiFi routers are a lemon market.
[+] [-] AndyMcConachie|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] westbywest|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hoodie|10 years ago|reply
I setup OpenVPN as a bridge and configured an SSID on it so when I connect to it, it'll be as if I were still at home. (Same subnet so I have access to all my printers, tv tuners, etc).
This is disappointing news. What I just did would not have been possible for $15. I've been using OpenWRT for over 10 years and can't imagine ever using a router without some sort of customizable Linux on it. I've learned so much about Linux, networking, VPNs, etc from OpenWRT.
[+] [-] mtgx|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MatthewMcDonald|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmontra|10 years ago|reply
Anyway, this was expected: it's the cheapest way to comply with the regulations.
[+] [-] transfire|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neeel|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tepix|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wtallis|10 years ago|reply
Unless you really need the throughput of 802.11ac or a more powerful processor to keep up with faster WAN speeds, ath9k 802.11n devices are still a pretty good choice.
[+] [-] tbyehl|10 years ago|reply
If you can't buy them that cheap the TP-Link Archer C7 has been a better value... well, up until now.
[+] [-] g1n016399|10 years ago|reply
https://omnia.turris.cz/en/
[+] [-] ohlookapony|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _ea1k|10 years ago|reply
It does make a good excuse for them, though, I guess.