If there is changes (whether its UK only or UK following EU) ofcom would publish it.
e.g. we follow the EU on various broadband legislation and ofcom has announced changes. I am even on the ofcom mailing list for past 4 years.
Asus locking down routers to comply with new FCC rules
- Thread starter mromero
- Start date
If there is changes (whether its UK only or UK following EU) ofcom would publish it.
e.g. we follow the EU on various broadband legislation and ofcom has announced changes. I am even on the ofcom mailing list for past 4 years.
I believe you are wrong about channel 14. It's my understanding that it has always been illegal to use channel 14 in the UK, because it actually utilizes spectrum outside that which is permitted for unlicensed usage in the UK.
Ofcom (and the EU's ETSI) authorize only 2.4000-2.4835GHz to be used as the allocated spectrum for 2.4ghz wifi in the UK.
Channel 14 operates at a center frequency of 2.484GHz, and is clearly outside that spectrum on the upper end of the channel (which is at 2495).
See this:
The UK does permit channels 12 and 13 (as does the rest of the EU). But that still doesn't solve the overlap issue, and as everywhere else, there are really only three channels (1, 6 and 11) that provide no overlap with adjoining channels, and thus provide the clearest signals. So unless you're living alone and with no neighbors around for miles, you still only want to use 1, 6 or 11 anyway to take advantage of the coexistence routines which allow competing devices to avoid stepping on one another. Put your router on a different channel in a crowded area, and you're virtually guaranteeing that you'll have lots of interference and contention from everyone else who is using the three recommended channels 1, 6 and 11.
Oh and Channel 14 is only available for Japan and is only allowed to run 802.11b.
Ofcom (and the EU's ETSI) authorize only 2.4000-2.4835GHz to be used as the allocated spectrum for 2.4ghz wifi in the UK.
Channel 14 operates at a center frequency of 2.484GHz, and is clearly outside that spectrum on the upper end of the channel (which is at 2495).
See this:
The UK does permit channels 12 and 13 (as does the rest of the EU). But that still doesn't solve the overlap issue, and as everywhere else, there are really only three channels (1, 6 and 11) that provide no overlap with adjoining channels, and thus provide the clearest signals. So unless you're living alone and with no neighbors around for miles, you still only want to use 1, 6 or 11 anyway to take advantage of the coexistence routines which allow competing devices to avoid stepping on one another. Put your router on a different channel in a crowded area, and you're virtually guaranteeing that you'll have lots of interference and contention from everyone else who is using the three recommended channels 1, 6 and 11.
Oh and Channel 14 is only available for Japan and is only allowed to run 802.11b.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 22229
Guest
If channel 14 is illegal there why would any wireless card/adapter be able to connect to 14 ? Here is the USA we stop at channel 11 and all are adapters and wifi cards also stop at 11 so having the router on say 14 would do us no good they would not connect to the device.
ColinTaylor
Part of the Furniture
Sorry Chrysalis I think your memory must be failing
Channel 13 has always been the highest allowed channel here in the UK.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels#Interference_concerns
Because channel 14 is legal in Japan (but only for 802.11b, not for /g or /n). And because wireless cards use chips that don't know which frequencies are legal or illegal unless the firmware is coded correctly for a particular region. And some manufacturers have coded their devices incorrectly, or allow users to change country code regions without regard to where they actually are using the device, and on and on. Could be a million different reasons why one router shows channels that are not legal for use in the country in which it was sold, albeit none of them good ones in the UK or anywhere else besides Japan when it comes to channel 14.
The fact that a US coded router or client device "stops" at channel 11 (at least when properly set to be used in the U.S.) doesn't mean the device itself (or rather the chip in the device) isn't fully capable of receiving a signal on an unauthorized channel; it is. The limitation on what channels it can actually use though is supposed to be in the firmware, and the firmware in turn is supposed to comply with regional requirements (in the case of the UK, with EU requirements). But as we all know, lots of devices can be unlocked and set to channels that are not authorized for use in the region they are being used. And this is precisely what the ETSI in the EU and the FCC in the U.S. have now mandated must be changed, so that any and all devices are "locked" to the region in which they are approved to be sold only, and cannot be changed by the end-user to a different region.
I agree though, setting a router to use channel 14 can and often does result in some client devices (especially older ones) not even being able to see the channel (and thus not see the SSID).
This question has come up repeatedly on SNB over the years. In this thread, for example, one user noted:
In reply, Tim Higgins responded:
Last edited:
Radio Regulations
The issue at hand dates back to 2003 when the initial decision was made at WRC-03 to expand RLAN usage in the 5 GHz band. Unfortunately the European Meteorological Community was absent during the whole process and as a result specifics about meteorological radars were never captured.
DFS mechanism parameters provided to RLAN Mfrs. were mainly specified on a theoretical basis, and did not take into account a variety of radars characteristics and emission schemes. The first RLANs deployed caused interference to weather radars in more than 12 different European countries.
The complexity heightened when two aeronautical service applications were authorized in the 5 GHz band at WRC-07 in which I was a part of. Some of the issues from the WRC-03 decision hadn't been realized yet and were carried forward into the WRC-07 decision. Keep in mind that the RLAN interference into met radars wasn't confirmed until mid-2008.
You also might want to keep in mind that if the Euro met community had been involved in the 2003 proceedings there's a pretty good chance CEPT would have followed APT and Canada's lead and notched the radar bands out. In that case, you wouldn't have the opportunity to use these channels and we wouldn't be having this discussion today err... tonight.
If you go to the ETSI website and search for "EN 301 893 V1.7.2 (2014-07)" you will find the current release of the "draft" Harmonized European Standard for 5 GHz RLAN radios. These harmonized standards have been agreed to by EVERY EU member state.
I also looked at the ECC Harmonization Agenda and it includes an action item "Revision of HEN 301 893 was requested by SRD/MG/WGFM to to limit indirect access to DFS mechanism."
I certainly understand peoples frustration over this matter. However it's not the fault of Asus or any of the RLAN Mfrs. I am sure they share your frustration. However, it's unrealistic to expect them to keep chasing a draft standard that produces a product that pass compliance testing and then fails when deployed in the field.
Last but not least, if you are manipulating devices to operate outside of current standards and regulations you certainly aren't helping the situation and very well could make matters worse.
The issue at hand dates back to 2003 when the initial decision was made at WRC-03 to expand RLAN usage in the 5 GHz band. Unfortunately the European Meteorological Community was absent during the whole process and as a result specifics about meteorological radars were never captured.
DFS mechanism parameters provided to RLAN Mfrs. were mainly specified on a theoretical basis, and did not take into account a variety of radars characteristics and emission schemes. The first RLANs deployed caused interference to weather radars in more than 12 different European countries.
The complexity heightened when two aeronautical service applications were authorized in the 5 GHz band at WRC-07 in which I was a part of. Some of the issues from the WRC-03 decision hadn't been realized yet and were carried forward into the WRC-07 decision. Keep in mind that the RLAN interference into met radars wasn't confirmed until mid-2008.
You also might want to keep in mind that if the Euro met community had been involved in the 2003 proceedings there's a pretty good chance CEPT would have followed APT and Canada's lead and notched the radar bands out. In that case, you wouldn't have the opportunity to use these channels and we wouldn't be having this discussion today err... tonight.
If you go to the ETSI website and search for "EN 301 893 V1.7.2 (2014-07)" you will find the current release of the "draft" Harmonized European Standard for 5 GHz RLAN radios. These harmonized standards have been agreed to by EVERY EU member state.
I also looked at the ECC Harmonization Agenda and it includes an action item "Revision of HEN 301 893 was requested by SRD/MG/WGFM to to limit indirect access to DFS mechanism."
I certainly understand peoples frustration over this matter. However it's not the fault of Asus or any of the RLAN Mfrs. I am sure they share your frustration. However, it's unrealistic to expect them to keep chasing a draft standard that produces a product that pass compliance testing and then fails when deployed in the field.
Last but not least, if you are manipulating devices to operate outside of current standards and regulations you certainly aren't helping the situation and very well could make matters worse.
Sorry Chrysalis I think your memory must be failing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels#Interference_concerns
Is no UK data there, for some reason all wiki pages have had UK removed.
The problem is these so called EU regulations actually are unuseable, wifi runs like crap on the EU region, I may as well turn it off. So whoever thought these up have probably never used wifi. Not to mention the frequency range clearly needs to be very wide for 5ghz given how 2.4ghz is crowded.
As far as I am concerned tho I have yet to find anything that says the UK has to abide by those regulations. People removing it of wiki doesnt substantiate that.
I have emailed ofcom tho to see if they have the answer.
The Summaries of EU legislation on the main aspects of the European legislation, policies and activities in a clear, easy-to-read and concise way can be found here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/browse/summaries.html
Decision No 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) establishes a Community legal framework in order to ensure that policies are coordinated and, if necessary, to harmonize and rationalize the use of the radio spectrum within the European Union (EU).
Btw, treaties do not contain opt-out/ opt-in clauses otherwise they would be useless. If the U.K. is exempt from a piece of legislation, it will be included as part of the language in the legislation itself. Also keep in mind, exemption requires agreement from enough of the other members of the treaty in order to be passed into legislation. Since the U.K. is one of the leading European proponents in the development of methods to protect licensed systems from unlicensed devices, I can assure you the U.K. has not tried to exempt themselves from any legislation dealing with the 5 GHz band.
Last edited:
Chrysalis, be sure to let us know what Ofcom says. Should be enlightening. Also, I just don't get why you say that "wifi runs like crap on the EU region." You should be using channels 36-40, which are free from any interference with radar. You can also use an 80mhz-wide channel with that configuration. Why does it "run like crap?" And if you use channels 1, 6 or 11, thus allowing your wifi router to use the normal coexistence and bandwidth sharing mechanisms that are built into 802.11, why do you need to be using a channel (14) that probably many of your devices can't even see, much less use (and which is also not permitted to be used in the UK)? Really, I just don't get it.
I also don't understand why you claim that material was removed from Wikipedia's entry describing the channels. Where do you see that anything about the UK was actually edited out? Why do you think the absence of any reference to UK means that someone deleted something that was previously there that isn't now? The absence of something doesn't prove that it was there previously. Do you have any cite (for example in the Internet Wayback Machine, or a prior version of the Wikipedia page) that actually proves references to UK were removed?
I think we owe DJJHawk a round of thanks for the thorough and complete explanation of the history and legislative framework involved in DFS/TPC implementation and the issues with "locked" out channels. It does give some real-life perspective to the background of how the regulations came to be and why manufacturers are doing what they are doing.
Here is a direct link to the "EN 301 893 V1.7.2 (2014-07)" Standards Document, which contains the "draft" Harmonized European Standard for 5 GHz RLAN radios. As DJJHawk noted, "These harmonized standards have been agreed to by EVERY EU member state."
Lest there be any doubt about the UK's agreement, please look at the list of "Supporting Organizations" behind these "draft" standards. Among the supporters were: Ofcom (U.K.), Motorola Solutions UK Ltd., and Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd.. And as DJJHawk further noted, there is no "opt out" from treaties, otherwise, they'd be meaningless.
All of this is not to say that Ofcom in the UK is meaningless when it comes to broadband allocation of spectrum. Ofcom is actively looking at ways to free up new spectrum (as is the FCC and ETSI) to ease the channel/data crunch and to deal with the implications of DFS/TPC requirements.
But there's another aspect to the issues that DJJHawk has highlighted from a manufacturer's perspective, and it's really a practical one that has to do with the manner in which DFS/TPC are required to be implemented. No manufacturer wants to market an AP device that takes up to 6 minutes to become active after turning it on (as can occur with some of the channels), or a device that ultimately becomes inoperable for up to 30 minutes when it detects radar blasts. That's just untenable. So the expedient solution is to not make available those channels which, if used, could result in that sort of inoperability for extended periods. Just take a look at Table D in the ETSI Standards and you'll see why many manufacturers have withdrawn their support of making the channels beyond 36-48 in the EU available to end-users. Who wants to have to wait 10 minutes, 30 minutes, or possibly longer just to learn whether an assigned channel works at all because of detected radar blasts, or worse, "false positive" radar detection (due to adjacent signal interference)? No one, and the manufacturers also don't want to have to incessantly field complaints (or worse, have to make refunds to unhappy customers) who think it's the manufacturer's fault that their shiny new wireless router just doesn't work on channels that the consumer just "knows" he can use (because they are there).
A lot of what DJJHawk has written here is reminiscent of some of the really excellent information that can be found at WiFiNigel's Blog (which, for Chrysalis should be a definite stopping off point because it's almost exclusively geared toward UK uses of 5ghz). A great site, highly recommended, especially for the UK'ers among us.
Last edited:
ColinTaylor
Part of the Furniture
I'd just like to thank djjhawk and jegesq for their valuable contributions. I think what I have learned so far is that the whole thing (from a UK perspective) is a confusing mess.
What with "definitive" statements made in the past, to proposed or draft changes for the future, you can find "supporting evidence" for anything you want. (I suppose that's true for everything on the internet)
Of course it's not helped by the many impenetrable official documents. jegesq's link to WiFiNigel's Blog was interesting. He certainly has a way of making things understandable. However, here again the information presented as fact appears to be out of step with the proposed/draft changes. For example, the most recent reference to UK 5GHz channels I have found so far date from May 2014:
Go figure. I think I'll just stick with 2.4GHz for now.
What with "definitive" statements made in the past, to proposed or draft changes for the future, you can find "supporting evidence" for anything you want. (I suppose that's true for everything on the internet
)Of course it's not helped by the many impenetrable official documents. jegesq's link to WiFiNigel's Blog was interesting. He certainly has a way of making things understandable. However, here again the information presented as fact appears to be out of step with the proposed/draft changes. For example, the most recent reference to UK 5GHz channels I have found so far date from May 2014:
Go figure. I think I'll just stick with 2.4GHz for now.
...What with "definitive" statements made in the past, to proposed or draft changes for the future, you can find "supporting evidence" for anything you want. (I suppose that's true for everything on the internet
As my brother-in-law likes to say, "If you can't find something on the internet, you can always put it there."
The use of the term "draft" is probably a bit misleading: While the standards issued by ETSI are binding, the term "draft" simply means that they have not been finalized. In all other respects, until they are modified or amended, they are enforceable across the EU (including in the UK).
The seeming discrepancy you note is really not a discrepancy at all. It may seem curious, but all Nigel was pointing out is that three of the UNI-II upper-band channels (120, 124 and 128) in addition to being subject to DFS/TPC requirements also get "super-special" treatment in how DFS and TPC are implemented with regard to those channels because they are used for meteorological radar (the same met rardar that DJJHawk was referring to in his initial post).
You will recall that there are 19 channels available in the EU for 5ghz:
A-Band: 36, 40, 44, 48 (no DFS/TPC required)
A-Band: 52, 56, 60, 64 (require DFS/TPC)
B-Band: 100, 104, 108, 112 (require DFS/TPC)
B-Band: 116, 120, 124, 128 (require DFS/TPC, and 120-128 get "super" DFS treatment)
B-Band: 132, 136 140 (require DFS/TPC)
So if you exclude the three channels that require this "super-special" DFS/TPC treatment, you get a total of 16 channels.
As Nigel noted in his blog post at this link:
Never mind that Nigel wasn't even addressing the issue of why manufacturers don't support or expose channels other than 36-48 (something that DJJHawk explained quite well), the point is that in order to allow access to all of the UK channels, manufacturers would not only have to contend with the potential impacts of DFS/TPC on those 16 channels that can result in inoperability for periods of at least the first 60 seconds, and perhaps as long as 30 minutes in the presence of radar, no one wants to deal with the possibility of seeing a user set his channels to 120, 124 or 128, turn on the router and have it not work for the first 10 minutes and then be potentially subject to non-operational status for up to another 24 hours (see Appendix D of the ETSI standard).
And with regard to Nigel's comment about his purchase of a Nexus 7, all he was pointing out was that his Nexus 7 only had access to channels 36-64, and the channels from 100-140 weren't supported either. In other words, he was suggesting that it's not only manufacturers of AP's that are choosing not to support the upper-band channels, but also client device manufacturers (or in the parlance of the ETSI standards, "slave" devices). Nothing inconsistent about that: Why, if you are a device manufacturer, would you want to spend more on different chips that allow access to higher frequencies when you don't have to, since the AP's the clients will be accessing don't broadcast those channels (because the AP manufacturers don't want to go through the expense of testing and paying for certification where its likely consumers are just going to get pissed off by the inoperability that occurs when DFS/TPC kicks in when there's a radar blast detected)? The answer is that you won't spend the extra money, and your device won't utilize those channels either.
BTW, if you really want to understand the 5ghz situation a little better in the UK, I would recommend that you take a look at Nigel's "White Paper" on the subject. It has a few holes in it, but it's a pretty solid effort at piecing together the picture.
Last edited:
System Error Message
Part of the Furniture
the issue with overcrowded wifi is that everyone is using the highest transmit power in a crowded area causes a lot of problems. If everyone lowered their transmission power to the range that they use it would reduce the problem. On the 2.4 Ghz band i use the lowest possible transmit power (i set it to 1mW) and it works really well because my area is very crowded on 2.4. for 5 Ghz i set it to maximum.
Many consumer routers seem to top out at 100mW but ive seen mikrotik wireless devices having much more power up to 1600mW. This is because they can be used outside and for point to point links using dishes. I wonder what the laws are regarding point to point wifi using dishes.
so it is not necessary to have that many channels. IF consumer routers get locked down i wonder what happens to x4 and above routers
Many consumer routers seem to top out at 100mW but ive seen mikrotik wireless devices having much more power up to 1600mW. This is because they can be used outside and for point to point links using dishes. I wonder what the laws are regarding point to point wifi using dishes.
so it is not necessary to have that many channels. IF consumer routers get locked down i wonder what happens to x4 and above routers
Last edited:
The wiki pages used to list the UK channels and power levels allowed, now that data is removed replaced by a EU data. That is what I meant.
Ofcom havent replied yet.
Regarding the EU issues, on my asus router, if I have region set to EU (the default), I cannot change channels, wireless performs very bad, weak signal etc. and 80mhz mode wont work on AC due to another user using channel 40.
As soon as I set region to "a" all these issues go away.
Its possible other branded routers work fine on a EU region, but my Asus router does not.
Ok a solid document linked to from that 2nd nigel site.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bi...s-tech-info/interface-requirements/uk2006.pdf
I couldnt find it as ofcom call it radio not wifi.
So this document states the same as wiki that channels all the way upto 140 are permitted, so when ASUS fix their EU region issuesl (Cannot change channel amongst other problems) and add the proper channels I wont mind using a EU region.
It isnt my fault the EU region is very buggy on asuswrt and they blocking legally allowed channels.
channels 36-48 with odd numbered channels not used is a very narrow range, consider that a single AC transmit can use that entire range. Its actually more tightly packed than 2.4ghz.
So really the only changes from this EU harmonisation is the requirement to transmit at lower power levels and do some kind of interference check when starting up.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bi...s-tech-info/interface-requirements/uk2006.pdf
I couldnt find it as ofcom call it radio not wifi.
So this document states the same as wiki that channels all the way upto 140 are permitted, so when ASUS fix their EU region issuesl (Cannot change channel amongst other problems) and add the proper channels I wont mind using a EU region.
It isnt my fault the EU region is very buggy on asuswrt and they blocking legally allowed channels.
channels 36-48 with odd numbered channels not used is a very narrow range, consider that a single AC transmit can use that entire range. Its actually more tightly packed than 2.4ghz.
So really the only changes from this EU harmonisation is the requirement to transmit at lower power levels and do some kind of interference check when starting up.
ColinTaylor
Part of the Furniture
Yes, I had already read that. I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said. I was just pointing out that even after reading that document one comes away with the impression that at the very least channels 36-64 would be available on all equipment.
Chrysalis:
No one is suggesting "fault". It simply is what is. Please, please re-read DJJHawk's two very informative postings again upthread.
The changes you dismiss as insignificant (i.e., the requirements to transmit at lower power and "do some kind of interference check") are actually incredibly significant, and at the heart of why manufacturers do not expose other channels in the EU region for 5ghz . Again, re-read DJJHawk's posts.
You say that when you set your Asus to "EU" you "...cannot change channels, wireless performs very bad, weak signal etc. and 80mhz mode wont work on AC due to another user using channel 40."
First, EU should have zero impact on the 2.4ghz band. None at all. As for the 5ghz and 80mhz issue you cite, perhaps you don't need to "change channels" at all, and instead might try setting your secondary channel differently for 80mhz and/or adjust your RTS, CTS and AMPDU settings in the "Professional" section of the GUI for 5ghz (I'm not sure to what those settings should be changed, but you might want to check out this Cisco document: "802.11ac: The Fifth Generation of Wi-Fi Technical White Paper which states that there are built-in protocols in 802.11ac that allow two separate AP's to use the same 80mhz channel assignments with advanced coexistence and contention protocols unique to 802.11ac and without switching to another primary 80mhz band at all:
No one is suggesting "fault". It simply is what is. Please, please re-read DJJHawk's two very informative postings again upthread.
The changes you dismiss as insignificant (i.e., the requirements to transmit at lower power and "do some kind of interference check") are actually incredibly significant, and at the heart of why manufacturers do not expose other channels in the EU region for 5ghz . Again, re-read DJJHawk's posts.
You say that when you set your Asus to "EU" you "...cannot change channels, wireless performs very bad, weak signal etc. and 80mhz mode wont work on AC due to another user using channel 40."
First, EU should have zero impact on the 2.4ghz band. None at all. As for the 5ghz and 80mhz issue you cite, perhaps you don't need to "change channels" at all, and instead might try setting your secondary channel differently for 80mhz and/or adjust your RTS, CTS and AMPDU settings in the "Professional" section of the GUI for 5ghz (I'm not sure to what those settings should be changed, but you might want to check out this Cisco document: "802.11ac: The Fifth Generation of Wi-Fi Technical White Paper which states that there are built-in protocols in 802.11ac that allow two separate AP's to use the same 80mhz channel assignments with advanced coexistence and contention protocols unique to 802.11ac and without switching to another primary 80mhz band at all:
Last edited:
So if I understand it right.
The higher channels actually have a higher permitted power but at the same time the router needs to support some kind of power cutback (this isnt made clear what), and there needs to be some kind of delay to check for radar interference.
Seems to me asus (and others if same) are just been lazy.
So I am clear here as well, it isnt just the extra channels that makes me use the a region but also that EU seems buggy on asuswrt e.g. I get stuck on channel 36, and 80mhz mode wont work. This I believe is why other UK users have started using the a region as well.
The higher channels actually have a higher permitted power but at the same time the router needs to support some kind of power cutback (this isnt made clear what), and there needs to be some kind of delay to check for radar interference.
Seems to me asus (and others if same) are just been lazy.
So I am clear here as well, it isnt just the extra channels that makes me use the a region but also that EU seems buggy on asuswrt e.g. I get stuck on channel 36, and 80mhz mode wont work. This I believe is why other UK users have started using the a region as well.
I think you underestimate how f****** up EU mode is, my phone doesnt connect, laptop runs at like half speed etc.
I could return the router back to the seller as faulty with that kind of situation, I have saved asus a RMA.
To be blunt their EU firmware is broken, and people using the a region is more widespread than you think.
Curious why are you so defensive of this?
Similar threads
Similar threads
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
-
Asus moving some devices to EOL while issues still remain
- Started by KrypteX
- Replies: 64
-
-
ASUS XT(8 2 node mesh: troubleshoot IP camera dosconnection issues- Started by thegios
- Replies: 8
-
-
T-Mobile ASUS TM-AC1900 (RT-AC68U variant) gets WAN IP and can ping Internet but connected WiFi clients indicate no Internet?
- Started by Maximum-Split-7860
- Replies: 7
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
Windows HP laptop takes a long time to connect to Wi-Fi
- Started by Justinh
- Replies: 2
Sign Up For SNBForums Daily Digest
Get an update of what's new every day delivered to your mailbox. Sign up here!