FCC forces TP-Link to support open source firmware on routers

[microchip]

TP-Link settles with FCC after blocking open source and violating power rules.

http://arstechnica.com/information-...k-to-support-open-source-firmware-on-routers/

 

[System Error Message]

TP-link has always been on the simple side. Openwrt support is a reason why people by d-link/tp-link so if they block open source they are killing part of their customer base.

Its stunts like this where i dont recommend d-link or tp-link. They gotta get their act together as a company.

 

[sfx2000]

I'm a bit surprised that TP-Link agreed to those terms and conditions - While the fine is appropriate and reasonable, it's well beyond FCC's charter to force a vendor to allow customers to install third party software on their products...

Wow...

 

[L&LD]

So now buying one piece of hardware and using it optimally in the country you choose to live in (even if it isn't the usa) is illegal for (world wide) manufacturers?

The FCC sure looks like an evil extension of the us government to me.

 

[RMerlin]

So, did I get this right?

1) TP-Link were allowing end-users to change their router region for products sold in the US, which breaks the FCC policies
2) The FCC slapped them with a $200,000 fine for doing so
3) To avoid further penalties, the FCC took advantage of TP-Link's current predicament, by requiring them to open up to open-source devs. End result: the FCC look like "the good guys", as they are forcing TP-Link to play nice with third party developers.

To me, it looks like the FCC is blackmailing TP-Link, in an attempt to use them for a public image campaign to fix the damage caused by last year's stance where they were considering requiring a ban on third party firmware by all router manufacturers...

So now buying one piece of hardware and using it optimally in the country you choose to live in (even if it isn't the usa) is illegal for (world wide) manufacturers?

TP-Link would probably have been fine if the routers with that capability weren't ALSO sold in the US, or if they would have ensured that this setting only worked if the router wasn't initially set for the US region.

 

[System Error Message]

Well Tp-link and D-link have quite a lot of shenanigans. TP-link with their weird 3rd party firmware limitations.

Still if it is because of country code that really shouldnt be something for the FCC to fine them over as long as they dont exceed FCC transmit limits. The US has the least restrictions for 5 Ghz channels in the world, they just have restrictions on tx power.

Changing region on a router is more like one of those placebos like pressing close on a lift which has a minimum time set between doors opening and closing or the pedestrian crossing at a junction.

 

[L&LD]

Changing region on a router is more like one of those placebos like pressing close on a lift which has a minimum time set between doors opening and closing or the pedestrian crossing at a junction.

Are you serious? No matter how long you wait if the country code is set wrong, you still will not be able to use the channels you may be entitled to (depending on the country you're in).

 

[L&LD]

TP-Link would probably have been fine if the routers with that capability weren't ALSO sold in the US, or if they would have ensured that this setting only worked if the router wasn't initially set for the US region.

It doesn't matter where they're sold. I would want a router to work as well as it could in any country I choose to use it in (while still being a law abiding citizen of that country).

 

[System Error Message]

Are you serious? No matter how long you wait if the country code is set wrong, you still will not be able to use the channels you may be entitled to (depending on the country you're in).

True, but why should it matter in the US as they have all the 5 Ghz channels? I also find that trying to use channel 13 or 14 doesnt work on 2.4Ghz channels for many devices anymore.

Only the FCC has been active in enforcing this, in other countries they do not enforce this. So since the US allows all 5Ghz channels and the restriction is on tx power, why should they be fined for allowing country selection?

 

[RMerlin]

It doesn't matter where they're sold. I would want a router to work as well as it could in any country I choose to use it in (while still being a law abiding citizen of that country).

DVD players have been region coded for decades. I don't see (legitimate) users complaining...

 

[RMerlin]

True, but why should it matter in the US as they have all the 5 Ghz channels?

They don't. DFS channels are currently not available in the US, probably because those channels weren't tested and certified as being compliant by the manufacturer. And setting the router to RU might disable DFS for these channels, something that is the worst-case-scenario the FCC has been trying to prevent with the recent rule tightening. And also, there are also channels above 165 that are available in Japan but not in the US.

There might also be more requirements that will vary based on the country code, it's not just a matter of channel numbers and output power levels.

 

[System Error Message]

They don't. DFS channels are currently not available in the US, probably because those channels weren't tested and certified as being compliant by the manufacturer. And setting the router to RU might disable DFS for these channels, something that is the worst-case-scenario the FCC has been trying to prevent with the recent rule tightening. And also, there are also channels above 165 that are available in Japan but not in the US.

There might also be more requirements that will vary based on the country code, it's not just a matter of channel numbers and output power levels.

Well my main issue was about the open source shenanigans. The FCC are well withing rights regarding country codes if they did have effect.

 

[L&LD]

DVD players have been region coded for decades. I don't see (legitimate) users complaining...

And I had DVD players for all the regions that I wanted to see movies from. That is a solution?

A person (like me) questioning the antics of a far away bureaucracy does not make me non-legit, btw.

 

[thiggins]

L&LD: Please direct your anti-government comments to sites that encourage them.

I agree with SFX that this settlement is unusual and seems beyond the FCC's authority. It's one thing to encourage manufacturers to support installation of 3rd party firmware that doesn't muck with power settings. But it's entirely another to REQUIRE it. In the end, it's a business decision and should be up to the company to decide.

I'll see if I can get comment from TP-LINK.

 

[L&LD]

L&LD: Please direct your anti-government comments to sites that encourage them.

Sorry? Which comments are those? (So I don't inadvertently repeat them).

 

[thiggins]

The FCC sure looks like an evil extension of the us government to me.

 

[joltdude]

The other thing.. do folks realize that the FCC uses SamKnows Whiteboxes for metrics? .... They are based on TP-Link boxes running third party firmware....

https://www.samknows.com/meet-the-whitebox

https://www.fcc.gov/general/measuring-broadband-america

https://www.fcc.gov/general/measuring-broadband-america-open-methodology

 

[thiggins]

The other thing.. do folks realize that the FCC uses SamKnows Whiteboxes for metrics? .... They are based on TP-Link boxes running third party firmware....

No. Didn't know that.

 

[L&LD]

Tim, I'll respect your wishes (of course), but that remark isn't anti-government (for the record).

Just calling it as I see it when it affects other jurisdictions that are supposedly beyond their legal reach.

 

[sfx2000]

Tim, I'll respect your wishes (of course), but that remark isn't anti-government (for the record).

Just calling it as I see it when it affects other jurisdictions that are supposedly beyond their legal reach.

I think it was how the comment was phrased in this case - and I do take exception that part of that was very much out of scope of what FCC is chartered for.

BTW - the trigger had nothing to do with the 06/16 updated requirements - had to do with certain items in 2.4GHz, surprisingly enough... and there, they were in violation of Part 15...