What's new

SNBForums Policy on ASUS TM-AC1900 Conversion Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bigtrout

Occasional Visitor
In my opinion, the thread was taken down after the last set of instructions were discussed, the partition deletion. Thats when a few "part of the furniture" members got into a tizzy. Im betting that was the only way Asus could distinguish the TMO from a real 68U and they wanted that info deleted. The WHOLE thread was deleted because it contained all the info needed in one place. Saved page snapshots are a wonderful thing ;)

The beef I have with the whole thing is that Asus was happy for the feedback even from TMO users when they were testing AImesh.

My pair of TMO routers and AIMesh, caused me to purchase a new 86U as my main router, and I was seriously considering going a different route with a 200 dollar pfsense "box" so I could use any routers as access points. so in my case it made a sale for Asus.

The other beef I had was how many TMO routers were bought thru the amazon affiliate link on this site and the forum made money from those purchases...kinda hypocritical IMHO.
 
Last edited:

bennor

Regular Contributor
How much plainer does it need to be for you ???????
You agreed to the forum rules upon joining. The site owner / admin has made a decision ...... end of story.
At the risk of beating a dead horse. I think the problem (some) people are having is the "why", not that the board admins can remove stuff at their whim or for what ever reason. People typically don't like to see (their) posts/threads removed without a specific reason. And it appears some want a reason beyond a generic "because mods can/want to" or "because board TOS" reasons. Couple that with the PM removal and some (not me in this instance) feel it's unjustified and want an explanation.

If it was because of discussing a specific set of instructions, then say so. It helps users know what can be discussed and what shouldn't be discussed in the future. If mods don't want the TM-AC1900 discussed at all, then say so.

OK dead horse beat enough (by me at least). Others can continue to vent/opine. LOL
 

goggles99

Occasional Visitor
Further discussion of methods to get around ASUS' lockdown of TM-AC1900 firmware to prevent conversion to RT-AC68U will not be allowed. The main discussion thread has been deleted. Conversations related to defeating the lockdown have been deleted. New threads or Conversations opened on the topic will be deleted.

ASUS did not request the removal of this material or otherwise influence these actions.
So the same applies to Tomato, DD-WRT, OpenWRT, Merlin ETC?

This hardware wasn't made to run those after all. The AiMesh firmware was actually made to run the TM-AC1900 hardware (or at least an identical piece of hardware with a different label printed onto it). I am assuming that when Asus signed a deal with T-Mobile, they accepted that the users that were getting these for free wouldn't be purchasing an Asus router (since they already had one). They made their money, but now have they changed their mind and want to double dip now. They want the owners of a perfectly good TM-AC1900 to go out and purchase yet another router? If so, this seems like opportunistic dishonesty, and if they think that this will happen en masse, they are delusional.

I really am quite surprised at Asus's actions. Every time I have seen a hardware manufacturer try to squelch enthusiast efforts for (supposed) added profits, it has ended badly for the manufacturer (losses of money, user loyalty and bad PR). Communities like the one here (including the TM-AC1900 people) are what drive sales for Asus ETC. This is the sacred cow not to be trifled with. Asus has always been mod and custom FW friendly. That has given them a great reputation which has driven sales. Perhaps all of this was accidental and a Chinese company does not fully conceptualize the benefits that transparency and openness bring to both sides.

I for one am having a hard time believing that Asus had nothing to do with the action on this forum. At least offer your thought process or rationale on this Tim. Your lack of any explanation makes it seem like you are hiding something.

This is probably a news worthy and buzz worthy (social media) action and will no doubt spur even more TM-AC1900 re-sales and flashing. I see that the resale value has not dropped at all, this is a good indication that no one is worried.

So, based on Asus's actions and the over-moderation here on this forum, this discussion will move to a competing forum (Causing this forum to lose traffic and revenue) and we will get a mess of cross posts with people posing here as ac68u owners ETC. Asus will lose in various ways, and if they continue down this path, their competition will get some (perhaps many) new loyalists. How is any of this good for either party mentioned?

You would do all your members a favor and clear the air though Tim. This just isn't your style and you are hurting your cred and damaging the community.
 
Last edited:

OzarkEdge

Part of the Furniture
You would do all your members a favor and clear the air though Tim. This just isn't your style and you are hurting your cred and damaging the community.
Or, you could respectfully assume this action was done in the best interests of the greater community of makers and users that he labors to foster.

OE
 

goggles99

Occasional Visitor
Or, you could respectfully assume this action was done in the best interests of the greater community of makers and users that he labors to foster.

OE
You are helping to make my point. It isn't healthy to assume. Nor should anyone be left to do it. The moderator should clearly explain his conclusions and intentions (rationale). Anything else is disingenuous and suspect to all sorts of harmful suspicion and theories.
 

OzarkEdge

Part of the Furniture
You are helping to make my point. It isn't healthy to assume. Nor should anyone be left to do it. The moderator should clearly explain his conclusions and intentions (rationale). Anything else is disingenuous and suspect to all sorts of harmful suspicion and theories.
True enough... of human nature. But the absence of an acceptable explanation should not be reason to speculate wildly... to assert false premises, pass uninformed judgement, and demand unwarranted answers... not to mention the few temper tantrums. Instead, simply accept that there is no satisfactory explanation for you at this time and assume the best intentions of our trusted host, not the worst... it's the courteous thing to do and far more helpful to the community. Meanwhile, we learn, we grow, and tomorrow we will typically understand things better, one way or the other.

OE
 

KevTech

Very Senior Member
You have two players of interest in this.

Asus and T-Mobile

It has been said Asus had no influence on the decision so perhaps you need to think about the other player since they are the one who most likely paid Asus for the custom firmware and routers.
 

wisegeek

Occasional Visitor
and I don't think t-mobile is releasing these auto downgrade / lock down procedures :p

so theres a twist..

tmobile wants to offload these seeing ebay prices , amazon the are rocking at 46-50$ and the 3199 fw still has security vulnerabilities from years back ??

forgetting SNB for a moment - asus has more to lose on this vs T-Mo. ( the tmobile router being asused)
 
Last edited:

KevTech

Very Senior Member
and the 3199 fw still has security vulnerabilities from years back ??
What exactly would that be?

3199 addressed these issues:

Fix CVE-2016-0802
ACSD: fix no 5ghz auto channel select issue
Samba: fix Badlock bug
Fix possible memory leak
Fix LPR buffer overflow issue
Fix XSS issue in WDS page
Dropbear: update to version 2016.74
Openssl: update to version 1.0.2j
Fix nat table chaos caused by miniupnp
 

wisegeek

Occasional Visitor
What exactly would that be?

3199 addressed these issues:

Fix CVE-2016-0802
ACSD: fix no 5ghz auto channel select issue
Samba: fix Badlock bug
Fix possible memory leak
Fix LPR buffer overflow issue
Fix XSS issue in WDS page
Dropbear: update to version 2016.74
Openssl: update to version 1.0.2j
Fix nat table chaos caused by miniupnp
Thats a BOMB i wont mention that here or risk this thread being deleted too..oh ho wait a minute sorry i don't think Tim will delete a thread he himself created :D

its a CVE from 2014-2015 , message ME i will send that over to you. it was in the nuked thread BTW
 

follower

Senior Member
Look at this. You guys can see what ASUS does. There are no more previous firmwares.
What kind of company is this? This is so disgusting. They may say it is a website issue if users complain. Visit ac68u, ac68r, ac68p, ac1900p pages. It only happens to AC68 series. ASUS doesn't want to provide previous firmwares because they don't want users modify firmwares for TM-AC1900 anymore. UH~~~WOW!

https://www.asus.com/us/Networking/RTAC68U/HelpDesk_BIOS/

wtfasus.jpg
 
Last edited:

wisegeek

Occasional Visitor
its about XSS . you are more senior to me, and i respect your knowledge i am guesing you can figure what i a mtalking about ? am just a noobie :D
 

wisegeek

Occasional Visitor
Look at this. You guys can see what ASUS does. There are no more previous firmwares.
What kind of company is this? This is so disgusting. They may say it is a website issue if users complain.

https://www.asus.com/us/Networking/RTAC68U/HelpDesk_BIOS/

View attachment 12697
@RMerlin , what @follower is saying is a bit different from what I am talking about.

He is (i interpret) is trying to say Asus (and i just confirmed) is Asus pulled, previous versions of their FW prior to this for whatever reason.

I specifically talk about the CVE from 2014 they did NOT fix in 3199.I am not going to discuss further, SNB is becoming very unstable to discuss these things seeing how things are changing here i dont want to jeopardize any further.
 

Mic

Occasional Visitor
You guys are starting to give me a headache.
Eh, wouldn't it be easier to not read this thread. Be that as it may, maybe I missed it but I read it somewhere that your current firmwares also have the lockdown? I have always respected what you've done and respect that it's your right to lock thing down, but it really doesn't hurt you any to state whether your firmwares also lock down converted TM units.
 

scjr

Very Senior Member
Eh, wouldn't it be easier to not read this thread. Be that as it may, maybe I missed it but I read it somewhere that your current firmwares also have the lockdown? I have always respected what you've done and respect that it's your right to lock thing down, but it really doesn't hurt you any to state whether your firmwares also lock down converted TM units.
RMerlin has posted a few times his firmware doesn’t support this model:

https://www.snbforums.com/threads/p...-5-early-test-builds.45769/page-3#post-395449
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

Sign Up For SNBForums Daily Digest

Get an update of what's new every day delivered to your mailbox. Sign up here!
Top