FCC to Ban DD-WRT with new rule -- public comment

L

lordsegan

Gawd
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
624
There is a proposed FCC rule that would ban DD-WRT and other custom firmware. It might even eventually be used to limit open source operating systems on phones and even laptops!

Please comment to the FCC:

https://www.federalregister.gov/art...-time-for-comments-on-equipment-authorization

See: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Save_WiFi

See: http://arstechnica.com/information-...ware-is-still-legal-under-certain-conditions/

See: Rule would specifically require manufacturers prove "how the device is protected from ‘flashing’ and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT.”"
 
The rule doesn't ban DD-WRT. It bans routers being able to be taken out of compliance with the regulated frequencies, modulation, and power levels. The simplest way to do this for manufacturers would be to not allow third party firmware, but if they can prevent it in another way that works too.
 
Erasmus354 said:
The rule doesn't ban DD-WRT. It bans routers being able to be taken out of compliance with the regulated frequencies, modulation, and power levels. The simplest way to do this for manufacturers would be to not allow third party firmware, but if they can prevent it in another way that works too.
Click to expand...

Actually, IMAL, and you are wrong.

From the FCC directly: "What prevents third parties from loading non-US versions of the software/firmware on the device? Describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT"
https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachm... Device Security v01r02&tracking_number=39498

Is it possible that there is "another way" to confirm that only approved DD-WRT firmware is uploaded? Sure. Does that cost a ton of money that manufacturers will not spend? Yes.
 
lordsegan said:
Actually, IMAL, and you are wrong.

From the FCC directly: "What prevents third parties from loading non-US versions of the software/firmware on the device? Describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT"
https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachm... Device Security v01r02&tracking_number=39498

Is it possible that there is "another way" to confirm that only approved DD-WRT firmware is uploaded? Sure. Does that cost a ton of money that manufacturers will not spend? Yes.
Click to expand...

From FCC Spokesperson Robert Meich:

"Manufacturers could choose to ban software mods, but if they have a different solution that achieves the same end (preventing RF mods that take the device out of compliance) that would be acceptable"

Further clarification in the Ars article you linked:

"The DD-WRT reference is understood to mean that “an applicant seeking to certify a 5GHz Wi-Fi router would have to ‘describe in detail how the device is protected from ‘flashing’ and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT’ that would modify the RF parameters in a way that would take the device out of compliance and cause harmful interference,” the FCC told Ars."
 
From the document:

20. The proposals would modify the SDR-related requirements in part 2 of its rules based in part on the current Commission practices regarding software configuration control. To minimize the potential for unauthorized modification to the software that controls the RF parameters of the device, grantees would have to implement well-defined measures to ensure that certified equipment is not capable of operating with RF-controlling software for which it has not been approved. All manufacturers of devices that have software-based control of RF parameters would have to provide specific information about the software capabilities of their devices. The Commission proposed to require that an applicant for certification explicitly describe the RF device's capabilities for software configuration and upgradeability in the application for certification. This description would include all frequency bands, power levels, modulation types, or other modes of operation for which the device is designed to operate, including modes not enabled in the device as initially marketed. Also, an applicant for certification would have to specify which parties will be authorized to make software changes (e.g., the grantee, wireless service provider, other authorized parties) and the software controls that are provided to prevent unauthorized parties from enabling different modes of operation. This information would be included as part of the operational description information required in the application for certification. The Commission sought comment on these proposals.
Click to expand...

If a maker does want to allow open source software they can, but they must stay so in their certification and provide the details how they will allow this without allowing an authorized user to operate the device out of spec. So the companies that are advertising you can put DD-WRT on their devices would need to actually have it certified rather than just taking certified hardware then allowing someone to use it however they please.
 
Well, I dislike DD-WRT so would be OK with a ban :)
 
As an Amateur radio operator interference given off from spurious or illegal transmissions is an awful thing to experience especially when trying to communicate with other people. Since amateur radio is allowed to operator on the 2.4ghz spectrum as well as 5ghz and beyond we try to always make our signals as clean as possible. There is absolutely NO gain in using an off frequency outside of the already allocated channels. You cause interference and noise with pirate radio frequencies. It can be a serious problem.

Like CB operators who are by law limited to 4 watts of RF output and yet they go and run 2500 watts of power and now your LCD or Plasma TV is going crazy when you paid good money for it to work properly. What if grandma's medical equipment is keeping her comfortable in the back bed room and the neighbor down the street is putting out spurious and illegal transmissions and it affects her equipment???

Everything is balanced. I do not support anything our Government does honestly but somethings are actually for the good of everyone to enjoy their technology free from avoidable interference.
 
It wasn't reliable, very often if it rebooted=stock config. Different builds never fixed it. Moved to Tomato and it just worked.
 
tangoseal said:
As an Amateur radio operator interference given off from spurious or illegal transmissions is an awful thing to experience especially when trying to communicate with other people. Since amateur radio is allowed to operator on the 2.4ghz spectrum as well as 5ghz and beyond we try to always make our signals as clean as possible. There is absolutely NO gain in using an off frequency outside of the already allocated channels. You cause interference and noise with pirate radio frequencies. It can be a serious problem.

Like CB operators who are by law limited to 4 watts of RF output and yet they go and run 2500 watts of power and now your LCD or Plasma TV is going crazy when you paid good money for it to work properly. What if grandma's medical equipment is keeping her comfortable in the back bed room and the neighbor down the street is putting out spurious and illegal transmissions and it affects her equipment???

Everything is balanced. I do not support anything our Government does honestly but somethings are actually for the good of everyone to enjoy their technology free from avoidable interference.
Click to expand...

as a ham I call bullshit on you since hams are some of the people modifying the 2.4Ghz radios in routers to operate in other parts of the 13cm ham band

and I *REALLY* doubt you are doing any operation in the ghz bands anyway except maaayyybe 1.2ghz but I doubt you use that either right?
 
sc0tty8 said:
It wasn't reliable, very often if it rebooted=stock config. Different builds never fixed it. Moved to Tomato and it just worked.
Click to expand...

So your argument is synonymous with "I don't like chocolate so ban it for everyone".

You do realize tomato is a third party firmware right?
 
FLECOM said:
as a ham I call bullshit on you since hams are some of the people modifying the 2.4Ghz radios in routers to operate in other parts of the 13cm ham band

and I *REALLY* doubt you are doing any operation in the ghz bands anyway except maaayyybe 1.2ghz but I doubt you use that either right?
Click to expand...

Why does he have to be using the 5 or 2.4 ham allocations to be worried about spurious or out of band operation as a ham. Good, clean and legal operation is desirable no matter what.

I use 5 and 2.4 every day... on my router. If your using unauthorized power or frequencies that diminish my legal operations I want you stopped.

As for hams using the radios in routers in a modified way to communicate on legal amateur allocations, well, that's ham radio in a nutshell and totally legal. Besides, all of the ham activity at those frequencies are tight beam with parabolic or horn antennas going for distance.

AD5ZC

73
 
You know democracy is pretty much gone when government starts to restrict what you can do with devices you pay for... well they've been doing it for a while but it seems to be getting worse and worse now days. Making it illegal to use a custom firmware on a router is a pretty major blow to freedom and rights. My fear is that eventually Linux will also be illegal. I could see that eventually happen if companies like Microsoft lobby hard enough.
 
sc0tty8 said:
It wasn't reliable, very often if it rebooted=stock config. Different builds never fixed it. Moved to Tomato and it just worked.
Click to expand...

I moved from DD-WRT to Tomato. I'll never go back.
 
Well also as a ham, I'm not really worried about people modding their wifi stuff. We don't do overselves any favors by blowing the interference out of proportion. A lot of hams are way over sensitive and basically worry warts about it.

Anyhow, it seems this also negatively affects us if you're interested in HSMM-MESH as a ham.
 
Dion said:
I moved from DD-WRT to Tomato. I'll never go back.
Click to expand...

Funny, I've had the opposite experience. DD-WRT has been amazingly stable for me across a wide range of hardware. Tomato would never work right the one time I tried it, so I gave up.

You say "tomato" ... ;)
 
canna said:
So your argument is synonymous with "I don't like chocolate so ban it for everyone".

You do realize tomato is a third party firmware right?
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is how society works.
 
Edited my comments out... they dont matter anyways
 
Last edited:
wrangler said:
Why does he have to be using the 5 or 2.4 ham allocations to be worried about spurious or out of band operation as a ham. Good, clean and legal operation is desirable no matter what.

I use 5 and 2.4 every day... on my router. If your using unauthorized power or frequencies that diminish my legal operations I want you stopped.

As for hams using the radios in routers in a modified way to communicate on legal amateur allocations, well, that's ham radio in a nutshell and totally legal. Besides, all of the ham activity at those frequencies are tight beam with parabolic or horn antennas going for distance.

AD5ZC

73
Click to expand...

spurious emissions isn't really the issue the FCC has, it's more of exceeding power... a noisy radio is a noisy radio 3rd party firmware is very unlikely to make a radio become noisy

additionally if this passes hams won't be able to modify them either if manufactures lock down the radio to the point that nobody can make them operate them out of band or outside of ISM power limitations... I don't think Netgear is going to have a "insert call sign here to change to channel 0 or -1" option
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top