The open source stuff is compliant: there's wasn't, and they were using an FCC ruling to argue that everyone had to use theirs. the FCC didn't appreciate the scam. The business advantage of locked-down software is that a vendor can "encourage" you to buy a new router to get bugs fixed, by not supporting older models. The FCC effectively came out against that, too. I admit to being surprised, but I'm quite pleased. --dave On 01/08/16 05:27 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
I don't quite get it.
The FCC made a rule that was easy to comply with if the manufacturers prevented loading of third party firmware. (The rule: don't let you user set the router to use too much signal strength.)
TP-Link's new firmware "could not" be replaced by 3rd party firmware.
That firmware also allowed out-of-spec signal strength.
As a settlement, FCC required TP-Link to pay a fine, to allow third party software, and to update the firmware to not allow the user to specify (through the GUI) too much signal strength.
So the original problem remains: how can TP-Link prevent existing hardware from generating too strong signals if it cannot control the firmware? --- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
-- David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest davecb@spamcop.net | -- Mark Twain