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:
<http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/fcc-forces-tp-link-to-support-open-source-firmware-on-routers/>

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