FCC "forces" TP-Link to enable open source on their router(s)
<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?
I read it, and I also don't get it. It's not about open/closed software. It's about TP-Link router emitting RF power above FCC limit using TP-Link's own firmware/software. Hmm... free PR for TP-Link. -- William On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 05:27:48PM -0400, 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
On 08/01/2016 05:27 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
So the original problem remains: how can TP-Link prevent existing hardware from generating too strong signals if it cannot control the firmware?
The limits might be hard coded elsewhere.
| From: James Knott via talk <talk@gtalug.org> | On 08/01/2016 05:27 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote: | > So the original problem remains: how can TP-Link prevent existing | > hardware from generating too strong signals if it cannot control the | > firmware? | | The limits might be hard coded elsewhere. No, they are not. That's the problem: 1) FCC has made a new rule that manufacturers are to prevent customers from breaking the signal strength limitations. 2) current and past hardware is "dumb" and depends on software to do correct configuration (sensible from an engineering standpoint) Bonus complexity: the power limits and channel frequencies depend on the country you are currently in. If the device has to enforce this then it needs to know the country and probably not trust the user to get it right. Second best: sell a different model in each country. Alternative solutions: a) customers must not be allowed to replace the software (pretty easy and cheap; works on existing hardware) b) new hardware with "smart" radios that know not to accept violating parameters (this requires a new generation of devices, ones that are more complicated and likely more expensive; probably one device per jurisdiction). c) some kind of sandboxing of user-supplied firmware. This seems to be mentioned in the article. This is probably the most complicated solution. It would probably increase the engineering and manufacturing cost, all for a small minority of customers. And it actually limits the reach of the third party firmware in unintended ways. z) ignore the FCC. Only (a) can be retrofitted on existing hardware. TP-Link did the obvious thing. I hate it (as a customer who actually bought one of their devices to run OpenWRT). But it really is a choice between (a) and (z) on existing devices. TP-Link seems to be the first manufacturer to stop doing (z). The FCC's reaction seems to suggest that they really didn't think through what their rule meant. They really ought to clarify it. Perhaps they think that users shouldn't easily be able to violate the signal strength standards, but that flashing firmware isn't "easy". ===================== The same problem exists in the cellphone world. It used to be that there was a "baseband processor" which was kind of the gatekeeper to the radio. Android or whatever lived on another processor. They communicated with AT commands, just like a Hayes modem! But at least some systems have eliminated the baseband processor.
On 01/08/16 10:19 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
Alternative solutions:
a) customers must not be allowed to replace the software (pretty easy and cheap; works on existing hardware)
Only (a) can be retrofitted on existing hardware. TP-Link did the obvious thing. I hate it (as a customer who actually bought one of their devices to run OpenWRT). But it really is a choice between (a) and (z) on existing devices.
They seem to have done (a) and imposed a very bad configuration. I'm at work right now, but will respond at length when I get a moment. I also expect to hear from Dave Taht just about any time now (He and Vint Cerf were the lead respondents form the open source community to the FCC: I was their editor) --dave -- David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest davecb@spamcop.net | -- Mark Twain
On 08/01/2016 10:19 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
| The limits might be hard coded elsewhere.
No, they are not. That's the problem:
I was speaking in general terms, as I don't know that device to speak about it specifically. However, there have long been ways to set something at manufacture, that cannot be changed later, or at least not easily. So, if something is bound for U.S., it would have those limits set at the factory. I recall reading, many years ago, about a programmable ROM that had one bit, which when set, would prevent any further changes to the contents. There are other methods that could be used to similarly protect such settings.
| From: James Knott via talk <talk@gtalug.org>
| On 08/01/2016 05:27 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote: | > So the original problem remains: how can TP-Link prevent existing | > hardware from generating too strong signals if it cannot control the | > firmware? | | The limits might be hard coded elsewhere.
No, they are not. That's the problem:
1) FCC has made a new rule that manufacturers are to prevent customers from breaking the signal strength limitations. They've had such rules for a while, but on home routers, adding power causes more interference and cross-talk, so sane vendors tend to keep
[In-line comments] On 01/08/16 10:19 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote: their power low. Some few will try reducing power when they see interference. TP-Link seems to have shipped with an illegal power setting straight from the factory.
2) current and past hardware is "dumb" and depends on software to do correct configuration (sensible from an engineering standpoint)
Bonus complexity: the power limits and channel frequencies depend on the country you are currently in. If the device has to enforce this then it needs to know the country and probably not trust the user to get it right. Second best: sell a different model in each country.
The open source codebases typically uses the Linux CRDA mechanism, which is cryptographically signed by the kernel maintainer, John Linville, and allows the owner to set the country, which in turn sets the power, channels allowed and radar sensitivity . See http://linux.die.net/man/8/crda and https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/Regulatory
Alternative solutions:
a) customers must not be allowed to replace the software (pretty easy and cheap; works on existing hardware)
b) new hardware with "smart" radios that know not to accept violating parameters (this requires a new geofneration of devices, ones that are more complicated and likely more expensive; probably one device per jurisdiction).
We do this in software, using the CRDA for good stuff and fixed tables in some proprietary crap. Almost all wi-fi chips are "thin" and require everything to be done in software by the controlling CPU.
c) some kind of sandboxing of user-supplied firmware. This seems to be mentioned in the article. This is probably the most complicated solution. It would probably increase the engineering and manufacturing cost, all for a small minority of customers. And it actually limits the reach of the third party firmware in unintended ways.
The FCC asked for cryptographically signed safety-critical software bits: we have part of that, but the vendors and WRT folks may need to do more, and perhaps get regulatory approval for the CRDA in general.
z) ignore the FCC.
Only (a) can be retrofitted on existing hardware. TP-Link did the obvious thing. I hate it (as a customer who actually bought one of their devices to run OpenWRT). But it really is a choice between (a) and (z) on existing devices.
Vendors previously claimed that the FCC's old rulings required (a), and that if you wanted a bug fix, you had to buy a new router from them. TP-Link seems to be the first company that actually implemented (a), but did it to protect not-legally-compliant software from being made compliant (;-)) You can imagine the reaction at the FCC! --dave -- David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest davecb@spamcop.net | -- Mark Twain
On 16-08-03 07:57 AM, David Collier-Brown via talk wrote:
On 01/08/16 10:19 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
| From: James Knott via talk <talk@gtalug.org>
| On 08/01/2016 05:27 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote: | > So the original problem remains: how can TP-Link prevent existing | > hardware from generating too strong signals if it cannot control the | > firmware? | | The limits might be hard coded elsewhere.
No, they are not. That's the problem:
1) FCC has made a new rule that manufacturers are to prevent customers from breaking the signal strength limitations.
Some WiFi routers have antennae that can be unscrewed and replace with a different one(s). I've seen ads for router antennas claiming they can help if you a problem with weak signal at the receiving end. Replacing antennae on a router with one(s) that are either more efficient or higher gain can result in the level of the RF output from the device exceeding the limits set goverment regulation. -- Cheers! Kevin. http://www.ve3syb.ca/ |"Nerds make the shiny things that distract Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172 | the mouth-breathers, and that's why we're | powerful!" #include <disclaimer/favourite> | --Chris Hardwick
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
participants (5)
-
D. Hugh Redelmeier -
David Collier-Brown -
James Knott -
Kevin Cozens -
William Park