FCC Bans Open Source router firmware
-
@JaredBusch, what all in one devices are you quoting, yet not recommending? Unless the client gives you a requirement to provide such a quote, aren't you doing yourself a disservice by even allowing the customer to think that they could use such a low end device in a business?
-
I'm thinking more of what if I want to install DD-WRT or Tomato on my home router (Linksys)... Would I then be breaking the law by using an open source firmware? That also begs the question as to whether or not 5gHz is a licensed band or not. According to the FCC, the 5gHz band is currently unlicensed... (https://www.fcc.gov/document/5-ghz-unlicensed-spectrum-unii)
If it is unlicensed, then why is the FCC trying to regulate it?
Also, If you build a chip with hardware specs that prevent it from going outside of the 5gHz bands for WiFi, it doesn't matter what you tell the software to do. If the hardware isn't capable, then it simplly physically cannot operate outside those frequencies...
-
@dafyre the FCC can still regulate unlicensed bands. For example, you can't decide to stand up a 5gHz jammer at your house just because it's unlicensed.
I'm guessing the reason the FFC is doing is has nothing to do with people trying to use 5 gHz systems for other frequencies, it's probably because someone somewhere told someone who knows nothing about how these systems work that doing this will stop hackers in some way. Though I'm sure the real reason is because businesses want an anti-competitive advantage.
@scottalanmiller what reason (I didn't see one in the article) are they giving for wanting to put this restriction in place? Why only on the 5 gHz and not 2.4 as well?
-
@Dashrender said:
Unless the client gives you a requirement to provide such a quote, aren't you doing yourself a disservice by even allowing the customer to think that they could use such a low end device in a business?
Because I am honest. These devices ARE an option. They are most certainly not a good one in my opinion, but they ARE an option. The people are hiring us for my opinion, but not for my bias. I strive very hard to always present all workable solutions.
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch, what all in one devices are you quoting, yet not recommending?
Things like the NetGear ProSAFE VPN Firewall family or the Cisco Small Business RV series.
-
Yeah, I used to do that too, but after a few years here at ML and before that at SW, I've changed my tune.
I only present options I personally believe in and want to support. If when presenting these options they ask, are there other options? I tell them yes, but those options aren't ones I'd recommend. If they insist I'll show them those options, otherwise they don't come up and a better choice is selected.
I don't consider this dishonest. They hired me for my opinion for a solution, and I provide exactly that.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Meraki has one or two, but I'd certainly not put them at Ubiquiti.
Uh I'm confused again - are you implying that there are 5Ghz radio devices that will not be effected by this or that no one would want to put custom firmware on them anyway? If it's the latter, totally agree.
I was saying that Meraki, while expensive, I don't consider on par with Ubiquiti and more of an entry class device, at least as a quality qualification. Maybe above entry like Netgear, but still low end (falling below the quality of $95 devices.)
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Meraki has one or two, but I'd certainly not put them at Ubiquiti.
Uh I'm confused again - are you implying that there are 5Ghz radio devices that will not be effected by this or that no one would want to put custom firmware on them anyway? If it's the latter, totally agree.
I was saying that Meraki, while expensive, I don't consider on par with Ubiquiti and more of an entry class device, at least as a quality qualification. Maybe above entry like Netgear, but still low end (falling below the quality of $95 devices.)
Does personal use give you this feeling/consideration?
-
@JaredBusch said:
@MattSpeller said:
Uh I'm confused again - are you implying that there are 5Ghz radio devices that will not be effected by this or that no one would want to put custom firmware on them anyway? If it's the latter, totally agree.
No, he is saying those devices are less than Ubiquiti devices and thus qualify as "very low end devices" to him.
Correct. If a device is below the quality of a $95 device and not a home / consumer product in the routing space, I consider that entry level. $95 is so cheap and you get so much for it and is what many people use for home, I would call anything below that as falling below the home line. There are use cases for the all in ones, or used to be, these days it's a rare business that shouldn't be springing $155 for separate router and APs that are quite good quality. For those rare cases where that's too expensive.... that's fine, but someone has to be the "entry level" or "low end" users. I'm not saying low end and entry level are bad, they have their place of course. Just setting the $95 Ubiquiti as a bar that failing to reach would, to me, make someone unable to be considered anything but low end.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Meraki has one or two, but I'd certainly not put them at Ubiquiti.
Uh I'm confused again - are you implying that there are 5Ghz radio devices that will not be effected by this or that no one would want to put custom firmware on them anyway? If it's the latter, totally agree.
I was saying that Meraki, while expensive, I don't consider on par with Ubiquiti and more of an entry class device, at least as a quality qualification. Maybe above entry like Netgear, but still low end (falling below the quality of $95 devices.)
Does personal use give you this feeling/consideration?
Everything about it. Features, performance, support. It's just doesn't offer anything that competing products don't do better, for less. The interface is nice, but brings issues too. We've supported them and when little else was competing they were fine. But they've severely fallen behind the market now.
-
@gjacobse said:
Not really IT related, but GMRS / FRS / MURS radios have fixed antennas. Many newer Wireless enabled devices have fixed antennas.
These must not be altered in any way. However, there are some old hardware that has the ability to replace the antenna with a higher gain antenna, or 25 feet of cable and then the antenna.
In this case, you are not modifying the device,.. However if you were to crack the case, and solder wire to the board, THEN you are in violation of FCC rules.
Yes, it is really just that the 5GHz spectrum has been added to that list of devices, basically. It was less regulated previously, that some of its spectral counterparts.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Things like the NetGear ProSAFE VPN Firewall family or the Cisco Small Business RV series.
Netgear ProSafe was long one of the ones that we recommended pre Ubiquiti and would still quote out if asked or felt that it fit well. I still like them, but they need to be very cheap to make sense.
What do people feel about TP-Link? I've never recommended one but they seem to have a price level that could make them make sense here? I wasn't a fan but lots of people I respect seem to feel I have a bad impression of them and that they are good for the super low cost needs. Would they fit here as an entry point recommendation?
-
@Dashrender said:
Unless the client gives you a requirement to provide such a quote, aren't you doing yourself a disservice by even allowing the customer to think that they could use such a low end device in a business?
In most cases for us, we would not bring them up. If asked, of course, we will. But otherwise we only provide our main recommendations. If there was a cost savings or certain value that was a trade off, we'd talk about it. But if the cost is basically the same or more, we'd generally rule it out as not a real option and move on. All depends.
-
@Dashrender said:
Unless the client gives you a requirement to provide such a quote, aren't you doing yourself a disservice by even allowing the customer to think that they could use such a low end device in a business?
@scottalanmiller said:
In most cases for us, we would not bring them up. If asked, of course, we will. But otherwise we only provide our main recommendations. If there was a cost savings or certain value that was a trade off, we'd talk about it. But if the cost is basically the same or more, we'd generally rule it out as not a real option and move on. All depends.
Generally there is a cost savings, thus this is a "cheaper" option and I always make sure to bring it up in order to point out the reasons not to do it. This is, to me, the only way to do business. I do consistently tell potential clients that I am not going to give them the cheapest quote or cheapest rate. But they will not have to call me two or three times and end up paying more int he long run.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Generally there is a cost savings, thus this is a "cheaper" option and I always make sure to bring it up in order to point out the reasons not to do it. This is, to me, the only way to do business. I do consistently tell potential clients that I am not going to give them the cheapest quote or cheapest rate. But they will not have to call me two or three times and end up paying more int he long run.
My experience has been that when presented with a cheaper option, many clients will go for it. That is why I leave it off the table unless they bring it up for the options I am presenting.
And today, when considering a Ubiquiti ERL or even a 5 port EdgeRouter and a single UAP (that comes with a power injector) it's hard to beat the $160'ish price tag Scott mentioned earlier.
-
You mean I can't use the Japanese frequencies anymore for the 5Ghz band?
Just as Scott was saying, this doesn't impact third party firmware, it impact the ability for third party firmware writers to go "Now don't use this frequencies if you are in the US"
Same problem with 802.11b congestion caused me to flip to channel 14 for a while. I had gear that could do it, and I had endpoints that would support it. Since I kept my radios under 1W, most folks wouldn't know I was using it. Now if I started to pump the power out to 2W or more with that, then the FCC can come ahead and bust my ass and rightly so. Don't spew crap over the airwaves. The FCC is brutally efficient in sniffing out this kind of stuff.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
The FCC is brutally efficient in sniffing out this kind of stuff.
Really? I'm not so sure about that. I've read about and done some very ... sketchy home brew stuff. Unless they have vans driving around town ala WW2 nazi hunter style I don't see them finding you. In fact, I'd put a strong argument up for that being the reason for this silly regulation.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@PSX_Defector said:
The FCC is brutally efficient in sniffing out this kind of stuff.
Really? I'm not so sure about that. I've read about and done some very ... sketchy home brew stuff. Unless they have vans driving around town ala WW2 nazi hunter style I don't see them finding you. In fact, I'd put a strong argument up for that being the reason for this silly regulation.
They actually do have those vans. They take reports of unlicensed spectrum broadcasting very seriously, and radio operators will know when you are broadcasting where you shouldn't and report you very quickly. When I didn't have a license, I would do sketchy stuff. Ever since I got one back in 1997, I've never strayed from what I broadcast out unless I know I can get away with it. Channel 14 on 500mW won't get very far unless the FCC Party Van is parked right next to the house.
Keeping it under a watt should keep most people unaware, as at that power it won't get very far outside your own home. It's the fucknuts who blast at 5W+, which you can get close to with some of the third party firmware gear. And if they are not clean with their wave, it can spill into other channels and critical services. The 5Ghz is pretty narrow with a lot of licensed frequency next to it. That's what the FCC is trying to keep clean.
-
-
@MattSpeller said:
@PSX_Defector said:
They actually do have those vans.
color me suprised I suppose
I know you are more used to the 4chan party van.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@PSX_Defector said:
The FCC is brutally efficient in sniffing out this kind of stuff.
Really? I'm not so sure about that. I've read about and done some very ... sketchy home brew stuff. Unless they have vans driving around town ala WW2 nazi hunter style I don't see them finding you. In fact, I'd put a strong argument up for that being the reason for this silly regulation.
Yup, the FCC vans are famous and are one of the government agencies for which there is no need for a warrant for search and seizure.
