FCC Bans Open Source router firmware
-
@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.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
It's more analogous to shouting at the top of your lungs for everyone to hear your nefarious deeds. The fact that radio emissions are flooding the airwaves is enough probable cause for the FCC to get involved just as if a cop heard someone screaming from inside your house.
Since radio has had 100+ years of history behind it, the laws are shaped well because the technology is well understood. That's why it's generally illegal at the moment to drive around with an infrared camera pointed at houses looking for heavy duty heat signatures without a warrant but using a wireless scanner is not.
-
All of this did lead me to finding a really cool webpage - warning, you will get sucked in and spend 15min looking at cool stuff!
-
How did this thread lead you to that page?
