FCC Bans Open Source router firmware
-
Oh, maybe you mean routers that don't have radios in them?
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller software defined radios are baked into the SOC (system on chip) that runs the whole radio device (router, ap, whatever).
Sure. But that is not the same as the FCC regulating routers in any way. If the US bans guns, and guns can be carried in cars, we wouldn't claim that the US banned cars. That manufactures can combine products and one product that is sometimes combined with another (but mostly only for consumers and entry level SMB business devices) gets "banned" we would never claim that the other device that it is sometimes combined with is banned.
For example, @JaredBusch and @gjacobse and I all use routers that are not affected. So routers themselves are not affected by the law. APs are, however, always affected by it. It's the APs that the law is about, not things that may or may not have APs added to them.
To be clear, this means PCs and tablets are affected too, because they have radios (sometimes.)
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I don't see any reason that it would change. It is only very low end devices that are affected and the ruling is for a reason. A bit of a weird reason, but a reason.
It is certainly not only "very low end devices"
Many quality all in one routers contain both the 2.4 and 5 ghz bands. These devices are all over the SMB for a reason. Better gear like the Ubiquiti and other similar levels of hardware was not available at scale until recently.
While I never recommend anything with the AP and router on the same piece, it is still always an option when I give a quote.
-
@MattSpeller said:
Oh, maybe you mean routers that don't have radios in them?
Right, which is nearly all (except for consumer and entry level ones like Netgear.)
-
@JaredBusch said:
Many quality all in one routers contain both the 2.4 and 5 ghz bands.
While I never recommend anything with the AP and router on the same piece, it is still always an option when I give a quote.What devices are you thinking of. We often recommend them, but as entry level devices (Netgear, as an example) although now that Ubiquiti is out, I know of nothing that isn't below their level like this (I qualified that above.)
I know that SonicWall sometimes does this, but I would never put SW at or above Ubiquiti, so by the qualification I gave, to me it's entry level (meaning below Ubiquiti who has set the bar pretty high for $100.)
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Right, which is nearly all (except for consumer and entry level ones like Netgear.)
OK! Now we're onto something lol
You're talking about enterprise/managed wired routers, right? Yeah they're definitely not affected by this.
We're all concerned about wifi routers, running stuff like tomato and DDWRT
-
@MattSpeller said:
We're all concerned about wifi routers, running stuff like tomato and DDWRT
I know... can you think of any that are not consumer and/or entry level as I've been saying?
-
And I did mention that one must exist, but they are so rare I don't know of one. Juniper or someone must have an odd model for special cases that is good, but rare. Maybe PaloAlto does.
-
@scottalanmiller Nope, glad we got that cleared up lol
Misunderstandings on the internet are awesome
-
Meraki has one or two, but I'd certainly not put them at Ubiquiti.
-
I think the relevant issue here for the FCC is the Radio.
As a Amateur Radio Operator, it's about those devices that have a transmitter in them. Things such as the EdgeRouter LITE does not have any RF radio in it.
-
@gjacobse said:
I think the relevant issue here for the FCC is the Radio.
As a Amateur Radio Operator, it's about those devices that have a transmitter in them. Things such as the EdgeRouter LITE does not have any RF radio in it.
Exactly. Which is much narrower in scope than "router" BUT includes a ton of devices no one thought of, which might cause problems. Android devices, for example.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
OK I think we're all on the same page now
Brining up the quality / intended use thing got me pretty confused
-
@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.
