So let me understand something... DD-WRT is being developed in Germany, not in the USA. Why should the developers care about what the FCC "enforces" ? FCC's jurisdiction doesn't cover Germany, because Germany is not part of the USA (at least not yet), as far as I know.
So let me understand something... DD-WRT is being developed in Germany, not in the USA. Why should the developers care about what the FCC "enforces" ? FCC's jurisdiction doesn't cover Germany, because Germany is not part of the USA (at least not yet), as far as I know.
Because router manufacturers might choose to apply FCC rules to all their products. _________________ 2 times APU2 Opnsense 21.1 with Sensei
2 times RT-AC56U running DD-WRT 45493 (one as Gateway, the other as AP, both bridged with LAN cable)
3 times Asus RT-N16 shelved
E4200 V1 running freshtomato 2020.8 (bridged with LAN cable)
3 times Linksys WRT610N V2 converted to E3000 and 1 original E3000 running freshtomato 2020.8 (bridged with LAN cable)
Joined: 06 Jun 2006 Posts: 7492 Location: Dresden, Germany
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:18 Post subject:
right. we do not care about the FCC, but we do care about vendors and vendors do not develop special products for each market. by the way. the EU is trying to establish also such a secret law, but it wasnt announced that officially. we just found it out some days ago.
and what people should worry about really?
what makes the difference between a dd-wrt router and a debian or ubuntu linux desktop?
nothing. also in a linux os you can change the regulatory options without any problem. so what comes next. enforcing vendors to only ship secured bios systems where unsigned os installation is impossible. so only trusted fcc approved linux systems can be installed?
sound strange, but yes technically the fcc is going that far. its not just about routers. its about devices which contain 5 ghz capable wireless cards _________________ "So you tried to use the computer and it started smoking? Sounds like a Mac to me.." - Louis Rossmann https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL_5YDRWqGE&t=60s
This is just sad. One of the reasons I love DD-WRT is because it gives options that stock firmware doesn't. Just the QOS options are beyond almost every router under $100 and they tend to be used as a way to force people to spend more money to get better firmware.
Another reason is because it tends to be more secure then stock and allow the user to configure it how they want. Personally, I like having my router manage my connection an act as a DHCP server, access point, and switch.
I have friends that use there DD-WRT flashed routers for much more then I do, and stock firmware would never allow it without spending a good $400 on a router.
I think some of the manufactures are upset because of what DD-WRT unlocks on there basic models and are using the FCC to get restrictions.
I live in the USA, and almost everything is run by company's now. The government has puppets that will do whatever to make sure that they keep getting money.
If there is a petition against this, and it's marked as an announcement that 3rd party firmware is in danger, I believe this will be stopped.
right. we do not care about the FCC, but we do care about vendors and vendors do not develop special products for each market.
This was my initial concern. However, the more I think about it, channels and transmit power are the two issues. Being that these regulations are different based on location, I would think manufacturers would keep a ROW version to actually reduce the number of variations. On the other hand, this could be even more negative, as firmware could be crippled even further to comply with multiple markets.
I find this to be especially disturbing for education. I've setup WiFi for multiple small schools based around dd-wrt because it is cost effective, runs dnsmasq for safe search redirects, and can force the use of opendns. These schools will not have this option for safe, cost effective networks in the future.
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 Posts: 7568 Location: YWG, Canada
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:30 Post subject:
BrainSlayer wrote:
right. we do not care about the FCC, but we do care about vendors and vendors do not develop special products for each market. by the way. the EU is trying to establish also such a secret law, but it wasnt announced that officially. we just found it out some days ago.
and what people should worry about really?
what makes the difference between a dd-wrt router and a debian or ubuntu linux desktop?
nothing. also in a linux os you can change the regulatory options without any problem. so what comes next. enforcing vendors to only ship secured bios systems where unsigned os installation is impossible. so only trusted fcc approved linux systems can be installed?
sound strange, but yes technically the fcc is going that far. its not just about routers. its about devices which contain 5 ghz capable wireless cards
if it is like that so even eu versions are ruined, whats the future of ddwrt/openwrt.? build a mini-itx x86/64 pc + unmanaged switch & put in a wireless nic? would desktop nic's be affected by this or not since they are standalone radios on a card not a router with the same type of fw?
or we're all stuck on using 2.4ghz forever with 3rd party fw? or someone will find a way to hack this signing crap or flash chip replacement services will spring up _________________ LATEST FIRMWARE(S)
BrainSlayer wrote:
we just do it since we do not like any restrictions enforced by stupid cocaine snorting managers
It is a sad state the business is heading ... it was always going to go this way but I do agree with
his remarks....a little restraint here and there would likely have put the inevitable off a few more years......
