Hi,
Don't complain to the vendor. Write a letter to the FCC. Encourage
everyone you know to write letters to the FCC.
It's not up to tplink/dlink/ubiquiti/etc.
-a
On 28 July 2015 at 13:25, Marc Juul <juul@labitat.dk> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Mitar <mitar@tnode.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> From Battlemesh V8 agenda (http://battlemesh.org/BattleMeshV8/Agenda):
>>
>> The new FCC rules are in effect in the United States from June 2nd 2015
>> [1] for WiFi devices such as Access Points. They require to have the
>> firmware locked down so End-Users can't operate with non-compliant
>> parameters (channels/frequencies, transmit power, DFS, ...). In
>> response, WiFi access point vendors start to lock down firmwares to
>> prevent custom firmwares (such as OpenWRT) to be installed, using code
>> signing, etc. Since the same type of devices are often sold world wide,
>> this change does not only affect routers in the US, but also Europe, and
>> this will also effect wireless communities.
>> We would like to discuss:
>> * What are your experiences with recently certified WiFi Hardware
>> * How can we still keep OpenWRT on these devices
>> * What can we suggest to Hardware vendors so that they keep their
>> firmware open for community projects while still compliant with the FCC?
>
>
> Fucking hell. I just sent emails to TP-Link and Ubiquiti stating that we
> rely on this for our organization and asking what they're planning to do.
>
> Ubiquiti already locked down channel selection and made separate EU/US
> models so it's not unthinkable that they'll actually do the right thing.
> TP-Link also already has Chinese and US/EU versions of some routers. Maybe
> we can get the EFF to help launch a campaign for device freedom to make the
> manufacturers aware that this is important?
>
> Hopefully we can scale quickly enough using current-generation gear that
> we'll be able to have our own routers FCC certified and mass produced before
> it becomes an issue. If need be we can create a meta-organization for all
> the world's mesh groups to make a few types of routers that we need.
>
> Maybe we can convince the router manufacturers to interpret the FCC
> regulations such that opening the case on a router and soldering a
> connection is required to flash the router. That would be super easy for
> them to implement and very convenient for us. If we got EFF lawyers to
> interpret the new FCC regulations and issue a statement that they believe
> this is legal (they did something similar for their open wireless movement)
> then we could take that statement to all the relevant folks.
>
> Or alternatively we do nothing now and bypass whatever security comes out,
> or start a router smuggling ring, but what a pain.
>
> Better to be pro-active though and get in touch with all router
> manufacturers. Adrian and others on this list: If you have points of
> contacts that might serve as entry-points to getting in touch with the right
> people at relevant corporations then that would be much appreciated. We can
> start talking and tell them what we have in mind and that we'll do the
> leg-work as much as possible. We can offer them some community cred by
> hoisting them high on a page of "Proudly user-reflashable" devices (we'll
> have to come up with a nice marketable term like "open source", hm, "User
> controlled"? "Owner controlled"? I'm sure we can do better.
>
> Anyway, just throwing some ideas out there. What you say?
>
> --
> marc/juul
>
> _______________________________________________
> mesh mailing list
> mesh@lists.sudoroom.org
> https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/mesh
>
_______________________________________________
mesh mailing list
mesh@lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/mesh