Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC Reaches Settlement with TP-Link in Wi-Fi Router Investigation

transition.fcc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 70 posts

Re: FCC Reaches Settlement with TP-Link in Wi-Fi Router Investigation

#11

Post by _RPM »

One time I was up for like 36 hours, and I had just gotten a new router from Linksys. I started reading the privacy policy and got really freaked out that they were tracking every website I visited through some kind of HTTP/S proxy.

I wouldn't doubt it because in their policy they paint some pretty broad strokes with their words. Their "Smart WiFi" router phones home constantly and the web interface manager doesn't allow you to run it without third party cookies enabled and JavaScript enabled. I'm going to have to burn that open source router onto it because it said it was capable.

Re: FCC Reaches Settlement with TP-Link in Wi-Fi Router Investigation

#12

Post by raarts »

callesgg wrote: post #9
koolba wrote: post #8

Would it be possible to do any real harm (to humans, pets, etc) by increasing this power setting or would this only cause interference with other electronics? Also, which models is this for?

Harm to biological entity's no way. "causing interference" In theory, yes the possibility exists. In practice not likely. Other wifi ap's neer by might be drowned more than they would otherwise. You could call that interference.

> In practice not likely.

Depends. It apparently is real enough. Higher 5GHz WiFi band channels can interfere with airport radar. That's why the standard mandates a router to switch to another channel if it detects radar signals.[1]

But of course using an illegal channel is simply illegal...

[1] http://wifi-insider.com/wlan/dfs.htm

Re: FCC Reaches Settlement with TP-Link in Wi-Fi Router Investigation

#14

Post by Sanddancer »

koolba wrote: post #8

Would it be possible to do any real harm (to humans, pets, etc) by increasing this power setting or would this only cause interference with other electronics? Also, which models is this for?

Yes. The FCC allowed operation outside the normal Part 15 unlicensed band range in exchange for the makers of wifi devices promising not to intrude on certain areas within that range of frequencies. By increasing the power setting, you're disrupting navigation services, weather services, aviation services and maritime services. Some of these services are very sensitive to interference, and by setting up your devices to use those frequencies, your little router is essentially screaming into their ear, blocking people from getting information that may be essential for their safety. If you want more bandwidth, pester vendors into hurrying up with 802.11ad devices, don't go tromping on the neighbors' rf lawns.

Re: FCC Reaches Settlement with TP-Link in Wi-Fi Router Investigation

#15

Post by pdabbadabba »

raarts wrote: post #12
callesgg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harm to biological entity's no way. "causing interference" In theory, yes the possibility exists. In practice not likely. Other wifi ap's neer by might be drowned more than they would otherwise. You could call that interference.

> In practice not likely. Depends. It apparently is real enough. Higher 5GHz WiFi band channels can interfere with airport radar. That's why the standard mandates a router to switch to another channel if it detects radar signals.[1] But of course using an illegal channel is simply illegal... [1] http://wifi-insider.com/wlan/dfs.htm

I cannot imagine why you're being down-voted. This isn't hypothetical; the FCC imposed these security restrictions after reports of actual interference to airport weather RADARs.

https://www.fcc.gov/general/u-nii-and-tdwr-interference-enfo...

Re: FCC Reaches Settlement with TP-Link in Wi-Fi Router Investigation

#17

Post by lmns »

shmerl wrote: post #6

Better to stick with those who don't need anyone to require them that. At least Linksys with Marwell chips has really open WiFi drivers (WRT1900ACS).

The last time I looked it required a proprietary binary blob. AFAIK the only free drivers which work well are ath5k and ath9k.

Re: FCC Reaches Settlement with TP-Link in Wi-Fi Router Investigation

#18

Post by wtallis »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #15
raarts wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In practice not likely. Depends. It apparently is real enough. Higher 5GHz WiFi band channels can interfere with airport radar. That's why the standard mandates a router to switch to another channel if it detects radar signals.[1] But of course using an illegal channel is simply illegal... [1] http://wifi-insider.com/wlan/dfs.htm

I cannot imagine why you're being down-voted. This isn't hypothetical; the FCC imposed these security restrictions after reports of actual interference to airport weather RADARs. https://www.fcc.gov/general/u-nii-and-tdwr-interference-enfo...

Note however that it appears that virtually all of those instances of interference were tracked down to Ubiquity point to point link devices. TP-Link's ordinary consumer access points and routers may have been out of compliance with the letter of the law, but they weren't causing actual harm to airport operations, let alone enough harm to justify banning OpenWRT.

Re: FCC Reaches Settlement with TP-Link in Wi-Fi Router Investigation

#19

Post by swiley »

raarts wrote: post #12
callesgg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harm to biological entity's no way. "causing interference" In theory, yes the possibility exists. In practice not likely. Other wifi ap's neer by might be drowned more than they would otherwise. You could call that interference.

> In practice not likely. Depends. It apparently is real enough. Higher 5GHz WiFi band channels can interfere with airport radar. That's why the standard mandates a router to switch to another channel if it detects radar signals.[1] But of course using an illegal channel is simply illegal... [1] http://wifi-insider.com/wlan/dfs.htm

The rules for using DFS 5ghz channels are so harsh that the networks built with them are almost uselessly unreliable. You're /far/ better off just not using channels requiring DFS. Especially if it means you can actually own the equipment you paid for.

Re: FCC Reaches Settlement with TP-Link in Wi-Fi Router Investigation

#20

Post by bsamuels »

_RPM wrote: post #11

One time I was up for like 36 hours, and I had just gotten a new router from Linksys. I started reading the privacy policy and got really freaked out that they were tracking every website I visited through some kind of HTTP/S proxy. I wouldn't doubt it because in their policy they paint some pretty broad strokes with their words. Their "Smart WiFi" router phones home constantly and the web interface manager doesn't a…

I tried blocking the only third party cookie on our admin portal and the rest of the site seemed to work fine. What are you using to block the third party cookie?

Also what part of the privacy policy gives you the impression of there being a proxy/something tracking the websites you visit?

Post reply on HN