111–120 of 126 posts
This makes a great reason to buy Chinese equipment. Do that, it might be substandard, but you preserve your freedom.
An 8-core MT6592 with 4gb RAM makes for a fantastic laptop. And China isn't sharing their backdoors with the Five Eyes, if they have them at all.
This makes a great reason to buy Chinese equipment. Do that, it might be substandard, but you preserve your freedom.
It's a nice option as long as it (1) is still legal to buy and use in the US and (2) Chinese government does not cripple it even harder than US government, just in different ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 299m Americans who don't live near an airport will be able to continue using that spectrum after this goes into affect.
They will not be able to do that with software of their own choice.
Better off just building your own router. The high brow option is an embedded motherboard and minipcie wifi card. If the hardware is powerful enough to MASQ gigabit, it won't be obsolete for a decade. And you can upgrade wireless standards with a new card. The only reason there's such an upgrade cycle for consumer routers is that they're built shoddily and with the slowest CPU possible. And as much as I appreciate sp…
Also, do you have any suggestions for a motherboard + minipcie combo? I'd like to get off of our DSL router soon-ly.
Asshats brought it on themselves, don't commit felonies and mess with regulatory bodies... There is no reason in the world to run Wifi on outlawed channels other than pure selfishness to have a better connection and not be on the same base band or expansion bands as your neighbors. The FCC even allowed people to run low power transmitters on the restricted channels 12/13 but stated that channel 14 is banned and asked…
> Asshats brought it on themselves I've been using Tomato firmware for years, and I never did anything illegal with it. How did I bring it on myself exactly? > you'll still be able to use DD-WRT or w/e you want RTFA: Vendors will have to “describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT” As far as I know, all of the issues at hand could be solv…
GP1: "Describe all the radio frequency parameters that are modified by any software/firmware without any hardware changes. Are these parameters in some way limited, such that, it will not exceed the authorized parameters?"
3dP1: "Explain if any third parties have the capability to operate a US sold device on any other regulatory domain, frequencies, or in any manner that is in violation of the certification"
3dP2: "What prevents third parties from loading non-US versions of the software/firmware on the device? Describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT."
They don't care that people can install DD-WRT because of DD-WRT they care about it because it bypasses vendor restrictions if DD-WRT comes up with a way to comply with the regulatory domain, or if the vendor explains that DD-WRT will not be able to modify the Wireless Parameters out of the spec of the US regulatory domain due to limitations on the radio SOC it self they won't care if you can install DD-WRT.
Better off just building your own router. The high brow option is an embedded motherboard and minipcie wifi card. If the hardware is powerful enough to MASQ gigabit, it won't be obsolete for a decade. And you can upgrade wireless standards with a new card. The only reason there's such an upgrade cycle for consumer routers is that they're built shoddily and with the slowest CPU possible. And as much as I appreciate sp…
A noob question: what does MASQ refer to? Also, do you have any suggestions for a motherboard + minipcie combo? I'd like to get off of our DSL router soon-ly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only reason there's such an upgrade cycle for consumer routers is that they're built shoddily and with the slowest CPU possible. A lot of this is that consumers have been taught that routing, NAT, etc isn't done by a general purpose computing device like a PC or server, but that those tasks MUST be relegated to an appliance. But compute is compute, and antennas are antennas. And the word "appliance" has long he…
consumers have been taught that routing, NAT, etc isn't done by a PC or server, but MUST be relegated to an appliance. Because that's far more reliable. People don't want their whole home's Internet to go down every time they reboot their computer (and buying an extra computer to do routing is a big waste of money/complexity). Not to mention households that only have laptops.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Asshats brought it on themselves I've been using Tomato firmware for years, and I never did anything illegal with it. How did I bring it on myself exactly? > you'll still be able to use DD-WRT or w/e you want RTFA: Vendors will have to “describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT” As far as I know, all of the issues at hand could be solv…
Have you read it? GP1: "Describe all the radio frequency parameters that are modified by any software/firmware without any hardware changes. Are these parameters in some way limited, such that, it will not exceed the authorized parameters?" 3dP1: "Explain if any third parties have the capability to operate a US sold device on any other regulatory domain, frequencies, or in any manner that is in violation of the certi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you read it? GP1: "Describe all the radio frequency parameters that are modified by any software/firmware without any hardware changes. Are these parameters in some way limited, such that, it will not exceed the authorized parameters?" 3dP1: "Explain if any third parties have the capability to operate a US sold device on any other regulatory domain, frequencies, or in any manner that is in violation of the certi…
Yes, I appreciate that the FCC's proposal imposes the fewest possible restrictions, but you'd be crazy to think that it will work this way in practice. It's far easier to comply with FCC regulations by preventing any modifications whatsoever than to lock down the specific modules.
And locking out the firmware might not be the easiest way to handle this if you are a manufacturer since you'll still need to provide updates and multiple software versions (even basic things like ISP branding), so you'll have to resort to using cryptography building in a secure boot/secure flash mechanism and such and such which isn't cheap to maintain, for you telling broadcom to just disable Channel X Y and Z in their radio might be a cheaper and easier option.