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

61–70 of 70 posts

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

#61

Post by wtallis »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #57
wtallis wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Also, nobody has banned OpenWRT. If you read the consent decree, you'll see quite the opposite." The FCC's initial knee-jerk reaction was very much along the lines of banning OpenWRT, and TP-Link subsequently deployed firmware to make it harder to put OpenWRT on their routers. Sure, they're now saying that it wasn't their intention and that they'll try to find a way to avoid it, but banning OpenWRT was and still i…

This seems like a long way of saying: "correct, nobody has banned OpenWRT, but the new FCC rules have made it riskier for manufacturers to support things like OpenWRT in the future." To which I would mostly agree, with an important caveat: TP-Link's violation actually had nothing to do with allowing third-party software like OpenWRT. Its own UI allowed end users to change region settings. This seems clearly problemat…

> This seems like a long way of saying: "correct, nobody has banned OpenWRT, but the new FCC rules have made it riskier for manufacturers to support things like OpenWRT in the future."

Nope. TP-Link has locked out OpenWRT. It's not a highly effective lock, but it is real and they actually deployed it as an update for existing hardware in the field and for new sales. They're not going to revert to the way things were and instead are trying to develop a new security strategy that clearly won't be feasible on the existing hardware that is now locked out.

And it's not like any router vendor ever actually actively supported third-party firmware; it's just a matter of how much DRM they use to interfere with it.

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

#62

Post by _RPM »

utefan001 wrote: post #59
gonzo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you're part of the solution

I only entered the market by accident. There is not much of a barrier to entry. I bought 50 machines from a recycling company in Maryland for another project. My friend suggested putting pfsense on them and selling them on ebay to help get rid of them. Your lowest cost product is $299. I am sure you know this industry better than I do. Ping me offline if needed.

Have you made a significant amount of money from this? What is your profit margin? This sounds like a good business.

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

#63

Post by pdabbadabba »

wtallis wrote: post #61
pdabbadabba wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a long way of saying: "correct, nobody has banned OpenWRT, but the new FCC rules have made it riskier for manufacturers to support things like OpenWRT in the future." To which I would mostly agree, with an important caveat: TP-Link's violation actually had nothing to do with allowing third-party software like OpenWRT. Its own UI allowed end users to change region settings. This seems clearly problemat…

> This seems like a long way of saying: "correct, nobody has banned OpenWRT, but the new FCC rules have made it riskier for manufacturers to support things like OpenWRT in the future." Nope. TP-Link has locked out OpenWRT. It's not a highly effective lock, but it is real and they actually deployed it as an update for existing hardware in the field and for new sales. They're not going to revert to the way things were…

Ah. I see the disconnect here. "Ban" connotes a rule made by an entity in authority to prohibit something. So I had been thinking you were accusing the FCC of banning OpenWRT.

If you're saying that TP-Link has banned OpenWRT, I might quibble with your use of the word "ban," but I'd basically agree. (Maybe "block" would be better? I see that you yourself are shying away from saying that TP-Link actually "banned" anything, in favor of the phrase "locked out".)

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

#64

Post by seanp2k2 »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #43
_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 wish Pfsense hardware was more affordable so more people could afford to run it.

Ubiquiti ERLite runs Vyatta on Debian on MIPS. $100 and it has TCP + VPN offload and 3 real interfaces. It might be possible to run PFSense on it; I've installed PFSense to a CF card on an IDE adapter running in a thin client (you can also find these on eBay, some with PCI-E even...check out the HP T5745 for example). You can find a lot of thin clients on eBay for under $100 if that's what you want, and most are fanless and low-power. The only issue is fitting multiple NICs, but again, PCI-E if you know where to look.

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

#65

Post by utefan001 »

_RPM wrote: post #62
utefan001 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only entered the market by accident. There is not much of a barrier to entry. I bought 50 machines from a recycling company in Maryland for another project. My friend suggested putting pfsense on them and selling them on ebay to help get rid of them. Your lowest cost product is $299. I am sure you know this industry better than I do. Ping me offline if needed.

Have you made a significant amount of money from this? What is your profit margin? This sounds like a good business.

No, we only sell ~4 machines per week. Profit margin at this price is thin. Maybe we need a better marketing campaign :) The machines without hard drives cost me $20 each. I got a bulk deal on hard drives and network cards. Once we sell all 50 machines, we don't plan on selling any more.

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

#66

Post by dogma1138 »

ausjke wrote: post #58
dogma1138 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this isn't about the case, you can always chain your router to an external amplifier (your SNR might be a bit flaky but that's another issue) you can always hard mod your router to do whatever you want. This is a simple case of the routers adhering to the specs out of the box and that the spec could not be modified via software, and I really haven't seen that many TP Link routers that can actually broadcast outsi…

correct, even without amplifiers I have used high-power wifi-cards, however I have not tried any high TX output on any TP-Link products, which is odd why TP-Link becomes the target.

From reading the full document it seems that the default TP-Link software allowed the routers to operate at higher power levels.

"TP-Link violated the Equipment Authorization and Marketing Rules by marketing routers in the United States that were shipped with TP-Link software that permitted the user to change the country code for the router, thereby enabling the router to operate at a higher power than allowed on certain restricted Wi-Fi channels."

This doesn't seem to have much to do with OSS/3rd party firmware support which is a whole other can of worms that the FCC opened a few months ago. This is also seem to be limited to 5ghz only where I guess the US has more restrictions.

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

#67

Post by gonzo »

forbiddenlake wrote: post #56
gonzo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you're part of the solution

So, why isn't selling cheap pfsense devices on eBay part of the solution to avoiding vendor spying? Because you also sell pfSense hardware and it's more expensive?

because that's the revenue we use to pay the developers.

I'm not sure what you mean by "vendor spying". Perhaps this is a reference to the FCC-required controls for 802.11 devices.

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

#68

Post by makomk »

ausjke wrote: post #22

So the bottom line of this settlement is: 1. You can still load openwrt etc to TP-Link routers. 2. TP-Link needs to do something(e.g. set hard-limit on TX power in some binary blob or something) to make sure nobody can increase Wifi output power above the "safe" threshold. Now as someone said in the thread, UBNT might have the real high-power WIFI devices(e.g. point-to-point outdoor) that can cause real interference…

The bottom line of the settlement is:

1. You still can't load openwrt etc to TP-Link routers

2. TP-Link needs to do something (e.g. lock down their routers not to allow third party firmware like openwrt) to make sure nobody can increase Wifi output power above the permitted threshold

3. TP-Link have agreed to investigate ways of locking down their routers that don't block openwrt etc, but only so long as this doesn't force them to use chipsets capable of enforcing the restriction at the hardware level (because that would be expensive).

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

#69

Post by wtallis »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #63
wtallis wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This seems like a long way of saying: "correct, nobody has banned OpenWRT, but the new FCC rules have made it riskier for manufacturers to support things like OpenWRT in the future." Nope. TP-Link has locked out OpenWRT. It's not a highly effective lock, but it is real and they actually deployed it as an update for existing hardware in the field and for new sales. They're not going to revert to the way things were…

Ah. I see the disconnect here. "Ban" connotes a rule made by an entity in authority to prohibit something. So I had been thinking you were accusing the FCC of banning OpenWRT. If you're saying that TP-Link has banned OpenWRT, I might quibble with your use of the word "ban," but I'd basically agree. (Maybe "block" would be better? I see that you yourself are shying away from saying that TP-Link actually "banned" anyth…

Whether the FCC issues a clear and direct edict or if they merely intimidate the vendors into blocking third-party firmware, the effect for consumers is the same and the blame rests in the same place, so I don't think it's inappropriate to use the word "ban" to cover both cases. Until a large-scale commercial vendor of wireless routers stands up to fight on the side of open and hackable routers, the distinction is of no consequence.

Fortunately, the FCC might be backing down due to other sources of resistance and outcry. But that's not yet clear.

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

#70

Post by godzillabrennus »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #64
godzillabrennus wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish Pfsense hardware was more affordable so more people could afford to run it.

Ubiquiti ERLite runs Vyatta on Debian on MIPS. $100 and it has TCP + VPN offload and 3 real interfaces. It might be possible to run PFSense on it; I've installed PFSense to a CF card on an IDE adapter running in a thin client (you can also find these on eBay, some with PCI-E even...check out the HP T5745 for example). You can find a lot of thin clients on eBay for under $100 if that's what you want, and most are fanl…

Vyatta has limited their web gui to their paying subscribers for years now. Probably negates any cost savings from using Pfsense.
Post reply on HN