• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

America's crackdown on open-source Wi-Fi router firmware – THE TRUTH and how to get involved UPDATED

They are still up. Just slow
 
They have site stabilty problems... whining in forums too... the FTP also goes down...

Actually played a bit with my router few days ago.... well... turned back to stock... my experience is always the same... wifi performace suffers a lot versus stock OS... btw I have EA6300V1
 
tomato???
Tomatos code base is a disaster I would't touch it with a 10 foot pole
DD-WRT might not be completely bullet proof on every single platform but at least its not buried under 10 years of old broken commits and ancient driver and kernel patches
 
Last edited:
UPDATE

New Story Development here
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/14/iab_defends_users_rights_to_mod_wifi_kit/


For those who don't like the reg style of story telling
here is a .................



The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has gently suggested to the United States' Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that locking WiFi kit to manufacturers' firmware forever might not be a good idea.
The IAB's submission to the FCC, made last week, is in response to the FCC suggesting a crack-down on open-source firmware like OpenWrt.
The FCC's mooted ban-hammer is designed to keep devices like WiFi routers operating in their designated spectrum, with the regulator fearful that inept modders could grab something like emergency spectrum in their eternal search for a channel that isn't contested by every other access point within reach.
The IAB, which last year decided to make user privacy and security the focus of its efforts, is particularly concerned that a ban on non-vendor firmware will leave stranded users with orphan devices that no longer get manufacturer support.
Its October 7 letter to the FCC – which landed a day before the FCC's extended submission deadline – says non-vendor firmware is needed "because a manufacturer ceasing operation would otherwise leave all hardware orphaned from update, which itself poses significant potential security risks."
Researchers and tinkerers should also be able to work without fear of breaking FCC rules merely by re-flashing radio kit, the IAB says. "Many radio frequency devices originally intended for one set of use cases have been adapted by the experimental and open source communities for new uses."
Stifling innovation isn't in anybody's interest, the letter argues.
If the Feds truly anticipate widespread chaos from the continued existence of open-source-moddable wireless kit, the IAB suggests the FCC put in place a mechanism ("as simple as possible") by which such features can be authorized.
 
99.5% of router users plug the thing in and never touch it again.. this isn't an issue you're gonna get much support for
 
99.5% of router users plug the thing in and never touch it again.. this isn't an issue you're gonna get much support for

Irelevent comment Sir
You could say 99.5% of people do not overclock their GPU or CPU
so giving Advice to the 0.5% who do is a waste of Time and Re-scorces

People reading the story May feel different and thus may look in to changing the OEM firmware to a Different type of firmware such as DDWRT or Tomato
 
My TP link 1043ND was stable and didn't have problems , but in the last year it started to be more and more unstable with my 100Mbit connection , gargoyle changed it completely from unstable brick to a perfectly working router and WIFI didn't become shit as usual with open source firmware vs stock . so yes , we need those to save our routers from shit code.
 
FCC has revised it stance on this...

Story at MPC: FCC Clarifies Stance on Third-Party Router Firmware

"One of our key goals is to protect against harmful interference by calling on manufacturers to secure their devices against third party software modifications that would take a device out of its RF compliance. Yet, as the record shows, there is concern that our proposed rules could have the unintended consequence of causing manufacturers to 'lock down' their devices and prevent all software modifications, including those impacting security vulnerabilities and other changes on which users rely," the FCC said in a blog post.

FCC Blog post:
Clearing the Air on Wi-Fi Software Updates

by: Julius Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering & Technology
November 12, 2015 - 12:09 PM

FCC proposal (updated 11/12/2015): SOFTWARE SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR U-NII DEVICES
 
Just like to say that my making people aware of this by( RE) posting the News may have helped influence this decision in some ( VERY ) small way
( that's me being Smug :))
 
I knew of this on ars and SnBB for a while...
 
@dorsetknob
thankyou for your smugliness it has made me take note of this issue.
 
Last edited:
It comes down to the manufacturers and how they implement FCC's requirements. What they should do (and should have been doing all along) is putting in radios that can't leave the bounds of the target country's radio requirements. If they do what they're supposed to, it shouldn't effect open firmware at all.

The FCC can't force manufacturers to not take the easy way out (block third party firmware). What consumers buy will indicate to manufacturers whether open firmware capable routers are worth the extended supply chain.
 
manufacturers Supply the world market and as such its usually the Same hardware in equipment world wide
Software is used to restrict/enhance Different markets. If one country tries to restrict a global product then due to costs it is effectively removing itself from the market supply chain and restricting consumer choice
Each country already has laws regulating what power and channel you can use ( Software Controlled)
ENFORCE THE CURRENT LAWS not introduce more or use new rules to restrict Equipment
 
DECT 6.0 exists exclusively in the USA because FCC allotted different frequencies (above 1.9 GHz instead of just below 1.9 GHz) to the technology than the rest of the world. I'm pretty sure their radios are incapable of changing frequencies.

I think the WiFi Alliance needs to trademark a moniker (like "Wide Band") for WiFi radios that go outside of what the FCC allows that can't be sold in the USA--just like the DECT phones.

FCC is enforcing the current laws; that's what this is all about. The US market is big enough to warrant manufacturing separate radios for sale in the USA.
 
It comes down to the manufacturers and how they implement FCC's requirements. What they should do (and should have been doing all along) is putting in radios that can't leave the bounds of the target country's radio requirements. If they do what they're supposed to, it shouldn't effect open firmware at all.
Slight correction, it would actually be the chip-set manf's that enforce how this is done (Broadcom, Qualcomm Atheros etc...). It will be how they implement the FCC rules, and the tools they provide to their partners to then adjust the platform. As really no wifi router manf really makes the internals, they just put the lip stick on it.


(I believe)
 
I was talking about the radios which are often made by 3Com, Cisco, Lucent, Motorola, and Broadcom. If the radio is designed to forbid going outside of the regulated frequencies, no amount of software is going to change that.
 
man that Damn update really messed my week up :mad:
it took about 15 or more flashes until i finally got it , damn FCC.

the main issue for the AC66u with me was that i lost the entire settings list for QOS, 5Ghz was dropping constantly, and the ui in general was buggy.
wish i had seen this thread earlier ;)
 
Like I posted in the other thread, do we know for sure the problems @jboydgolfer experienced were due to an FCC lockout or just the standard problems you get when flashing from the ASUS webGUI?

Even though it says you can flash from the GUI on the Merlin site, I've had to use the Fimrware Restoration method every single time I've done it. Even we back in April of 2015 when I bought my personal AC66U, I had to use the firmware restoration method to flash Merlin, the stock GUI would not accept it. And I'm pretty sure I had to do the same thing back in 2014 when I bought the RT-N66U that I used before I bought the AC66U.
 
Like I posted in the other thread, do we know for sure the problems @jboydgolfer experienced were due to an FCC lockout or just the standard problems you get when flashing from the ASUS webGUI?

Even though it says you can flash from the GUI on the Merlin site, I've had to use the Fimrware Restoration method every single time I've done it. Even we back in April of 2015 when I bought my personal AC66U, I had to use the firmware restoration method to flash Merlin, the stock GUI would not accept it. And I'm pretty sure I had to do the same thing back in 2014 when I bought the RT-N66U that I used before I bought the AC66U.

I was just trying to b helpful.i changed the wrding.
 
Statistics 101, correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Coincidence alone is never proof.
 
Ill just delete the thread.
 
Like I posted in the other thread, do we know for sure the problems @jboydgolfer experienced were due to an FCC lockout or just the standard problems you get when flashing from the ASUS webGUI?

Even though it says you can flash from the GUI on the Merlin site, I've had to use the Fimrware Restoration method every single time I've done it. Even we back in April of 2015 when I bought my personal AC66U, I had to use the firmware restoration method to flash Merlin, the stock GUI would not accept it. And I'm pretty sure I had to do the same thing back in 2014 when I bought the RT-N66U that I used before I bought the AC66U.

It's a compatability issue according to Merlin, thanks in part to Asus implementing a new firmware verification method in recent official releases (that I have never flashed to thankfully): http://www.snbforums.com/threads/im...le-with-asus-3-0-0-4-380_3000-or-newer.32962/

More information on the new firmware verification method Asus introduced: http://www.snbforums.com/threads/asus-firmware-will-change-the-verification-method.32357/

I've never once had to use the Firmware Restoration method on my AC66R to go from AsusWRT to AsusWRT or to any version of Merlin in the time I've used/deployed it. In-fact none of the AC66x or N66x series I flashed to Merlin ever had the issue that @jboydgolfer experienced. That is until now with the newer firmware check. Part of why I recommend Merlin so strongly for AsusWRT-based routers is because of how simple and painless the process was for a more capable and stable network device. Maybe I was lucky in the past two years and definitely most recently not upgrading to the newest official AsusWRT releases. But they definitely add a few steps to upgrading to Merlin from AsusWRT...I am tempted to flash to official just to go through the process myself... if I get a spare AC or N66 to test I sure will...my current one is acting as an AP and I'm not about to piss off the wife this week by disabling her wifi lol!

@jboydgolfer Don't delete your thread, keep the instructions as it is was useful IMHO. :)

:toast:
 
Back
Top