This is the worst part:<p>>Cisco argues that open source software could be consistent with the FCC's goals. "There is nothing in the Commission's existing or proposed rules that would limit or eliminate the ability of a developer to use Open Source software, including software that controls radio emissions," Cisco said in an FCC filing in November.<p>>But this would require a more locked-down approach than one in which users can modify the firmware, Cisco said. "The ability to review source code is not inherently incompatible with the notion of locking the integrity of a product against modification or tampering," Cisco wrote. "It is perfectly possible for a product to have source code that is capable of review by the public while that same code is secured inside the device against change by the end-users."<p>That misses many of the important goals of open source (and points back to the "open source" vs "free software" debate). It's not just about being able to view the existing software, it's about being able to control the systems that process your data.<p>For example, what if the manufacturer stops supporting the hardware? Today, you can just keep updating openwrt and avoid any security issues. After 2016, that won't be possible.
It's amazing to me that instead of seeking out and prosecuting the handful of people causing problems near airports, the FCC wants to prevent everyone in the United States from running open source router firmware.
If this is going to be the "new normal" then I'm thinking that the best way to go would be to use a low-power PC or ARM system with two NICs as my router, and use dedicated access points for wireless. I'm not going to put up with crappy router firmware.
All the more reason to support the Turris Omnia [1]. Open hardware / software [2]:<p><pre><code> [1] https://omnia.turris.cz/en/
[2] https://github.com/CZ-NIC/turris-os
[3] https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/turris-omnia-hi-performance-open-source-router#/</code></pre>
So, then, i guess they are going to stop using GPL/LGPL software or will soon be enjoying the wrath of the SFLC.<p>Time to go give some money to bradley :)
I wonder if the blocking is simple to circumvent. If people circumvent it, the fault is not TP-Links, they had no idea or whatever, right? Either way I'm sure people would "root" these devices eventually, it usually happens. That or I could see a market in e-bay for older routers.
Appears that TP-Link's heart is not in this -- they're doing the minimum to comply with FCC rules.<p>Will be interesting to watch the arms race between OpenWRT and the reluctant ODMs.
This is the most depressing news for human race during my lifetime.<p>I see this as sign of coming total control, followed by lack of initiative and stagnation of humanity.
I just bought a TP-Link wireless adapter due to specs, reviews, and OSS support. Then I read this crap. That's just great. There's actually an obvious solution to this that gives us plenty freedom and meets FCC regulations. I'm not sure why companies aren't doing it. I plan to approach some of them or SOC providers this year to see if they might help us and them out.
This is interesting, big companies are moving their enterprise switch / routers to open source software and Cisco is trying to lock it down. I think long term, Cisco will lose this battle.
How hard is it to import a European router to the US? Is that illegal? I would think as long as one operated it within the FCC's limits it would be legal to use it.
The FCC ruling seems logical. The earliest "sky is falling" reaction comes from TP-Link's initial attempt to comply, and even TP-Link's response is logical and somewhat subdued compared to the alternatives.<p>TP-Link's response is hopeful in my opinion, compared to what router's were 10 years ago. We are fighting for improvement, and the FCC ruling is simply a speedbump. The current mentality is openness, as I see it.