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.<p>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.
So the bottom line of this settlement is:<p>1. You can still load openwrt etc to TP-Link routers.<p>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.<p>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 to airplanes etc, it seems UBNT is not impacted at all, which is odd.
FCC announcement: <a href="http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0801/DOC-340564A1.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016...</a><p>Direct Link to the ruling: <a href="http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0801/DA-16-850A1.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016...</a>
Better to stick with those who don't need anyone to require them that.<p>At least Linksys with Marwell chips has really open WiFi drivers (WRT1900ACS).
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?<p>Also, which models is this for?
According to the /. comments "Requires" is wrong. They "support" them doing that (i.e. that there are not legislative obstacles to it).
bws111's post from the Slashdot thread:<p>Nowhere in that document does it say the FCC REQUIRES TP-Link to allow open source. What it says is:<p>“While manufacturers of Wi-Fi routers must ensure reasonable safeguards to protect radio parameters, users are otherwise free to customize their routers and we support TP-Link’s commitment to work with the open-source community and Wi-Fi chipset manufacturers to enable third-party firmware on TP-Link routers.”<p>They SUPPORT a company working with open-source, not REQUIRE,<p>Later on it says:
TP-Link has also agreed to take steps to support innovation in third-party router firmware by committing to investigate security solutions for certain 5
GHz band routers that would permit the use of third-party firmware while meeting the Commission’s security requirements and maintaining the integrity of critical radio parameters.<p>So the requirement is that any open-source stuff must meet the security requiements and maintain correct operation, not that they MUST allow open source,
Title is inaccurate, TP-Link only committed to investigate supporting third party firmware (including open source).<p>From the FCC announcement (similar language is in the ruling):<p>> committing to investigate security solutions for certain 5 GHz band routers that would permit the use of third-party firmware