1
63

[–] TheSafeWasALie 1 points 63 points (+64|-1) ago 

It should be shut down. this is like the adblock argument. It's my software and if i happen to break the law with it then I should be prosecuted. But, customer firmware has many other applications and added security for those who know wtf they're doing. come on law makers. Take a break.

1
29

[–] grodius 1 points 29 points (+30|-1) ago 

why not make it illegal to do things people do normally? theres a potential revenue stream untapped!

0
43

[–] RamenJunkie 0 points 43 points (+43|-0) ago 

I feel like this is the real issue.

Locking down the router means people can't

> Eliminate NSa backdoors

> Change ISP DNS servers used to track you and shit for ads

> Open ports to host your own servers

> Set up alternative mesh networks etc.

Etc etc...

It feels like its about controlling the signal vs whatever Bas about interference they are pushing.

0
8

[–] misterindie 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

That is already happening. The privatization of prisons has created lobbying actions to put pressure on lawmakers to increase prison populations.

0
0

[–] glugglug 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It already is! Sneezing or coughing in public is illegal in FL (potential $3 fine) Talking in an elevator is illegal in NY. Any sexual position other than missionary is illegal in most of the southeast.

1
0

[–] New_years_day 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Exactly.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 20 points (+21|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] Pinyaka 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

They are not banning custom firmware, just requiring that people who make custom firmware don't add functionality whose sole purpose is to break the law. So options like setting your Tx power over 20 dBm or using wifi on a band that isn't approved for wifi would have to go in order to make open source firmwares legal. They are not suggesting that devices shouldn't be allowed to receive 3rd party firmware.

I would also point out that the FCC has recently done a lot of solid pro-consumer regulating and that what they're proposing here is not a fundamentally bad thing, it just needs to be worded correctly. It's a good idea to comment on this and make sure the FCC knows how valuable custom firmwares are (I use DD-WRT personally), but the knee-jerk response to "shut down" discussion of a rule just because the final version might be worded poorly is unjustified.

2
49

[–] Dumptruck 2 points 49 points (+51|-2) ago 

I don't want to best a dead horse here, but if Your car company told you you could only drive down roads that they approved of, everyone would lose their shit.

0
26

[–] 626974636f696e 0 points 26 points (+26|-0) ago 

Or you can only replace parts with one's they manufactured, not aftermarket.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] Dumptruck 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

The fcc (and industry Canada) control spectrum management. They have no bearing and equipment outside of how hardware affects the spectrum.

While cell phones have antennas. They just monitor what the modem sets are pushing out. The router issue presents a problem bc the after market settings can alter a modem to broadcast of frequencies allotted for other devices. That's why there are those out there that say this lock down would be good only for chip sets. This would mean they could only broadcast on approved frequencies.

0
0

[–] mindofmateo 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

But I thought this was already happening, yo. Wasn't it recently proposed that when you purchase a car, you aren't really buying it, you're licensing it, because, y'know, the patents and software etc that went into it 'n stuff. Fuck, this stuff is so stupid.

0
0

[–] Dumptruck 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Not tracking the auto rumour. Can you find an article that confirms this?

2
17

[–] Dumptruck 2 points 17 points (+19|-2) ago 

I tend not to west a tinfoil hat, but I really hope this is shot down. I don't want it to set precedent.

0
25

[–] Messiadbunny 0 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago 

It's just getting real old not having full control of anything you purchase.

0
6

[–] dabork 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Welcome to the future, where you're just buying a license to use everything and you don't own anything.

0
2

[–] lord_nougat 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Have you tried to east the tinfoil hat instead?

0
2

[–] Dumptruck 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Ahaha. Just saw that. I won't change it in hopes that someone reads this. Laughter should be shared

0
2

[–] thuglas 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Comment on the federal register, that is the only way they know it's a shit idea

0
3

[–] RamenJunkie 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

No, donate 100 million to the right party. That way they know its a shit idea.

0
2

[–] Dumptruck 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I'm Canadian so I have no official power. That being said, I feel as if I will be directly affected by that decision as we share so much in the way of spectrum management.

0
1

[–] New_years_day 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

wtf does this have to do with tin foil hats? It's not a conspiracy, they are trying to pass this law.

1
-1

[–] Dumptruck 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

It was a figure of speech, not to be taken in its literal sense.

1
13

[–] jgold 1 points 13 points (+14|-1) ago 

I can understand why they need to do this. The NSA spent a lot of time and effort to put the back doors in all these wireless devices. If you can just flash it with an open source bios, all that time and effort is wasted.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] Aaaron 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Cisco was actually concerned about shipments of their routers being intercepted by the feds and the firmware being modified.

0
0

[–] rigamarole 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

From the FCC's perspecting, many third-party firmwares allow the use of channels which are not legal for usage in the U.S., or have special requirements (such as detecting radar and backing off). The FCC wants people to stay off of the restricted channels and sees third-party firmwares as a circumvention mechanism.

0
13

[–] Firinmahlazer 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

I'm against overreaching government regulations but I don't enough about WiFi to sound intelligent if I were to submit a comment. Can someone explain why this is bad?

1
18

[–] Sirskills 1 points 18 points (+19|-1) ago 

It is saying that you cannot change the firmware (internal software that controls the router) that came with your purchased routed with an open source version.

1
12

[–] pequenopete 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

There is several alternative firmwares out there like DD-WRT that essentially upgrade your router. You basically transform it into something much more configurable which makes it much more like a true router than the residential gateway that it really is. For some people they want features like the built in VPN or access policies personally I really want the ability to use static routes. These firmwares are essentially giving you that kind of functionality without having to shell out for a significantly more expensive hardware.

A metaphor might be to say having a ban on modifying your car. Like banning a remap on your turbo.

3
7

[–] collegetoker 3 points 7 points (+10|-3) ago  (edited ago)

If you can improve your older router, you have no incentive to buy tertiary devices/ newer devices to replace them. It is fairly obvious why this bill is being considered. Just another lobbyist's delight on the house.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Pinyaka 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The way to address their concern is with existing law - if someone modifies a router so that it's "polluting" local airwaves, then police the problematic effects. Laws to cover this date back to the ham radio days

Someone who modifies their router to broadcast illegally is already breaking the law and can be prosecuted. The proposed changes wouldn't make it illegal to flash new firmware, it would make it illegal to distribute firmware that does illegal stuff. So DD-WRT would need to remove the abilities to 1) modify which non-wifi approved bands users can broadcast on and 2) broadcast at more than 20 dBm power. Every use of those abilities is illegal in the US - those features only exist to enable illegal activity. The FCC requires manufacturers to ensure that their devices comply with broadcast laws no matter how people use them. There are some problems with this requirement, but the FCC almost certainly won't kill off all third party firmwares. They've even responded to criticism of the proposed rules by saying that they don't intend to block third party or open source firmwares.

0
0

[–] Firinmahlazer 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Cool this is what I was looking for. Thank you!

0
3

[–] New_years_day 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

If you buy a car it would be illegal to change the engine.

That's pretty much it.

2
6

[–] daedalus_j 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

I've been concerned about this, however the lack of a big fight coming from EFF and other groups made me suspicious of how big a deal this actually was. So far I've found one article that actually asked the FCC about things, and it doesn't appear to be nearly as bad as some people are making it sound: https://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20150831/07164532118/no-fcc-is-not-intentionally-trying-to-kill-third-party-wi-fi-router-firmware.shtml

If the EFF isn't concerned I'm not sure I should be either, ya'know?

2
3

[–] Lodley 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

If the EFF isn't concerned

The EFF will freak out about just about anything. If they are not upset you shouldn't be.

0
6

[–] Sazed 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I want to make a complaint, but it requires me to put in my real name and address, which would be fine if not for the fact that the FCC are going to publicly publish these comments. They are discouraging opinions by doing this in my opinion, which is rather heartbreaking but not surprising.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] Sazed 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Thanks for correcting me, I must have misread something. Commenting away!

0
5

[–] GenghisSean 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I already lodged a complaint a few days ago, but I suck at writing/am too lazy to write another one. Does anyone have a good message I can copy pasta for the good of all that is free software?

0
2

[–] Kookus 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

My Googling has lead me here: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Save_WiFi_letter_language. It's not copypasta, but there's a lot of good verbiage there. I'm still looking, but may craft something from this myself if I have the time today, and somebody doesn't beat me to it.

load more comments ▼ (19 remaining)