No, there isn't, because it's perfectly possible to limit what frequencies and power levels the hardware can emit without affecting the ability to run custom firmware such as OpenWRT. The certification argument is a dodge used by router manufacturers to avoid having to give customers what they actually want.
> There was already an airport whose radio saw interference from extra powerful 5ghz wifi routers.
Anyone who is radiating enough power to interfere with airport radios is doing something a lot stranger than just flashing custom firware like OpenWRT on their router. Such people are easily stopped without having to lock down devices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_frequency_selection
(some devices try to avoid this by scanning the spectrum for weather radars...user indignation at unavailable channels follows)
Ah, ok. Weather radar is very different from "airport radio". For the latter I have a very hard time seeing how someone's ordinary wifi router could cause interference, but weather radar antennas have to be much more sensitive.
The FCC takes illegal broadcasting VERY seriously and I think that should deter people from becoming criminals.
Intel calls this "Location Aware Regulatory".
Isn't it a simple drop-down in openwrt?
2) FCC enforcement is, in general, rare. It usually requires specific complaints from commercial broadcasters in order for the FCC to respond. In the ISM and WiFi-specific bands, enforcement is extremely difficult because enforcement methods like radio direction finding are inherently difficult for the frequencies involved and even more difficult because of the high noise floor and large number of sources in urban environments. Even if the FCC allocated significant resources (which they do not), it would technically be difficult to enforce these regulations.
The FCC has closed more than half of field offices and laid off half of the enforcement staff over the last ten years. They have eliminated most of their field enforcement teams and now only have teams (perhaps only a handful, they don't say but the best public info I've found suggests 5) based out of the DC area that have to fly out. It's been very frustrating to see the FCC eliminating enforcement resources these days, but the reality is that enforcement has become far more difficult and less effective over time due to advancements in the technology. Direction finding FM pirate stations is technically pretty easy and something the FCC is very effective at (especially since FM broadcasters inform the FCC promptly). Just about everything else... fat chance of the FCC doing anything about it unless they can do so at an organizational/regulatory level (e.g. fining manufacturers or large scale operators). At the field level it's just too expensive and unproductive to try to track down individuals who have configured their WiFi routers in violation.
It's possible that the WiFi card in your PC will refuse to transmit on a 5GHz channel until it detects some other device already transmitting. I've pulled WiFi modules from dead laptops that had such restrictions enforced at the hardware/firmware level, making those WiFi cards unusable for a DIY access point.
I know that there will still be enterprising folks who modify their hardware itself to try to get around these limitations, but such enterprising people are already more than capable of physically modifying their existing hardware.
Not infeasible but certainly a significant increase in cost.
With user serviceable routers, bumping up power, or moving to locally forbidden (quieter) frequencies could become lifehacks. There was already an airport whose radio saw interference from extra powerful 5ghz wifi routers.
Locking down devices as a business model is bad. But Locking them down as a regulatory precaution to keep radio working is different.
How to keep every manufacturer from seeking excemption from right to repair under these rules would be challenging tho.