So who pushed?
Oh yeah, also. It's pretty settled case law that your first amendment rights do not apply to broadcast radio signals.
Given the overcrowding of the 2.4GHz spectrum, I suspect that people were starting to use DD-WRT to run on Channel 14, which is a no-no in North America.
[1] http://www.geek.com/news/satellite-radio-worried-about-wi-fi...
I don't know of any WiFi chips that explicitly allow you to go below channel 1 (I know of a few that would let you go below if you twizzled the PLL directly, but generally that was very hackish) and they certainly never test there.
Whereas, nobody designs a WiFi chip that doesn't actually go to Channel 14.
If I am not mistaken these are some of the "features" of DD!
While I like DD-WRT, if you can flash DD-WRT you can flash anything, and arbitrary code breaks all possible chain-of-trust models.
The FCC has a long history of moving for more restricted hardware as a way of regulating the airwaves, one of its chief jobs. As a ham & commercial radio operator it drives me up the wall, but I understand why they do it.
No. The code I get on my router from the store is an arbitrary closed source buggy crap.
The code I load from debian, openwrt, etc. is far more trusted.
Your point is corporate code sucks.
Obviously the FCC does not care about who you trust.
It's the bureaucratic equivalent of Apple's habit of inventing new proprietary Torx screws, which keep users out of their gadgets for the 2-3 weeks it takes the Chinese to come up with new screwdrivers.
I don't think it's particularly far fetched.
I'm unsurprised, but do you have a link for that? I'd like to read more about it.
> To whom is the UI accessible? (Professional installer, end user, other.)
What professional installer? Consumer routers are all set up so the user configures it. Making the distinction between the end user and the installer sounds like the way DOCSIS locks the firmware of cable modems so the network operator has complete control over it.
I also wonder if this is the part of the FCC's plan to put data in the white space of other bands. The argument has always been that it's too difficult to coordinate all the different radios to prevent one accidentally transmitting where it isn't supposed to. But sending out frequency maps is easier when you can limit the number of different radios to just a few authorized vendors.
No policies like this are made with the expectation they'll stop everyone. They just want to raise the barrier sufficiently.
Look at item #2 under "Third-Party Access Control" which states a home router manufacturer must answer this question: "What prevents third parties from loading non-US versions of the software/firmware on the device? Describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT."
What they're doing is requiring home router manufacturers to claim their device cannot be flashed to gain FCC approval. Theoretically, the FCC could penalize router manufacturers that allow their routers to be flashed. These manufacturers would then no longer be allowed to sell their devices in the USA.