dslreports logo
 story category
FCC Demands TP-Link Support Third-Party Router Firmware

The FCC today announced that it has reached a $200,000 settlement with TP-Link for violating agency rules pertaining to router power levels. According to the FCC announcement (pdf), an investigation found that several models of TP-Link hardware can be "manipulated to operate at a higher power than allowed on certain restricted Wi-Fi channels." Specifically, the FCC found that TP-Link marketed some of its routers as having a setting that let them operate certain Wi-Fi channels in the 2.4 GHz band outside of Section 15.15(b) of the Commission's rules.

Click for full size
Last year we noted the FCC revamped RF device rules for Wi-Fi U-NII equipment in the 5 GHz band. And while this enforcement action involved the 2.4 GHz band, the FCC took the opportunity to nudge TP-Link in a direction that could help third party router firmware enthusiasts (will get to that in a second).

The FCC began a new rule-making process after the FAA complained that some illegally modified router radios operating in the unlicensed bands were interfering with terminal doppler weather radar (TDWR) at airports.

Put simply, the FCC wanted new rules that would prevent modifying devices so they'd operate outside of safe RF parameters, while still allowing hobbyists and enthusiasts to tinker.

The problem is that many routers have systems-on-a-chip (SOC) where the radio isn't fully distinguishable from other hardware. As such, many engineers worried the rules could prompt vendors to simply lock down hardware completely to take the path of least resistance. They argued that while the FCC's intentions might have been good, its updated rules would lead to vendors blocking all implementation of third-party firmware like DD-WRT, OpenWRT, or Tomato.

Those fears only came partially true. Some companies, like TP-Link, took the easy route -- first saying they'd no longer support third party firmware, then blaming the FCC for their own laziness in terms of crafting workarounds for the company's products. Other companies, like Belkin/Linksys, went out of their way to ensure that certain models (like ye olde WRT series) could still be tinkered with.

Most interestingly, under this new settlement, the FCC says TP-Link must not only bring its gear into compliance with FCC rules, but it must also "work with the open-source community and Wi-Fi chipset manufacturers to enable consumers to install third-party firmware on their Wi-Fi routers."

“The Commission’s equipment rules strike a careful balance of spurring innovation while protecting against harmful interference,” said Travis LeBlanc, Chief of the Enforcement Bureau. “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.”

The FCC's full consent decree can be found here (pdf).

Most recommended from 32 comments



buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Dover, NH
(Software) Sophos UTM Home Edition
Ruckus R310

7 recommendations

buzz_4_20

Member

Holy Crap...

Why can't there just be a solder point on the board to disable the offending channels based on market?

Don't stick us with crap equipment that can't be adjusted to suit customer needs because a few idiots violate rules that already exist but aren't properly enforced.

Anon2fb2b
@2600:1015.x

4 recommendations

Anon2fb2b

Anon

When did....

....the FCC gain the authority to "demand" anything besides compliance with their regulations. I've used dd-wrt for years and much prefer it to stock firmware but fail to see how the FCC has standing to *require* a manufacturer to allow their hardware to support it. If there is legal standing how about going after phone manufacturers and carriers over locked bootloaders even when phones are purchased outright.

Axe_man
join:2016-01-22
Everett, WA

3 recommendations

Axe_man

Member

Maybe I am thinking of this from a programmer pov, but...

isn't the only way to do this to basically write the open source material, and hope it doesn't have an issue, on existing models?