The open source stuff is compliant: there's wasn't, and they were using
an FCC ruling to argue that everyone had to use theirs. the FCC didn't
appreciate the scam.
The business advantage of locked-down software is that a vendor can
"encourage" you to buy a new router to get bugs fixed, by not supporting
older models. The FCC effectively came out against that, too.
I admit to being surprised, but I'm quite pleased.
--dave
On 01/08/16 05:27 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
<http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/fcc-forces-tp-link-to-support-open-source-firmware-on-routers/>
I don't quite get it.
The FCC made a rule that was easy to comply with
if the manufacturers prevented loading of third party firmware.
(The rule: don't let you user set the router to use too much signal strength.)
TP-Link's new firmware "could not" be replaced by 3rd party firmware.
That firmware also allowed out-of-spec signal strength.
As a settlement, FCC required TP-Link to pay a fine, to allow third
party software, and to update the firmware to not allow the user to
specify (through the GUI) too much signal strength.
So the original problem remains: how can TP-Link prevent existing
hardware from generating too strong signals if it cannot control the
firmware?
---
Talk Mailing List
[email protected]
https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
[email protected] | -- Mark Twain
---
Talk Mailing List
[email protected]
https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
