[1] don't even get me started on TP-Link releasing routers with the same name but v2/v3/2020/2021 update where it's hard to even know if I'm buying the one that supports the custom OS flash.
Is it a trick, or just limited imagination?
My impression is that "right of repair" came from mechanically-minded people seeking to maintain their traditional ability to repair physical devices in the face of corporate hostility (e.g. farmers vs. John Deere).
> Yes, you can fix the antenna when it breaks, and focus on how hard the fight was to get the right to fix the hardware you own... which you don't own as long as the company uses software to control what the hardware can and cannot do. But you sure physically own those mostly-useless atoms real good!
This seems more of software-centric Free Software attitude, which is not a place someone with mechanical skills but not very strong software skills is likely to arrive at themselves.
Heck, Before I received any formal instruction in programming I was tracing things via symbols and strings just like I did hardware connections.
My understanding is the farmers just want to be able to repair their tractors without dealer approval (e.g. replace broken parts). They're not looking to hack new features into the firmware and stuff like that.
For which they need to circumvent or disable DRM, and be able to run the manufacturers diagnostic software (or be able to use 3rd party diagnostic software).
> They're not looking to hack new features into the firmware and stuff like that.
I think you may be reasoning from a set of assumptions about farm equipment that is out of date. Modern farm equipment is very sophisticated and ties into all sorts of external services (GPS, mapping and terrain, high resolution soil data, weather forecasts, etc.), and can do things like adjust the direction and spacing of rows, depth seeds are sown, selective harvesting, selective pest control, selective fertilization, and more. The software that controls all that isn't just 'firmware'.
Not to mention that the equipment sends every bit of data back to the manufacturer to power add on services they can sell to the farmer by subscription.
Farmers certainly like all these features. In fact they like them so much they pay for after-market upgrades for older (repairable) equipment to add features and 3rd party services. They don't like being stuck inside the manufacturers' walled gardens.
These things have passed the point of just being equipment or tools, and are now platforms in their own right, and farmers are in many ways no longer their owners, but just captive users.
While right to repair starts with re-enabling a local mechanic to replace a part, it doesn't end there. Not by a long shot.
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.
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.
The FCC takes illegal broadcasting VERY seriously and I think that should deter people from becoming criminals.
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.
Intel calls this "Location Aware Regulatory".
Isn't it a simple drop-down in openwrt?
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.
Many major vulns in TP-Link devices have been a result of these protocols, save for a few prolific things such as FragAttack. But hey, I guess it gives people something to hack on.
I started out buying expensive home Wi-Fi routers, and I now have a box of expensive home routers I've decommissioned because they have vulnerabilities and stopped receiving updates. Probably well over ~£1000-2000 spent on them over the past ~decade.
Next I switched to separate Router/Switch/AP and started with a Ubiquiti EdgeSwitch 8 POE, EdgeRouter Lite 3 and an AP-AC-Pro. Later I added a EdgeSwitch 24.
Recently my EdgeRouter kicked the bucket, and wanting to be entirely free from manufacturer updates so I bought a Protectli box, flashed it with Coreboot (instead of AMIBIOS) and installed pfSense. I still use the AP-AC-Pro for now but will look for more open WiFi AP options once that dies or I move from my London apartment to a bigger home.
I say "if you can afford it" because the Protectli box came in at just over £500 once RAM and SSD were added (I got the i3 model), the AP-AC-Pro is ~£120 (IIRC) and the EdgeSwitch another ~£150. This isn't "reasonably" priced equipment for home use, nor would I recommend Ubiquiti of late, but it's working well for me at the moment.
It would have been my top choice had I wanted to stick to an "all in one".
For storage I built my "NAS" in the Silverstone CS381 (https://www.servethehome.com/silverstone-cs381-8-bay-matx-ca...) with an LSI HBA, Ryzen 9 3900X / 128GB RAM, 6 Intel NICs, 2 NVM.e SSDs + 1 SATA SSD for Proxmox and a bunch of HGST Ultrastar He10s as ZFS mirrors. I run the Unifi controller in a container on there.
Before the pfSense Protectli I was also running AdGuard Home in a container (which replaced Pi-Hole on a Pi) but Unbound + pfBlockerNG is more capable.
Re: pfSense / OPNSense; I was running OPNSense initially, but had some issues, I'm likely to go back if they're resolved; I find myself falling on the OPNSense side of the politics there.
For WiFi I moved to unifi but they're also becoming more difficult to work with. They are making it harder to use their stuff locally without their cloud service and to use the docker controller instead of their hardware.
So when I replace it I'll have to look for yet another supplier.. Why do companies always have to turn evil.
This is also why literally every company ever says that repairing anything they sell will void the warranty unless you also buy all the parts from them unless the law expressly forbids them from doing so.
No, manufacturers do that because they don’t want to have to fix products that you’ve hacked up, then guarantee the item’s safety and regulatory compliance.