SoylentNews

FCC Orders TP-Link to Allow Third-Party Firmware on Their Routers

posted by n1 on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:26AM   
from the open-carefully dept.

MrPlow writes:

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

The Federal Communications Commission's Enforcement Bureau has reached a $200,000 settlement with TP-Link in regards to selling in the US routers that could operate at output levels higher that allowed by FCC rules.

At the same time, TP-Link has also agreed to work with the open-source community and Wi-Fi chipset manufacturers to enable consumers to install third-party firmware on their Wi-Fi routers.

Source: Help Net Security

---

Original Submission

• This is not the consent decree you think it is This is not the consent decree you think it is (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @10:22AM

  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @10:22AM (#383996)

  The title here is absolutely incorrect (but this is normal for the lemmings who don't read the article but instead believe someone else's click-bait title). The actual FCC decree says:

  As part of the Consent Decree, TP Link agrees to investigate software and hardware solutions that would enable customers to install and operate third party firmware on TP Link routers, while maintaining the integrity of critical radio parameters

  For those unable to read anything with a critical eye, the weasel word inserted by the lawyers is highlighted above for you. This one word is critical, in fact, the entire decree's open source stance hinges on this one word. What TP Link agreed to was:

  To look into seeing if it was possible to do so.

  All TP link has to do is go off, wait a few months, come back, assert that "we looked into it, but we can't find a way to do it that is economical, so we can't do it, therefore we have to lock down the whole thing instead" and they will be in full compliance with the consent decree

  Or alternately:

  We looked into it, but our suppliers who make our WiFi chipsets will not change their designs to accommodate this, so therefore we can't do it, so therefore we have to lock the whole thing down instead"

  The second one is much more likely, because they can shift blame onto the chip-set suppliers, and argue "it's not us, it's them" and continue on locking things down yet be fully compliant with this decree.

• Re:This is not the consent decree you think it is (Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday August 04 2016, @12:03PM

  by Pino P (4721) on Thursday August 04 2016, @12:03PM (#384025) Journal

  Shifting the blame to the chipset makers in a public manner lets the FCC shift its enforcement action to those same chipset makers.

  Parent