[Discuss] Fwd: Hey FCC, Don't Lock Down Our Wi-Fi Routers | WIRED

[bogstad at pobox.com (Bill Bogstad)]

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Rich Pieri <richard.pieri at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/2015 3:20 AM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
>>
>> So what does it mean when the FCC's own documents suggest otherwise?
>> For example, the document at:
>
>
> What it means is that you are taking one document to be something it isn't.
>
> FCC guidelines are not rules. They are not requirements. They are not even
> recommendations. They are suggestions as to what vendors can do to ensure
> compliance -- even when they're laced with a lot of "MUST" clauses.
>
> The vendors know this. It's not a big deal for them; it's business as usual.
> The ones that have been locking their devices all along will continue to do
> so. The ones that have not will implement other mechanisms to ensure
> compliance.

Vendors will take the path of least resistance.   Tivo and others have
already shown how to only allow signed firmware updates.   Vendors
don't want people to be able to replace the firmware on their products
anyway as that just means people won't buy more expensive/newer
products as often.   The only reason all vendors haven't gone to
requiring signed firmwares is the additional cost.   If the least
expensive way to fulfill FCC requirements is to lock down the hardware
that's what they will do.  They certainly won't spend extra money to
continue to allow end users to update upper level software while at
the same time locking down radio parameters.   So while FCC rules
might not mandate such a lockdown that is going to be the almost
inevitable result of the compliance requirements.

Bill Bogstad