TP-Link agrees to allow third-party firmware in FCC settlement

Posted Aug 3, 2016 8:10 UTC (Wed) by mfuzzey (subscriber, #57966)
Parent article: TP-Link agrees to allow third-party firmware in FCC settlement

To me there is something fundementally wrong with making manufacturers responsible not for something their product *does* but something it *could be modified* to do.

I totally understand the necessity to regulate the spectrum to avoid interference to other users. But I think that if someone modifies their router to operate outside the rules *they* should be responsible, not the manufacturer.

It's like speed limits on roads. They are needed and drivers are responsible if they exceed them. We don't force manufacturers to only make cars that cannot exceed the speed limit.
Or (a bit closer to the wifi case), if I modify my car to improve performance, whilst violating emissions and safety regulations I'm the one who's going to prosecuted, not the manufacturer because their car could be modified...

TP-Link agrees to allow third-party firmware in FCC settlement

Posted Aug 3, 2016 10:13 UTC (Wed) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link]

> We don't force manufacturers to only make cars that cannot exceed the speed limit.

...yet.

BTW: it's not a new thing. http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/history/the-man-who-in...

Limits on capability or use?

Posted Aug 3, 2016 11:05 UTC (Wed) by davecb (subscriber, #1574) [Link]

My reading is that the FCC wants the equipment to have limits on power and frequencies, such as, for example, a 300 horsepower limit for a car and no tires wider than 8", but that the owner is responsible if he's driving the unit too fast in a 30-mph zone or bouncing cross-country through a public park.

As usual with software, the boundaries can get awfully soft and fuzzy, and you have to work surprisingly hard to get what the lawyers call a "bright line" rule.