In reply to a post by DrTeeth:

Silly example as everybody knows that the receiver is referring to the VHF *broadcast* band http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/broadcast/vhff...

Everybody? I very much doubt it.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I believe you, but why is the US FCC wanting this? (A request which many manufacturers would find hard to ignore).

I can understand it for US sales or supply, but as a general principle is this another example of the US believing it has a right to global control? A belief which unfortunately seems very well founded in many other areas than WiFi band allocation.

I have no idea why the FCC is after this. The trouble is, it may be difficult or impossible to have this lockout for US routers only - Asus obviously finds it difficult to localise its routers correctly for Europe.

Have a look here http://forums.smallnetbuilder.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37 for more info. I did just try to find the relevant posts, but there are several threads buzzing with this and the search would not find 'FCC' - the NSA strikes again?

In reply to a post by billford:

]Everybody? I very much doubt it.

If you weren't a mod you'd be banned for trolling. Take some meds and go to bed early.

?
He isn't a mod .

In reply to a post by DrTeeth:

If you weren't a mod

I hope you're more up to fate with radio regulations than you are with this bbs:

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/newsite/t/4219415-t...

Edited by billford (Sat 02-Aug-14 22:45:43)

Post deleted by MrSaffron

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

?
He isn't a mod .

No. You can see why in his trolling..

In reply to a post by DrTeeth:

Don't be silly. Who said I have only just discovered the regs?

Nobody, I inferred it. Wrongly, but these things happen.

But it reinforces my point- if you'd had a requirement for all 17 channels on 5GHz you'd have checked when it was delivered and found they weren't there.

Did you find out later for yourself that there were only 4, or did someone else bring it to your attention? And how long had you been using the router with only those channels?

Edited by billford (Sat 02-Aug-14 22:56:51)

Your questions are not really relevant. I'll tell you why. I found out about this restriction a long time ago, very soon after I had got the router. It was not an issue at all as they could be removed VERY easily. Had they not been so I would have returned the router under the SoG Act.

It only became an issue when it became apparent that the latest firmwares will block such attempts to remove the restrictions. Remember - these routers are NOT correctly localised.

Now one will have to download the CFE, hack it with a hex editor and reflash it back to the router - just to get one's router to be legal in one's own country.

Also remember that these restrictions also affect the maximum power output and not just the number of channels. I decided to bring the issue with these routers and maybe others that are not correctly localised to the attention of my fellow forum members for their benefit - who I would imaging would not assume for a million years that their new and shiny router was pawer and channel restricted.

OK, fair enough.

I agree with what you say, I'd prefer to see all legal channels available as well (and I don't need them either ). What annoyed me was your post header and the way it referred explicitly to Asus, as if they were the prime culprit, and other other manufacturers just got an oblique reference. And later implications that they were involved in sleight of hand.

Your real beef is with the FCC is it not? So why didn't you make that clear from the start?

Your OP was pure clickbait, and I'll admit I fell for it, mea culpa


eta- I don't have any particular flag to carry for Asus, I just don't like seeing a reputable manufacturer being unfairly denigrated.

Edited by billford (Sat 02-Aug-14 23:23:12)