I wouldn't doubt it because in their policy they paint some pretty broad strokes with their words. Their "Smart WiFi" router phones home constantly and the web interface manager doesn't allow you to run it without third party cookies enabled and JavaScript enabled. I'm going to have to burn that open source router onto it because it said it was capable.
Also what part of the privacy policy gives you the impression of there being a proxy/something tracking the websites you visit?
I don't recall specifics, It just made me very paranoid. Go ahead and read it for yourself. Who knows how often they phone home? I know I don't. And think about what kind of targeted advertising they could implement if they knew every website you've ever visited. Is it possible? I can't see how thinking about doing this wouldn't have been a thought in meetings with how to monetize.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Quiet-3-0GHz-core-2-duo-pfSense-Fire...
Also, which models is this for?
Besides that I don't think you can do soo much harm... on the models with pluggable antennas you pump of the power to 500mW and add some additional power through an antenna but in practice that buys you little or even does worse to your wifi... however DD-WRT allegedly got some knobs to do this and lot's of people did (higher is better!11!!) and this caused some fallout that the seemed to put the FCC into the need to intervene.
Most wifi routers you can buy max out at 100mW some do 500mW you can multiply that if you add custom antennas but then the energy is directional.
There is no harm to humans to animals, maybe eventually if you sleep and live directly (<100cm) next to the antenna 24/7 but even then your smartphone likely uses more power speak to the cell tower.
I am somewhat confused here. How can an antenna (a passive device) multiply (or amplify) the power? Yes, it can effectively increase the range by allowing the signal to propagate farther, but actually multiply the power? I don't think so, unless it also includes a signal amp/booster.
"causing interference" In theory, yes the possibility exists. In practice not likely.
Other wifi ap's neer by might be drowned more than they would otherwise. You could call that interference.
Depends. It apparently is real enough. Higher 5GHz WiFi band channels can interfere with airport radar. That's why the standard mandates a router to switch to another channel if it detects radar signals.[1]
But of course using an illegal channel is simply illegal...
1. You can still load openwrt etc to TP-Link routers.
2. TP-Link needs to do something(e.g. set hard-limit on TX power in some binary blob or something) to make sure nobody can increase Wifi output power above the "safe" threshold.
Now as someone said in the thread, UBNT might have the real high-power WIFI devices(e.g. point-to-point outdoor) that can cause real interference to airplanes etc, it seems UBNT is not impacted at all, which is odd.
1. You still can't load openwrt etc to TP-Link routers
2. TP-Link needs to do something (e.g. lock down their routers not to allow third party firmware like openwrt) to make sure nobody can increase Wifi output power above the permitted threshold
3. TP-Link have agreed to investigate ways of locking down their routers that don't block openwrt etc, but only so long as this doesn't force them to use chipsets capable of enforcing the restriction at the hardware level (because that would be expensive).
At least Linksys with Marwell chips has really open WiFi drivers (WRT1900ACS).
From the FCC announcement (similar language is in the ruling):
> committing to investigate security solutions for certain 5 GHz band routers that would permit the use of third-party firmware
Direct Link to the ruling: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016...
Nowhere in that document does it say the FCC REQUIRES TP-Link to allow open source. What it says is:
“While manufacturers of Wi-Fi routers must ensure reasonable safeguards to protect radio parameters, users are otherwise free to customize their routers and we support TP-Link’s commitment to work with the open-source community and Wi-Fi chipset manufacturers to enable third-party firmware on TP-Link routers.”
They SUPPORT a company working with open-source, not REQUIRE,
Later on it says: TP-Link has also agreed to take steps to support innovation in third-party router firmware by committing to investigate security solutions for certain 5 GHz band routers that would permit the use of third-party firmware while meeting the Commission’s security requirements and maintaining the integrity of critical radio parameters.
So the requirement is that any open-source stuff must meet the security requiements and maintain correct operation, not that they MUST allow open source,
