I wasn't doubting what I quoted was true. You replied to a post about speculated ideas of FCC regulations on selling routers and didn't mention the actual regulation on selling routers. It seemed worth adding.
Their original proposal for the revised rules specifically banned third party firmware, mentioning DD-WRT by name, and the revised version decided not to ban it.
The rule also doesn't hold the company liable if someone manages to hack a third party firmware onto the device. Before selling it,you need an approved application showing either a chip unable to break the rules, or a way of preventing unauthorized code from running on the device. If the FCC approves the application and you've implemented it, you aren't at fault if a workaround is discovered. This makes locking the firmware a cheaper than producing two models or selling a limited model elsewhere.
To me, it seems like they wanted a hard ban on the firmwares, settled for a soft ban, and will likely revisit the issue when there's some political capital justifying a hard ban.
Their original proposal for the revised rules specifically banned third party firmware, mentioning DD-WRT by name, and the revised version decided not to ban it.
The rule also doesn't hold the company liable if someone manages to hack a third party firmware onto the device. Before selling it,you need an approved application showing either a chip unable to break the rules, or a way of preventing unauthorized code from running on the device. If the FCC approves the application and you've implemented it, you aren't at fault if a workaround is discovered. This makes locking the firmware a cheaper than producing two models or selling a limited model elsewhere.
To me, it seems like they wanted a hard ban on the firmwares, settled for a soft ban, and will likely revisit the issue when there's some political capital justifying a hard ban.