&gt; Our original lab guidance document released pursuant to that Order asked manufacturers to explain “how [its] device is protected from ‘flashing’ and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT”. This particular question prompted a fair bit of confusion – were we mandating wholesale blocking of Open Source firmware modifications?<p>&gt; We were not, but we agree that the guidance we provide to manufacturers must be crystal-clear to avoid confusion.<p>Can you feel the wind off of that backpedaling?<p>There&#x27;s no possible way they asked how devices were &quot;protected&quot; from &quot;third-party firmware such as DD-WRT&quot; while not expecting blocking of Open Source firmware modifications.  It sounds a lot more like they got too much backlash: &quot;...no, of course that&#x27;s not what we meant [looks around nervously] you believe us, right?&quot;.<p>While this <i>might</i> result in a desirable outcome, I think it would have come across as far more genuine if they&#x27;d directly acknowledged that they originally suggested blocking all third-party firmware, and subsequently decided that they&#x27;d need a more nuanced approach.  That, at least, would not come across as a (transparently bad) spin attempt.<p>Why does this need any kind of new change in the first place?  The FCC can certainly go after people who <i>actually</i> transmit in violation of FCC regulations, and they do, no matter what device they use to do so.