Mark Ubiquiti Rocket M5 as Deprecated or Broken

[oliver]

The German Bundesnetzagentur has announced that the "UBIQUITI ROCKET M5" must not be used within Europe any more. From https://www.bnetza-amtsblatt.de/download/36 section "Vfg Nr. 73/2020":

Das weitere Bereitstellen, Inverkehrbringen und die Weitergabe des unten aufgeführten Gerätes im europäischen Markt wird untersagt.

Angaben zum Gerät:
Gerätetyp: WLAN Basis-Station
Modell: UBIQUITI ROCKET M5
Hersteller: UBIQUITI NETWORKS INC., USA
[...]
Im Prüfbericht wurde darauf hingewiesen, dass die Grenzwerte der Störemissionen sowie für die Nebenaussendungen in den für das Gerät angegebenen Frequenzbereichen nicht eingehalten werden.

Note that this actually affects all of Europe (not just Germany); probably other countries have made similar proclamations.

Therefore I propose that this hardware is marked as deprecated or broken, so that the firmware is no longer built by default.

[neocturne]

Hmm, the Rocket M2 and M5 share the same image. We currently can't deprecate only a single alias of a device (and allowing to do so would further complicate our already very complex target definition handling), so I guess we should just remove the alias? (turning it into a manifest_alias to make sure existing installations can still get updates)

[SvenRoederer]

The German Bundesnetzagentur has announced that the "UBIQUITI ROCKET M5" must not be used within Europe any more.

Is it really "must not be used anymore"? As I read it, it's not allowed to give it to somebody else (selling or even as a present). Even it's not written by the words it seems a logical consequence not to operate the device anymore. Probably this will announced in the next months.

[neocturne]

I agree that the publication does not prohibit the operation alone of these devices. But regardless of the interpretation of the order, it is not in our interest to promote the operation of hardware that is known to interfere with other devices.

[dangowrt]

The hardware allows for very high transmit power (>=1W) if configured for regulatory domains which allow that. I assume that some people have just abused it in that way and it became "famous" among "TX-power fanatics"... It may hence also very well be that the device (if operating within legal ETSI power levels and with well-designed antennas) is just fine.
ubnt also still actively markets the device and it has not received complains from (usually much more strict) FCC regulators.

[SvenRoederer]

@dangowrt the wording is:

Das Gerät wurde seitens des Mitgliedstaates einer Messung un-
terzogen. Im Prüfbericht wurde darauf hingewiesen, dass die
Grenzwerte der Störemissionen sowie für die Nebenaussendun-
gen in den für das Gerät angegebenen Frequenzbereichen nicht
eingehalten werden.

I assume that the french authority did correct measurements and used a conforming setup.

[dangowrt]

@dangowrt the wording is:

Das Gerät wurde seitens des Mitgliedstaates einer Messung un-
terzogen. Im Prüfbericht wurde darauf hingewiesen, dass die
Grenzwerte der Störemissionen sowie für die Nebenaussendun-
gen in den für das Gerät angegebenen Frequenzbereichen nicht
eingehalten werden.

I assume that the french authority did correct measurements and used a conforming setup.

I imagine them repeatedly confiscating that model emitting crazy transmit power and/or ignoring radar avoidance rules (supposedly setting wrong country code or by using 3rd-party-firmware).
Thing is that this was the most TX-power-strong 802.11an hardware (with RP-SMA plugs soldered on the board, otherwise Bullet-M5 is similar I guess) sold on the european market until now.
Maybe we should ask BNetzA or French regulators for clarification.

[SvenRoederer]

They explicitly mentioned "suspicious emissions" and "adjacent channel interference" not something easy like "to high EPIR" or "not conforming to DFS-rules". The 2 latter would have made it much easier to regulate.

At the end of the order they put the official way to contact them and "blame" them.

[dangowrt]

They explicitly mentioned "suspicious emissions" and "adjacent channel interference" not something easy like "to high EPIR" or "not conforming to DFS-rules". The 2 latter would have made it much easier to regulate.

I just read that now and yes, that's better, because if it's really the hardware being noisy (or becoming noisy over the years) case ubnt is less likely to blame that incident on the use of 3rd-party-firmware and increase their locking efforts... (and in that case it's also legitimate to argue that gluon, OpenWrt and so on should stop shipping binaries for that hardware)

[tackin]

The authorities

• deny trading, importe and selling of that device
• explicit don't deny the use of of devices already sold and are out in the market

So if the further use of the device for a client is not illegal, why should we not deliver firmware updates?
Our firmware does not change/worsen the existing hardware problem. And that problem it self seems not that serious, that these devices have to be switchted off by law.

[blocktrron]

@tackin

@Neoraider wrote explicitly about turning the alias into a manifest_alias so that no image with the ROcket M5 name is generated but existing devices still get updates served.