How does setting a static IP on a mobile device prevent linux router from assigning that IP address?

In , Char Jackson suggested:

Like you, I didn't even know that ES File Explorer had an FTP Server until someone else, on this ng, suggested it.

I think it can be set up manually here: ESFileExplorer: Settings > Network > FTP > New

But the beauty of ES File Explorer is that it's automatic here: ESFileExplorer: Settings > Network > Remote Manager > Turn on

Another beauty of ES File Explorer is that you can turn it on (as shown above) and then hit the "three dot" menu at top right for the "FTP Server Settings" where you can set the root directory to "/" or whatever, and you can create a shortcut on the Android desktop.

That shortcut is called "ESFTP" by default (but you can change the name of any shortcut in Android) where there is no GUI. It's just a shortcut which, when you hit it, it turns on the FTP server and that's all it does.

When you tap once on that "ESFTP" shortcut, a notification scrolls at the top of my phone saying it's turned on, and then that goes away and it's just running.

Likewise, on Windows, it's as easy to use once you set up the FTP url in My Network Places.

So it's really tap, tap, done, which is, after all, the beauty of the method.

ADVANTAGES:

1. Tap tap done, and your entire Android file system is "mounted" on a PC
2. Works on any computer without installing any software on the computer.

REQUIREMENTS: A. You have to be on the local subnet (duh). B. You have to be running (any) FTP server on the Android device.

Very few things are this easy, this universal, this convenient, and this powerful at the same time.

In , Char Jackson suggested:

Well, the router does have its own Wireless access point (which are the two antennas, after all), so, it's set up as an AP all by itself.

So, in the gameroom alone, there is the router itself, which is acting as an access point, plus the switch on the router, which has the two other access points tied to it.

So there are three access points, effectively, in the game room.

In , Dan Purgert suggested:

All these devices have FCC ID numbers! So something is wrong between what you're saying and what I'm seeing! :)

I don't mean this in any accusative sense. I'm just saying the thing sure looks legal in the USA, according to the labels on it.

I put on my reading glasses and searched the routerboard RB411 and miniPCI wifi daughterboard r52n-m for a date and FCC ID.

Both boards say they have a "copyright" by "routerboard.com", where there is an FCCID of TV7R52N on the WiFi daughter board.

That FCC ID tells all of us it's USA legal - does it not?

Right under that FCC ID, it says "tested to comply with FCC standards for home or office use".

It has an FCC ID printed right on the wifi miniPCI card.

Certainly it's still sold in the USA.

The RB411 user manual is here (copyright 2008).

All indications are that it's legal in the USA.

I think what you're implying and what is the fact are slightly different but I'm not a lawyer.

I suspect: a. It can do any country it wants to do, b. But it would be illegal for you do set it up incorrectly.

That's pretty typical of almost anything, where a gun, for example, is legal to own but illegal to use illegally, as is a pencil or a hammer or a coffee cup or fertilizer or a crowbar, etc.

Indications are, to me anyway, that it's FCC legal in the USA - it's just not legal to set it up for another country that uses higher power.

BTW, if the USA is the highest power anyway, then it's a moot point on power, wouldn't you say? (Except for the frequencies.)

I hear you. I understand you. But I can see the thing sold today with the same FCC ID. I can't tell you when this unit was sold (there's no date I can see on the actual circuit board or miniPCI card) but it looks pretty newish for an outdoor unit.

If I knew how to decipher the dates printed on the Atheros CPU or the 32MB of DDR memory or the 64MB of NAND HDD, I could better pinpoint the dates.

I suspect that the card is made and sold legally in the USA even today, in

2016 and that the only thing illegal is to use it illegally.

That would mean either: a. Use too high a power (I suspect the USA has the highest power anyway) b. Or to use a different frequency (where I know other countries allow it) c. Or to use it illegally to hit someone over the head with it. :)

Other than that, I think it's legal from all indications on the net.

I base that "assumption" on two things that seem to be true:

1. It seems to be sold today with the same FCC ID
2. Where that FCC ID seems to indicate it's legal in the USA

FCC ID TV7R52N

I am nothing but logical.

Here's a summary of our disagreement:

A. You say it's illegal if it was sold after 2005. B. I say it seems to be sold today (a dozen years later!) C. I say it has the same FCC ID then, as now.

All I know for sure though, is the following:

1. My Mikrotik R52n-M miniPCI wifi board has an FCC ID of TV7R52N
2. On the net, I find lots of pictures - all with the same FCC ID.
3. On the net, the card is sold in the USA - all with the same FCCID.

Mine allows me to set to any of about 200 different countries.

That's all I can tell you, for sure.

In , nospam suggested:

Depends on what you mean, since I do the same thing for my iOS devices.

The references to nothing needing to be installed on the computer were with respect to unnecessary software such as Samsung Kies or Apple iTunes bloatware.

Once you're forced to add hundreds of megabytes of software to the computer, the universality (and flexibility) of the solution goes into the toilet.

You know that. You won't admit that. But you know that.

This solution is simple, powerful, and universal in that it works for any computer without adding any software (with all their concomittent marketing-induced restrictions) to the computer.

It's like what we did, years ago, with SharePod. a. Apple users were restricted to using iTunes b. SharePod users could connect to any PC they wanted to

So, for example, with SharePod, *nothing* needed to be installed on the PC and you could hook up ten thousand different iPods and slide any set of MP3 files back and forth, limited only by your storage space and nothing else.

Conversely, you could take one iPod and hook it up to ten thousand different PC, and slide songs back and forth, with the only restriction being your storage space.

The point here is that the universality of the solution is due to the fact that nothing needs to be added to the computer to have complete power over what you want to do.

Any solution that requires proprietary software to be added to the computer immediately destroys the universality of the solution.

it means what it says.

no you don't, and you keep insisting that it's not possible.

what part of 'nothing needs to be installed' was unclear?

nope, and with multi-terabyte hard drives being standard, even if someone did choose to install 'hundreds of megabytes of software', that's still just a tiny drop in the bucket. it won't even be noticed, and all of the extra functionality it provides makes it well worth it. however, it's still optional.

you are stuck on doing things in the most difficult way possible.

i know that you're full of shit.

In , nospam suggested:

You must have missed the many screenshots posted in this very thread showing the iOS devices working essentially the same way as the Android devices did using this solution.

The only problem with the iOS devices is that far less of the file system is available to the computer by default than with Android - but that's merely due to inherent iOS restrictions that Android doesn't have (and that which jailbreaking might overcome anyway).

The point is that once you're forced to add (often proprietary) software to the computer, the universality of the solution goes into the toilet (e.g., try to get iTunes to work native on Linux).

You know that. You just will never admit it.

you must have missed the fact that there are numerous other solutions than the one you insist on using, so much so that you refuse to acknowledge that they even exist.

it's not an issue and jailbreaking is not needed either.

nothing is forced.

adding additional software is entirely optional and provides all sorts of enhanced functionality not otherwise possible.

you insist on doing things the hard way.

i know that you're full of shit.

Gotcha. So the WRT54G will do "g" for clients that connect to it wirelessly, and the other two AP's will do "n" for clients that connect to them wirelessly*, and everything gets backhauled through the 100Mbps switch in the WRT54G, back to the main router.

*Is it the case that "n" will fall back to "g" if those AP's detect the use of "g" in the vicinity? I probably used to know, but I forgot.

In , nospam suggested:

You assume the gullible will believe what you just make up.

For example, even you know that a MP4 video in the default iOS video app's document space is not available to any FTP server on iOS WITHOUT jailbreaking.

I know you know this because you're not as stupid as what you say indicates.

You just don't like the fact that nobody on this planet, not even you, can find a *single* app functionality that iOS has that Android doesn't already have, while we've listed, many times, dozens of functionality that Android has that iOS can't hope to have.

Simple things that we do every day on Android, are impossible on iOS - and you just don't like that. Things like running any app launcher, or automatic call recording, or graphical display of wifi signal strength, or obtaining the real tower ID of the tower you're connected to, or being able to have an app icon in multiple logical places or none at all, and being able to change the name of the app icon, and having a bona-fide app drawer app (instead of having to make a dumb folder instead), and bit torrenting apps, or setting the default app per file type, or reusing any installation file on another similar device, etc.

All this (just off the top of my head) we do on Android all the time, and none of it can be done with iOS without jailbreaking.

It's not that the hardware is what makes iOS devices so incapable, since the hardware is actually pretty good. It's Apple who makes iOS devices so incapable.

And you hate that.

false.

just because *you* can't figure it out doesn't mean it's not possible.

... FSVO "almost" :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp

Nope, 'n' and 'g' can coexist peacefully. It's 'b' that causes the trouble.

Again, if the design of the device pre-dates the cutoff it gets grandfathered in. 'Tik really *SHOULD* change things, but they don't necessarily have to.

Though, 2005 was when the FCC started papers on the ruling, it could very well be that it was later on that the ruling was put into effect.

That being said, right now, today, the ruling is in effect; and should be considered when buying new equipment.

Companies can put whatever they want on the labels (unfortunately). Comparing the "features offered" and "the FCC rules", the device obviously does not conform to FCC standards.

Sure, it hits all the frequency points that it needs to - but that little gotcha in the ruling that I quoted before ;).

That's not the wording of the FCC ruling. The wording is explicitly that a "master device" must not allow an end-user / installer to select non-US frequencies by any means.

All manufacturers that I am aware of (SOHO brands, UBNT, Cisco / Meraki, Ruckus) have taken the "split the branding" approach ("US" gets one model, everyone else gets another).

It's frequencies that the FCC is more concerned about. Not that they're not concerned with Tx power ... but the ruling is worded around channel use / frequency.

When there are provisions to lock the user out of ever selecting "not USA", then yes, it is totally legal to sell. For example, shorting pin

3 to 15 (making that up) means "this device is US-Only".

Your assumptions do not change the fact that in order to comply fully with FCC regulations, the radio must not allow you to select "not USA frequencies", at all, ever.

It could very well be that their interface is simply shit, and they show all the countries, but when you try selecting "not USA" (or Canada, etc.), it throws an error.

That being said, I fully do admit that I could be off with regards to the cutoff date(s).

2005 was the year I found some (additional?) ruling / clarification. The FCC's site is a bit of a nightmare to navigate -- so perhaps the 2005 document was nothing more than an RFC, and the actual change came later.

As it stands, checking today will show the information I quoted.

Yeah, because the FCC only cares about if things change to the radio. Their grandfather-in rules are ... complex ... to say the least. However, given that nothing has changed radio-wise on the device, it's still "allowed" (for now anyway, until they change the rules again).

Personally, I'd give it a pass - why tie up money on a device that's skirting[1] the rules?

[1] At least according to your description. It could very well be that they've got some provision to keep you locked to "US" that they don't reflect in the UI.

Thanks, Dan. I was sure about b & g, but much less sure about g and n. I appreciate the clarification.

No problem. You will have some degree of "extra" slowdown in a mixed-mode environment, but as long as you're not overly saturating the AP, it should be manageable.

What I mean is, in mixed mode, the "slower" devices act more like "1.5"[1] devices rather than 1 ... so e.g. 100m throughput with 10 'n' devices is ~10 mbit /device; whereas 100m throughput with 6'n' and 4'g' is more like 8.3 mbit / device.

[1] - note "1.5" is somewhat of an average, due to all the variables involved with wifi (distance, signal, noise, antenna design/quality, tranceiver design/quality, etc.). In particularly good conditions, it may be as low as 1.1 -1.2. In particularly bad conditions ... I've seen it spike as high as 2 (but again, contrived "bad" conditions).

In , nospam suggested:

I agree with you that just because you, me, and everyone else on the entire iOS newsgroup and on the entire Intenet can't figure it out ... doesn't mean that it's not possible.

In fact, as I said, it's not the hardware that makes it impossible.

It's Apple who makes it impossible.

In , Dan Purgert suggested:

I completely understand what you're saying, so I started looking this up, where I think I may have figured out why my device is "legal" in the USA.

I think these are some of the "new FCC rules" you speak of:

I think the technicality that makes my device "legal" in the USA is not the "date" but the actual wording and intent of the new FCC regulations.

UNDERSTANDING THE FCC REGULATIONS FOR LOW-POWER, NON-LICENSED TRANSMITTERS (1993)

UNDERSTANDING THE FCC REGULATIONS FOR COMPUTERS AND OTHER DIGITAL DEVICES (1993)

Specifically, the only part of the device that is a radio frequency emitter which was also manufactured, marketed, imported, and sold, is the mini PCI card, which clearly has FCC certification.

Either way, I think the "entire system" is built, ad hoc, by the WISP, since the motherboard and miniPCI card come from Latvia (I presume) and the antenna is bought off the shelf here in the USA.

That is interesting. Googling, I find the question has been asked, but it's the net, so, the answer isn't always definitive.

Mikrotik FCC Certification (2015):

I think, as I said above, we have to figure out what needs certification, since my "system" was likely built by a WISP from "components", only one of which requires (and has) FCC certification - which is the R52n-m mini PCI card.

The actual Router OS is likely running on the RB411 motherboard, which is not a RF emitter.

In a practical sense, I suspect the legal EIRP is as high in the USA as anywhere else, where there are enough frequencies (especially at 5GHz) that we don't need the additional frequencies that other countries allow.

So the legality question is only of theoretical interest, to me but I think the issue is what the FCC considers the "complete device".

This says that only the radio cards and complete systems need to be FCC certified.

Mikrotik FCC Identification TV7R52 miniPCI card (2007)

The R52n-m miniPCI radio card I have is clearly FCC certified, where the complete system was probably put together by the original WISP.

The link above says that the user of a non-compliant device he didn't build himself will simply be told not to use it (if it breaks the rules), whereas the manufacturer is the one who gets fined.

Apparently, the FCC "mostly" regulates the *selling* and *marketing* and

*importing* of the devices - not the actual *use* of the device (clarifying details are in the thread).

So, I suspect what you assume is not what is happening - but I am not a lawyer - so all I can say is that these devices are so ubiquitous in the USA that they must be legal since they're in plain sight everywhere.

I suspect the legality arises in the fact that the actual PCI card itself is what is FCC certified, and not the entire device (which, at least in my case, was almost certainly "assembled" by someone other than the manufacturer).

Neither one of us is a lawyer, but both of us must admit that these devices are openly used in the USA, and, clearly, my Router OS allows me to set any country.

Those are facts we can't dance around.

Just as it's not illegal to spoof phone numbers, but it's illegal to spoof a phone number when dialing 911, I suspect there is a technicality involved here.

I suspect that technicality revolves around the fact that these are systems that are "assembled" in the United States out of parts that are imported from Latvia.

I suspect that the "assembly" does not have FCC approval (and I suspect, since they're openly used ubiquitously in the USA) that the assembly does not need to be FCC approved (as long as it is assembled and used correctly).

So just like how Tor can be used correctly and Tor can be used incorrectly, it's not the device which is illegal - it's the incorrect *use* of the device which can be considered illegal (by FCC standards).

I think the key here is who "manufactured/marketed/imported/sold" my device and is that "manufacturer" beholden to the FCC?

The device was "assembled" from 4 parts by the WISP (most likely):

1. The RB411 motherboard (which runs the RouterOS which allows any country)
2. The R52n-M miniPCI card (which is the RF emitter which has FCC approval)
3. The 24Volt 1Amp POE (which requires no FCC approval)
4. The antenna (which requires no FCC approval)
5. Assorted mounting hardware & cabling (which requires no FCC approval)

The only part of my device that was "manufactured", "marketed", "imported" and "sold" in the USA that requires FCC approval is, I think, the mini PCI card (which has FCC approval).

The rest of the parts did not require FCC approval. And, most importantly, I think, the part that allows me to set the country is the motherboard, which runs RouterOS.

So the key question is why doesn't the RB411 motherboard, which runs the RouterOS operating system which allows me to set the country code, NOT need an FCC ID?

I don't know the answer but maybe it's because the motherboard, in and of itself, does not emit RF frequencies.

This seems to be a graphic of the latest frequency changes by the FCC:

Based on the aforementioned threads, I would agree that the FCC is focused more on "interference" than on anything else.

I think the technicality here is that nobody actually sells, imports, markets, and manufacturers a complete device in this case!

In my case, for example, the complete device was not manufactured, sold, imported, nor marketed - hence - I guess - it did not need FCC certification as a "complete device".

While neither of us is a lawyer, I suspect the technicality here is that you're assuming a different "complete device" than does the FCC.

In my case, the *complete device* was "assembled" and "used" by a USA WISP, but not manufactured, marketed, imported, nor sold by the manufacturer.

Only the miniPCI card was manufactured, marketed, sold, and imported into the USA - and that card clearly has the required FCC certification.

I think we both are saying the same thing, which is that neither of us denies that the FCC regulates the manufacture, marketing, selling, and importation of a "complete device" that emits RF energy.

The only place I think we may differ is in what you are considering a "device" versus what the FCC considers a "device".

For example, I suspect that the FCC does regulate this $150 Mikrotik router (24 to 26 decibels before adding the antenna so the EIRP is about 28dB).

It seems, from the user manual, that it uses the *same* RouterOS that my RB411 motherboard does, for example:

I think the difference is that this is the motherboard and rf board in one package (instead of two separately sold pieces, as mine may have been):

While that can be the case, it seems that Mikrotik is well respected as a supplier of professional equipment around the world (they're based on Latvia themselves), so, I suspect it actually works.

I don't think the date is the technicality that makes my device legal.

I think we both accidentally hit upon something that hadn't occurred to us prior, which is that the technicality that allows my radio to be legal is that the only component that the FCC regulates is the card itself, which has FCC approval.

Look at this "public notice" from the FCC (admittedly, dated 2000):

"In order to be considered a transmitter module, the device must be a complete RF transmitter, i.e., it must have its own reference oscillator (e.g., VCO), antenna, etc. The only connectors to the module, if any, may be power supply and modulation/data inputs."

I think the technicality that makes my equipment legal is that the "assemblage" didn't need to be certified.

Only the complete device that is sold as a unit needed certification, such as, perhaps, this device:

People are trying to certify certain assemblages though, but I don't know their progress:

The cost for certification is said to be (in those articles) under $10K USD.

From that article, the antenna, surprisingly, is not part of the certification, BTW ("as long as the antenna itself does not violate the FCC power density limits of 1 watt per MHz of channel width for the band").

Here are some of the "grandfathering" rules:

I looked for the certification of the R52n-m but found this instead:

The point is that I think the board is the only thing that needs to be FCC certified, since it's the only thing marketed, manufactured, sold, or imported into the US.

The rest is just "assembled" and "used" in the US.

I think it's perfectly legal, but that the "thing" that is legal is the actual miniPCI board which is marketed, manufactured, imported, or sold in the US.

I'm pretty sure the main issue is that the only thing the FCC wants certified in my setup is the mini PCI card itself, which clearly has FCC certification.

I think the rules you speak of apply to "fully assembled radios" which are marketed, manufactured, sold, or imported into the USA.

Mine is a frankenstein, of sorts. Somehow, since these things are openly used all over the USA (I don't know the technicality well enough yet), that simple single fact makes it legal.

I think........

everyone *but* you knew how and tried to explain it to you.

apple doesn't make it impossible.

what makes it impossible is your hatred and refusal to learn.

In , nospam suggested:

Your opinion is duly noted.