It says it's because it's "not available in your region". Will this be corrected? I don't think usage of such regional checks is healthy for privacy-oriented OS!
5/6GHz tethering is greyed out
deeg05 I don't think usage of such regional checks is healthy for privacy-oriented OS!
It is not clear how complying with local emission regulations would count as anti-privacy, since a compliant device would blend in with other devices.
In the other direction, if, hypothetically, 6 GHz is unavailable due to local rules but local authorities were to observe a device transmitting in 6 GHz, that might attract unwanted attention to the owner of that device.
Is there a privacy threat posed by a device adhering to local RF regulations?
I have had this issue as well. I just wondered, is it actually the case that broadcasting a hotspot in 5/6ghz is usually "Not available in your country of region"?
I am not trying to be argumentative by the way, just genuinely curious and would like to be educated, as my home routers are able to broadcast on those frequencies, no problem. Occasionally 160mhz at 5ghz is an issue but apart from that, all is good.
Is there something different with phone hotspots that I am unaware of?
roamer4223 This is a complicated topic!
- Somewhere inside GrapheneOS there is a giant table mapping from regulatory regions to channels and power limits. Perhaps somebody will post a link to the file.
- That file may be correct or incorrect, in part because countries change rules all the time.
- Likewise somewhere inside a home router there is a giant table. Likewise that table may be correct or incorrect.
So it is possible for one's router and one's phone to disagree. I can imagine that Google tries to be pretty up-to-date, and I suspect the GrapheneOS developers are quickly tracking what Google puts in AOSP. Meanwhile, people often don't update router firmware, and sometimes companies are not in a rush to update firmware for older devices.
Here is a Wikipedia page on Wi-Fi channel allocations. But that might contain inaccuracies too!
If anyone is aware of a specific inaccuracy in Wikipedia or in the AOSP Wi-Fi regulatory database, it probably makes sense to point that out in the appropriate venue.
But that's aside from the issue of whether an end user seeking privacy would/wouldn't want to transmit in a frequency band that is outside of local regulatory constraints. I would think a privacy-seeking user might prefer to blend in, as opposed to standing out.
de0u fantastic and informative reply, thank you very much.
Agreed, my question was not related to the privacy aspect. I quite agree blending in with the crowd is the way to go.
Thanks again
How exactly do pixel phones preform regional checks?
I heard that some routers scan for other WIFI signals nearby for their country code and apply restriction base on the result, is it something like that?
hamlet9371 How exactly do pixel phones preform regional checks?
Perhaps multiple ways. I think cellular towers provide a wealth of metadata, e.g., a carrier i.d. number, and I suspect it's easy to map from carrier i.d. to country.
de0u Thing is, according to this google support article it's imposed not because of some "local regulation", but from a political standpoint. And why shouldn't it be up for user to adhere to local regulations? I'm afraid that usage of 802.11ax/ac isn't actually banned indoors (too lazy to find law, but nobody got caught for using such standards indoor in my country), and that means that my hardware is limited by some stupid software restriction!
deeg05 that means that my hardware is limited by some stupid software restriction!
Keep in mind that this "stupid software restriction" is something that was added by upstream AOSP, not GrapheneOS. What you seem to be asking is for the GrapheneOS developers to stop working on the projects they're working on now, and instead spend time focusing on removing a "stupid software restriction" for one person who wants it removed.
deeg05 why shouldn't it be up for user to adhere to local regulations?
Why is up to GrapheneOS to enable its users to not adhere to local regulations?
deeg05 and as for privacy standpoint, I think that such regional check implies data processing and collection in a covert manner
Not sure how this relates to privacy. The OS behaving a certain way to follow local regulations isn't a privacy issue because the data isn't being shared with anyone. It's all done on-device. Just because you don't like the result doesn't make it a privacy issue.
Offtopic: i recently used tethering with LTE mode and Wifi 6 hotspot was created ( pixel 8 )
roamer4223 this will be fixed if this PR will be merged. https://github.com/GrapheneOS/platform_packages_apps_Settings/pull/246
JohnSmithFi I don't speak for the GrapheneOS project, but I doubt that exact change will be merged. It provides users with no warning that they might be violating their local radio regulations. By contrast, the GrapheneOS call-recording implementation at least prompts users to be aware of local laws.
Note that transmitting on locally-banned frequencies might be a good way to attract unwanted official attention.
de0u Unfortunately there are no other options. Google has disabled 5 and 6Ghz distribution in all countries where there are no official sales. Even reminding them that in Linux kernel there are no such restrictions in many countries and distribution of 5 and 6Ghz is allowed does not help, they would have done at least like in Linux kernel, there are also these restrictions by country for WiFi modules, but no, Google made its own list, on the Google support forum one complaint is more than three years old, no one is trying to fix it. If you don't live in the USA or Europe, you don't need these features, nobody cares what laws you have in your country.