Read here:
2 Likes
If I can understand that article correctly, itās just a method to split off the radio handling part of the OS so that the other parts can be, if required, replaced with āuntrustedā 3rd party firmwares without having to worry that said firmware would make the router use FCC incompatible radio frequencies.
Iām just guessing, but maybe the manufacturer would be required to lock down the router if there was a chance that the radio can be tuned to the āwrongā frequencies but if they can guarantee that canāt happen then they can allow 3rd party firmwares.
Is this an attempt to attack the soft radio or cognitive radio that is coiming with 5G tech to keep telco and cable alive and prevent cord cutting? Source was Arstecnica- unethical and never reliable.
Iām not sure I understand what youāre saying, but that article seemed to have reported on (or hyped about) a simple trick that can allow manufacturers to open up their devices for 3rd party firmware updates without having to worry about being held responsible for enabling them to break FCC regulations. That is, if I understood the whole reasoning why itās necessary. Itās nothing extraordinary, to be honest, and definitely nothing āconspiracy likeā 
Mobile phones (e.g. LG phones) have been using virtualization (based on, for example, another member of the L4 kernel family: OKL4) for a long time for a similar purpose: to isolate the proprietary radio driver from the general purpose operating system (e.i. Android), thus making it harder to steal (the driverās code, that is.)