Thinkpad WLAN/WWAN

[zyphria]

While there are a number of threads, some current, discussing the 1802/1804 error message associated with installing WLAN or WWAN cards that do not match a whitelist in the BIOS I felt a post in the main area might server to focus some of the latent anger and discontent amongst Thinkpad loyalists who only wish to set their laptops free.

Perhaps its because I've been working mostly in the MS world since getting into the IT workspace that I haven't faced this issue of a hardware lockout as the result of manufacturers' decision to restrict their support on a specific platform...but now I'm facing it head on with my X300 and my Sierra Wireless MC5725...and I'm having a hard time making it all add up....and I want to do more than simply complain until some of the more talented individuals here come up with yet another method for patching the BIOS...I want to get to the bottom of the reasoning, I want to reach out to Lenovo...and I want to get this changed once and for all.

Lofty goal, right? Well the way I see it, with the way that competition is these days, bad PR by ways of a grassroots movement might be a bitter pill...and perhaps we can keep control of hardware choice in the hands of the people who shell out the money for it

So at this point I need the valid reasoning for Lenovo's (and IBM before them) in restricting non-supported hardware. The 'cost' of providing warranty service as the result of non-approved hardware failing in the machine and causing damage multiple components (motherboard) seems a bit out there. With that in mind, they should at least 'unlock' the hardware when the computers can no longer be covered by a warranty. Plus people insert CardBus/PC Cards, and all grades of memory in their laptops everyday. I'd like to hear the reasoning as you've worked out, been told, or otherwise concluded.

Anyone have a Lenovo contact in their Rolodex who might be able to weigh in? Computers are already 'disposable' enough as they are today without locking them into proprietary components.

Admin Edit: Please read and adhere to the Rules of The Road when posting

[egibbs]

My understanding (could be wrong) is that it's an FCC thing. The combination of machine + card constitutes a transmitting device which must be certified by the FCC to not interfere with pacemakers, toasters, TVs, etc.

The FCC certification process is somewhat expensive and time consuming, so manufacturers don't want to go through it with every possible card that someone could shove in. They only do it for the cards they sell with the machine, and the FCC makes them restrict what cards will work in the machine to the ones tested.

Ed Gibbs

[Zender]

The FCC compliance is being repeated here and there and everywhere, but the only two laptop manufacturers doing this are Lenovo and HP. Seems that others fight with FCC, or what? Still it might a small part of why it's done.

The more acceptable reason I've read was that they are unwilling to bear the costs of supporting people who've installed some other WLAN/WWAN card and now call Lenovo support to get it working. And those other cards are not supported by AccessConnections, so they can't get away by saying "just try reimaging if it helps".

And of course some extra $$$ from the cards help too, maybe Verizon also pays more when their locks are secured... just speculation. This one is because there would be no reason why not to whitelist also Intel 4965AGN when whitelist contains identical Lenovo Intel 4965AGN.

The problem is that not many people change their WLAN cards and basically no one does anything about their WWAN card. So the voice isn't loud enough. As far as I know, there used to be a lock on which harddrive you could use, but IBM eventually gave up on that one, it made way too many people angry.

[Shelby Griggs]

I can maybe understand the FCC issues, BUT why locked to one carrier? The MC8775 should work with T-Mobile and any other carrier using the same data format, not just AT&T. I suspect it is as with handsets (at least in the USA), AT&T is subsidizing part of the cost, therefore locking the user into only subscribing to that carrier?

SHG