> Because people are entitled?

That is correct. People are entitled to control the things that they own.

> If government regulation prevents that layer of software from bring open source, it isn't. What about that is difficult to understand?

It isn't difficult to understand. It is unacceptable.

> That is correct. People are entitled to control the things that they own.

so long as it doesn't effect others. Just like existing cell phone regulation. Do you own a cell phone? You already own a device you cannot fully control.

> so long as it doesn't effect others.

Exactly. So people should be able to install OpenWRT as long as they don't actually cause interference.

> Do you own a cell phone? You already own a device you cannot fully control.

Sensible people have objected to that for similar reasons.

There is scads of legal precedent that some actions that may not result in harm are still not permissible because of risk, or consequence, or difficulty of policing, etc.

HN has a rather libertarian bent and loves to suggest what you've suggested- that actual harm is the only thing that ought to be prohibited. But (IMO) that isn't always suitable.

> There is scads of legal precedent that some actions that may not result in harm are still not permissible because of risk, or consequence, or difficulty of policing, etc.

And those things are the last resort after we've proven with much hard thinking and a long stint of trial and error that nothing else can possibly work. Even at that point we would still have to evaluate whether the cure is worse than the disease.

Are you seriously contending that this is such a case? Custom router firmware is in the same category as private ownership of smallpox and nuclear materials?