5 replies saying the same things appeared so I'll respond to myself rather than try to pick one:

A TV is indeed typically a client. Or station, if you want to dust off your CWNA certificate. One should still include the warning when sharing such projects/advice because of considerations like:

- With no explanations or warnings, the reader may very reasonably apply the same type of fix across several of their badly preconfigured devices. Now when they extend their Windows laptop display wirelessly to the TV over Miracast (a direct exchange this TV supports), both devices will agree they can do so on the bands in whatever region they were set to.

- It's not safe to assume only the AP needs and has a correct regulatory db or regulatory domain set. APs for the wrong region are sold/imported, do not always have correct regulatory dbs, and can also be similarly misconfigured. Clients can also peer to peer or hotspot. In general, you should fairly be warned you're removing one of the 2 sides to the safety system and "the channel I wanted appeared" is not the same thing as "I fixed the buggy channel config on the device".

- As some have pointed out, clients can perform either an active or passive scan based on, basically, what the system feels makes the most sense at the time. An active scan will result in probes across the supported channel list, so even if all of the above is true, people should be aware even a lone station can still transmit on all of the bands it is told to support.

I'm not against fixing buggy devices but I am against telling people the fix is to set it to Germany without warning they may result in using illegal frequencies in your area if not carefully considered. A muuuch cooler & safer fix might have been to patch the supported channel list for the given country to be correct rather than patch the region to be wrong, but that may have been harder to pull off.

And what people also don't realize is that you can run a non-compliant AP. I am 99% certain the legal framework places the responsibility on the clients and the APs (or at least the absence of a consistent one biases towards a conservative stance: i.e. not assuming it's only the AP's responsibility). If I am a massive multinational conglomerate and I ship clients that know they're in a regulated region but connect on illegal bands anyway to APs broadcasting them, then that seems to expose me to unnecessary risk. You can bet I'm going to take measures so that if this ever gets tested in court I can say "yes our software takes reasonable measures to not transmit on channels we know to be illegal in your country, your honor".