[wahern]

> So, foreign-made consumer routers can still be sold, but they are going to look at them with a fine-tooth comb, and they are going to use FCC approval as leverage to try to increase domestic manufacturing.

You're assuming a non-partisan technocratic process, which this administration has amply shown is neither capable nor willing to provide. This requirement becomes another opportunity for Pay-to-Play, either in cash or quid pro quo, to the government directly (see, e.g., NVidia and AMD export allowances) or to Trump's inner circle (see, e.g., crypto venture regulation, merger approvals).

[dcrazy]

This is the problem with erosion of norms. We’ve all known for decades that consumer routers have shit security. We’ve all known about the risk of implants or intentional backdoors in the supply chain. And now when the FCC appears to be finally doing something about it, there’s a massive cloud of mistrust hanging over the whole idea.

[selkin]

The FCC ain’t doing nothing about it. If anyone thinks they are, then I have an amazing US made router to sell them.

[crote]

If they cared about security, US-made routers wouldn't be exempt.

[mindslight]

The mistrust comes from those doing it, and the clearly corrupt ways they are operating. The maggot movement is basically rooted in a lot of very real frustrations from very real longstanding problems, but the only thing it offers as solutions is performative vice signalling.

People who care about the problems of digital security are not going to lean into the idea of simply banning devices based on where they were manufactured. Rather they would work at general standards and solutions to actually solve the problems - things like untying the markets for hardware/firmware/services, requiring firmware source escrow, mandating LAN protocols and controllers so every single IoT device isn't backhauling to its own mothership, and so on.

Likewise people who care about domestic manufacturing first and foremost are not going to champion applying steep blanket tariffs two decades after all of that industry has already left, or using regulatory agencies to shake down manufacturers for unrelated concessions.

[adrianmonk]

> You're assuming a non-partisan technocratic process

No, of course I'm not assuming that. That's not the administration's pattern of behavior, so it would be a crazy assumption.

I agree it'll be abused. I just didn't feel it necessary to state the obvious.