This part of the press release seems pretty crucial:

> Producers of consumer-grade routers that receive Conditional Approval from DoW or DHS can continue to receive FCC equipment authorizations.

In other words, foreign-made consumer routers are banned by default. But if you are a manufacturer, you can apply to get unbanned ("Conditional Approval").

In the FAQ (https://www.fcc.gov/faqs-recent-updates-fcc-covered-list-reg...), they even include guidance on how to apply: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/Guidance-for-Conditi...

If you (a manufacturer) apply, they want information regarding corporate location, jursidiction, and ownership. They want a bill of materials with country of origin and a justification for why any foreign-sourced components can't be domestic. They want information about who provides software and updates. And they want to hear your plan to increase US domestic manufacturing and progress toward that goal.

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.

▲

OneLeggedCat 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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

That is not what's going to happen. What's going to happen is that anyone coughing up payola to the current executive in chief's people will get approved, and anyone that doesn't will remain blocked. This practice is currently widespread, in the form of tariffs.

▲

ryandrake 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We're going to keep seeing this in all kinds of industries throughout the next three or so years: "Your products are banned or your country is tariffed, but if you pay enough in bribes, er I mean undergo our approval process, then you'll be exempt."

	▲	lazide 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Bonus points if the ‘approval’ process exempts them from liability if misused - and there is no actual checking done as part of approval.

▲

dlcarrier 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That descriptions already fits the payola model. It's almost never about directly handing money to a politician. That's illegal, so it's not worth doing when there's legal ways to do it. Instead, payola usually involves regulations requiring using some kind of product or certification, then the organizations that sell the product or perform the certification contribute to the politicians.

Also, the biggest benefactors of payola aren't the politicians, it's the rent seekers, that is the businesses already in place that want to prevent competition. Because of this, they usually directly contribute to the politicians that promise to restrict the path to doing business.

For example, if you want a newest-generation extremely-efficient air conditioner in the US, you won't be able to buy it and even if you could, you wouldn't be able to get anyone to install it. Any given model of air conditioners needs to be on an approved list to be sold in the US, and the installer needs to be on an approved list, too. This means that by the time an air conditioner makes it onto the list, it's already old. Also, installers can require you buy it from them, and almost all do, so by the time time an installer on the list has it for sale, it's even older than that. Ironically this is all enabled by the EPA, on the auspices that they are ensuring that it's energy inefficient, when in reality they are preserving the market for the older, more expensive, and inefficient models.

	▲	afavour 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> That descriptions already fits the payola model. The old payola model. This new model encompasses the old one and adds a neat layer of outright politician bribery on top.
	▲	hedora 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Trump made $4B last year. It's open and direct bribery at this point. He's said he plans to hide behind qualified immunity and pardons for people he pays (with tax money) to break the law on his behalf. Dario (CEO of Anthropic) said the DoW contract violations and threats were direct retaliation for not paying Trump "campaign" money. Later, he was forced to apologize for speaking the truth.

▲

vineyardmike 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If you (a manufacturer) apply, they want information regarding corporate location, jursidiction, and ownership. They want a bill of materials with country of origin and a justification for why any foreign-sourced components can't be domestic. They want information about who provides software and updates. And they want to hear your plan to increase US domestic manufacturing and progress toward that goal.

Wow NGL this sounds great if you ignore the reality that it'll be used as a partisan backdoor to enriching the administration.

▲

wahern 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		If they cared about security, US-made routers wouldn't be exempt.
	▲	mindslight 10 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		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 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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.

▲

sneak 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’m reading this as “tariffs didn’t work, so now we need different pain levers to wield against trading partners to bully them at the expense of consumers”.

▲

giantrobot 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Any router made by a company that "donates" (bribes) to Trump's "ballroom" or other vanity projects will get approved. Irrespective of anything else. This is just another grift.