US bans "foreign-made" consumer routers

[nabsltd]

There really is no worry that this will ever be implemented. Every residential ISP that provides their customer with a box to connect to the ISP will complain, because every one of those boxes are made outside the US.

 

[Greg_E]

Every one of the modems the ISP provides is also (probably) made outside of the US. Pretty sure every single Cisco "professional" switch and router and phone is made outside of the US, but some might be Mexico now.

All the Extreme switches we put in at work are assembled by Anatel, same as many/most Cisco. That's just the nature of the game, until we are paying slave labor wages in the USA, this stuff can't be price competitive being built in the USA.

Every price a circuit board design, even a two layer board? Ever price the same from the USA? If you aren't doing bulk, and even if you are willing to buy an entire panel, you'll be paying 3x the price with the USA manufacturers. Bulk probably gets the price down, even if you are using them for pick and place, but not so cheap that you see Raspberry Pi Foundation building devices here in the US. Makes me wonder if Sony in Ireland gives them a deal under cost to offset taxes.

 

[PigLover]

Every one of the modems the ISP provides is also (probably) made outside of the US...

Those boxes are "managed" by the ISP, installed by them (sorta, ok, you plug it in but they configure it). They manage the security. Etc.

The ISP routers will just be listed as "non-consumer" and the rule won't apply. In fact, the ISPs are likely to use the rule as "blame" when they disable what limited self management capabilites their routers already have or stop allowing "self install" and require a (nicely paid) service call to establish service.

You can never forget that most of the staff of the FCC used to work for one or the other big Telco before they "retired" and took on a government gig. The folks who wrote the rule know how to make sure this doesn't affect their prior employers.

 

[amalurk]

In fact, the ISPs are likely to use the rule as "blame" when they disable what limited self management capabilites their routers already have or stop allowing "self install" and required a (nicely paid) service call to establish service.

Crap you are right, ISPs like Comcast could no longer allow you to bring your own modem and force you to use their combo device with routing turned on too.

 

[louie1961]

I personally think this is a non-issue. It only applies to new models. Models that are already being sold may continue to be sold. The FCC defines a router as:

“Routers” is defined by National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Internal Report 8425A to mean consumer-grade networking devices that are primarily intended for residential use and can be installed by the customer. Routers forward data packets, most commonly Internet Protocol (IP) packets, between networked systems.

So software is not covered. Plus there is a process for getting new models approved for sale. I am sure we will have new, non-USA made routers available to us. I would also be glad to see companies bring production back to the US.

 

[zzz111]

I personally think this is a non-issue. It only applies to new models. Models that are already being sold may continue to be sold. The FCC defines a router as:


So software is not covered. Plus there is a process for getting new models approved for sale. I am sure we will have new, non-USA made routers available to us. I would also be glad to see companies bring production back to the US.

my ISP already doesn’t allow doing anything in my router other than changing the name and password for the WiFi.

I mean literally I cannot turn OFF the WiFi I have two options total. Plus I cannot turn OFF WiFi. I can also inly change the DHCP range from 192.168.1.1-255, to 192.168.1.xxx which makes this thing useless

That being said maybe ISPs use this as an excuse for some changes, but this doesn’t seem to even apply to them as you pointed out. It would suck if they locked down to requiring ISP provided router and charge you for it. But I already have that…

 

[louie1961]

my ISP already doesn’t allow doing anything in my router other than changing the name and password for the WiFi.

I mean literally I cannot turn OFF the WiFi I have two options total. Plus I cannot turn OFF WiFi. I can also inly change the DHCP range from 192.168.1.1-255, to 192.168.1.xxx which makes this thing useless

That being said maybe ISPs use this as an excuse for some changes, but this doesn’t seem to even apply to them as you pointed out. It would suck if they locked down to requiring ISP provided router and charge you for it. But I already have that…

I am sure that had nothing to with the new announcement from the FCC. Both my Xfinity Cable and T-Mobile 5G home internet are the same way and have been for years. It makes life easier for the ISP, because there are less things for them to trouble shoot. I love having my own gear. I have my router/firewall device separate from my wireless access point. Two separate pieces of hardware. I can have up to 10 different SSIDs, each assigned to a different VLAN. I run pfSense in a DIY box as my router firewall. So much more control than Xfinity or T-Mobile allowed me to have. My pfSense box just gets a DHCP connection from each modem, and then the ISPs have no idea what's going on in my network beyond their modems. My DNS all goes through pfSense as my resolver, and it uses an encrypted connection to Cloudflare as its upstream DNS. I have firewall rules that block outside DNS, DNS over HTTPS and DNS over TLS.

 

[Greg_E]

Chester Tech for the T-Mobile 5g

 

[mattventura]

Those boxes are "managed" by the ISP, installed by them (sorta, ok, you plug it in but they configure it). They manage the security. Etc.

The ISP routers will just be listed as "non-consumer" and the rule won't apply. In fact, the ISPs are likely to use the rule as "blame" when they disable what limited self management capabilites their routers already have or stop allowing "self install" and require a (nicely paid) service call to establish service.

You can never forget that most of the staff of the FCC used to work for one or the other big Telco before they "retired" and took on a government gig. The folks who wrote the rule know how to make sure this doesn't affect their prior employers.

It's more complicated than that. The underlying NIST report defines "consumer-grade router device" as:

Networking devices that are primarily intended for residential use and can be installed by the customer. Routers forward data packets, most commonly Internet Protocol (IP) packets, between networked systems.

and says that:

The profile makes no distinction in its cybersecurity recommendations with regards to whether the product is owned by the customer or leased from an internet service provider.

So the only way for them to get around it would be to make a router that can't be "installed by the customer" - but they would have a very difficult time making that argument if they're supplying an off-the-shelf router or rebranding it.

 

[louie1961]

So the only way for them to get around it would be to make a router that can't be "installed by the customer"

Actually its a lot easier than that. Just don't make any new models. Anything being sold today is not affected by the new regs. The FCC was very clear that this only applies to "new models". The various news sources didn't report that. Nothing that exists today is affected.