Brendan Carr Tries To ‘Ban’ All Foreign Routers In Lazy, Legally Dubious Shakedown
Taking a break from attacking the First Amendment, FCC boss Brendan Carr this week engaged in a strange bit of performance art: his FCC announced that they’d be effectively adding all foreign-made routers to the agency’s “covered list,” in a bid to ban their sale in the United States.
That is unless manufacturers obtain “conditional approval” (including all appropriate application fees and favors, of course) from the Trump administration via the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security. In other words, the Trump administration is attempting to shake down manufacturers of all routers manufactured outside the United States (which again, is nearly all of them) under the pretense of cybersecurity.
You can probably see how this might result in some looming legal action. And who knows what other “favors” to the Trump administration might be required to get conditional approval, like the inclusion of backdoors accessible by our current authoritarian government.
A fact sheet insists this was all necessary because many foreign routers have been exploited by foreign actors:
“Recently, malicious state and non-state sponsored cyber attackers have increasingly leveraged the vulnerabilities in small and home office routers produced abroad to carry out direct attacks against American civilians in their homes.”
But the biggest recent cybersecurity incident in recent U.S. memory, the Chinese Salt Typhoon hack (which involved Chinese state-sanctioned hackers massively compromising U.S. telecom networks to spy on important people for years) largely involved the broadly deregulated U.S. telecom sector failing to do basic things like change default admin passwords. And then trying to hide additional evidence of intrusion for liability reasons. A very domestic failure.
We’ve discussed at length that while Brendan Carr loves to pretend he’s doing important things on cybersecurity, most of his policies have made the U.S. less secure. Like his mindless deregulation of the privacy and security standards of domestic telecoms and hardware makers. Or his destruction of smart home testing programs just because they had some operations in China.
Most of the Trump administration “cybersecurity” solutions have been indistinguishable from a foreign attack. They’ve gutted numerous government cybersecurity programs (including a board investigating Salt Typhoon), and dismantled the Cyber Safety Review Board (CSRB) (responsible for investigating significant cybersecurity incidents). The administration claims to be worried about cybersecurity, but then goes out of its way to ensure domestic telecoms see no meaningful oversight whatsoever.
I’d argue Trump administration destruction of corporate oversight of domestic telecom privacy/security standards is a much bigger threat to national security and consumer safety than 90% of foreign routers, but good luck finding any news outlet that brings that up in their coverage of the FCC’s latest move.
In reality, the biggest current threat to U.S. national security is the Trump administration’s rampant, historic corruption. Absolutely any time you see the Trump administration taking steps to “improve national security,” or “address cybersecurity” you can just easily assume there’s some ulterior motive of personal benefit to the president, as we saw when the great hyperventilation over TikTok was “fixed” by offloading the app to Trump’s dodgy billionaire friends.




I mean it certainly starts that way. And your point makes sense if you completely ignore the later stage trajectory of most large privately-traded companies over a long enough timeline. Like Boeing. Or the entirety of telecom. And you mention Google, but their search quality is an absolute dumpster fire now because, in part, they're financially incentivized at every level to pursue impossible ever-upward scaling growth over quality.
here's a study from just this week showcasing how U.S. mobile data price competition effectively halted in the wake of the deal https://research.rewheel.fi/downloads/The_state_of_mobile_and_broadband_pricing_1H2024_PUBLIC_REDACTED_VERSION.pdf I'll trim out the relevant bit for you: "Five years on, the Sprint / T-Mobile 4-to-3 mobile merger made the US one of the most expensive mobile markets in the world."
This is gibberish. The FCC literally didn't read the merger review impact studies from its own agency before approving the deal: https://www.techdirt.com/2019/10/22/fcc-approved-t-mobile-sprint-merger-without-even-seeing-full-details/ And the Trump DOJ "antitrust enforcer" Makan Delrahim worked with both companies, in his personal time using his personal phone and email accounts, to make sure the deal got approved: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/technology/sprint-t-mobile-merger-antitrust-official.html That is not how "antitrust enforcement" works. Also here's a study from just this week showcasing how the consolidation in competition immediately put a halt to all wireless data price competition https://research.rewheel.fi/downloads/The_state_of_mobile_and_broadband_pricing_1H2024_PUBLIC_REDACTED_VERSION.pdf mindless consolidation apologists are embarrassing
freedom technology
I mean he just last week called X a "freedom technology," which suggests to me either rampant ignorance or allegiance to the broader mission of being a safe space for bigots. I simply can't take him seriously.
I forgot to mention in this post that Comcast waited two weeks to implement the necessary patch to protect its systems, despite widespread discussion of the severe impact of this particular vulnerability. Good times!
yup. "flood the zone with shit." Undermine consensus and expertise. Erode public trust in institutions. Make it challenging if not impossible to determine what's true. Helps if you simultaneously attack journalism and academia on multiple, concurrent fronts.
thanks
Whoops, thank you. I had conflated the union background with People's Choice (which is engaged in a similar mission) in my head. Corrected, thank you (and please keep up the good work).
the data is super clear on this, yep. Cooperatives, utilities (many city owned), and municipalities provide better, cheaper, faster broadband. AND it's locally owned by people who have a direct responsibility to the markets they serve. It's not some magical panacea, and there's certainly a huge role for private ISPs, but the path forward here is pretty clear. Tons of community-owned open access fiber networks, leased to multiple competitors.
yes, most analysis also doesn't include the hidden fees buried below the line. That just technically doesn't exist, and that's where cable and telecom giants make huge chunks of their profits.
"Push it onto the large ISPs: make them give details of speed availability throughout the territory they’re operating in (or looking to expand into), have an intern overlay it onto a map, and hold the companies to it." One, giant telecom monopolies lie about coverage, constantly. Two, they have spent twenty years lobbying government to ensure telecom regulators are too feckless, feeble, understaffed, and underfunded to hold them accountable for anything. Your proposal basically involves throwing untold billions at a big ambiguous mountain of predatory monopolies and just hoping it all works out Without reform and taking aim at state and federal corruption, none of this works out particularly efficiently, which is kind of explained in the post you responded to.
RTFA
So the FCC's first effort on this front made adhering to it voluntary, which was pointless. The Infrastructure bill required that they implement it permanently with mandatory requirements. But it still needs review and getting it implemented and enforced would require an FCC voting majority, which they don't have because the telecom lobby is currently ratfucking the appointment of a third Democratic commissioner to the FCC. And even with its full voting majority I'm not really sure the FCC would have the backbone to consistently enforce this much.
whoops, yes. brain fart. apologies.
it's so funny because even the Democratic Commissioners heralded as being pro-consumer can't candidly acknowledge in public comments that telecom monopolies exist and cause harm. there's just zero political courage to challenge them in any meaningful way, even if it's just rhetorically.
there used to be these kinds of requirements embedded in many local franchise agreements, but those were largely killed off in a big vilification push when phone companies lobbied to ready the field for their entry into the TV sector.
they're still basing a lot of this on "advertised" speeds. Hopefully this gets corrected courtesy of challenges, but I'm hearing a lot of skepticism on the challenge process actually working.
...
They don't serve my neck of the woods in South Seattle, unfortunately. There's conduit everywhere yet Comcast remains the only competitor here in much of "Silicon Valley North"
right on. "don't do the thing they incentivize you to do and punish you for not doing" is not a solution. And as I note to others, I also don't like laggy GUIs, tying the GUI to basic HDMI port switching, which still happens if you're offline.
I settled on the LG C1 this last purchase round and love the quality, but I still think the OS and GUI is shitty. And it STILL has the same problem where they tether the GUI (which gets slower as the TV hardware ages in relation to software bloat) to HDMI switching, so doing the basic act of switching ports is way more cumbersome and annoying than it should be (even if you operate the TV without connecting it to the internet).
Sceptre is arguably the dodgiest TV brand you can find and he linked to a dated LED TV. He literally didn't read the post, did a 30 second google search, and concluded the issue solved.