Yeah, it’s that consumer label that confuses me. Like, I doubt too many businesses are buying $54 USD Netgear WAPs, and their language specifically included SoHo stuff iirc.
I’m curious about standalone WAPs, not existing all-in-ones put into WAP mode. I’m guessing they just don’t fall under the “consumer” umbrella even though they are pretty cheap (this netgear is $54 USD on amazon)
Did anybody ever confirm if standalone wireless access points are subject to this weird FCC ban thing? Because, like, you can make your own router out of an old computer.
It’s run by Luke technically, but yeah it’s under Linus Media Group. A lot of creators I like (such as Wade from Dank Pods) are on there.
the only real alternatives to youtube for me are probably curiousity stream and floatplane, both of which cost subscriptions i can’t afford at the moment.
edit also Nebula! forgot about that one.
yeahhh thats the invidious frontend i was gonna install.
It’s like they want people to block ads holy crap. Next chance I get I’m installing invidious on my parent’s roku so they can skip this garbage.
Abusing the already broken youtube copyright strike system is not doing anyone a favor holy shit.
I live in Maryland and I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone refer to a company as “it”.
I love that the author refers to Hisense as “it” rather than they. Corporations aren’t people!
Why exactly are they targeting a non-governing member of the alliance?
Required to use smart features? Thank you Walmart for encouraging people not to connect their TVs to the internet!
lmfao. apparently the way this was originally written would have prevented non-exempt routers from getting security updates. you know, the alleged reason this ruling even exists. somebody at the FCC office of engineering and technology must have noticed because they issued a temporary waiver (PDF file).
Applying the revised 47 CFR §§ 2.932(b) and 2.1043(b) to the newly added Covered Routers would have the effect of prohibiting permissive changes to Covered Routers even if they were authorized prior to the March 23, 2026, Covered List addition. This prohibition would be in effect even for Class I permissive changes—such as software and firmware security updates that mitigate harm to U.S. consumers—because previously-authorized Routers are now covered equipment. … Therefore, OET concludes that a limited waiver until March 1, 2027, is warranted and in the public interest. March 1, 2027, is convenient because it is the date until which the recent DoW determination excepts certain otherwise Covered Routers. Prior to March 1, 2027, the OET will re-evaluate whether to further extend applicability.
They wouldn’t be forwarding packets between networked systems unless you’re using one as a hotspot. And even then I don’t know if the term “networked systems” would include a single computer or if they intend it to mean an area network of some kind.
They’re always rentals though, correct? It’ll be interesting to see which way it swings, for sure. Stupid stupid rule either way.
Taking a huge payment from Comcast and Verizon would be my guess. The language appears to exclude ISP-owned routers.
It would be funny if, like, the UniFi line got banned but the EdgeOS line didn’t just based on target audience
I’m thinking exempt based on the FCC language of “designed to be installed by the consumer”. ISP provided routers are usually hooked up by the installer tech. Which makes me wonder which ISP chortled orange man’s balls to get this passed.
It would seem to exclude ISP provided routers =/
I hope they bring some vibe coded, 3d-printed anti-air defense missiles with them!