The Federal Communications Commission’s new router policy is a sweeping example of how cybersecurity, industrial policy, and geopolitics are converging in the consumer tech market. By adding foreign-produced consumer routers to the agency’s Covered List, the FCC is effectively blocking approval of new models that are manufactured abroad unless they secure an exception through a national-security review process. The immediate impact is less dramatic for existing owners than for manufacturers, but the longer-term signal is unmistakable: U.S. policy is shifting from device-by-device scrutiny toward a broad, supply-chain-first approach. (apnews.com)
Routers have traditionally sat in the background of the consumer technology stack, quietly routing traffic between homes, offices, and the internet. That invisibility helped make them a weak point: if attackers compromise the gateway, they can observe, redirect, or disrupt traffic across an entire household or small business network. The FCC’s recent action builds on years of U.S. concern that networking gear can be used for espionage, botnets, infrastructure probing, and broader supply-chain compromise. (apnews.com)
The decision did not emerge in a vacuum. In October 2025, the FCC announced new safeguards designed to close loopholes in the Covered List framework and strengthen supply-chain controls on importation and marketing. That action was already notable because it expanded the agency’s ability to deal with devices previously approved for sale, and it also signaled a more aggressive view of what constitutes an unacceptable national-security risk. (docs.fcc.gov)
By March 2026, the agency went further and applied that national-security logic to consumer routers produced in foreign countries. AP reported that the FCC said malicious actors have exploited security gaps in foreign-made routers to target households, disrupt networks, enable espionage, and facilitate intellectual-property theft. The agency’s framing matters because it treats routers not merely as consumer electronics, but as potential infrastructure chokepoints. (apnews.com)
This policy also fits a broader pattern of U.S. technology decoupling. The FCC has already taken hard lines against categories of foreign-adversary equipment, and it has signaled willingness to restrict approvals for newly covered devices rather than just banning specific vendors. In practical terms, that means the agency is no longer asking only “who made this?” but “where was it made, who touched it, and can the supply chain be trusted?” (docs.fcc.gov)
The new router move is especially important because networking hardware is a mass-market category with deeply globalized production. Unlike some enterprise gear, consumer routers are often designed in one country, assembled in another, and supported through software teams spread across several time zones. That complexity is exactly what makes the issue hard: a policy designed to reduce risk can also collide with the realities of modern manufacturing. That tension is the story here. (apnews.com)
That distinction matters. The policy does not, at least immediately, outlaw every router currently on shelves or in homes. It targets future approvals, which means the commercial effect arrives through product refresh cycles, not through a sudden recall regime. For consumers, that softens the shock; for manufacturers, it creates a hard stop on new models that depend on foreign production pathways. (apnews.com)
What changed is scale. Earlier actions tended to focus on named companies, specific product families, or clearly defined adversary-linked vendors. The router move is broader and more structural, because it sweeps in foreign production as a category. That is a meaningful shift from entity-based enforcement to supply-chain-based enforcement. (docs.fcc.gov)
The FCC’s language shows that policymakers now see the router as more than just a Wi‑Fi box. It is a perimeter device with access to DNS behavior, session metadata, and traffic patterns that can reveal a surprising amount about a user’s life and business activity. The fact that this concern is being translated into formal approval policy tells us that cyber risk is being treated as a procurement and manufacturing problem, not just a software patching problem. (apnews.com)
This is also why the policy resonates with national-defense arguments. A household router is not a missile silo, but the aggregation of millions of household devices can still create meaningful exposure. In an era of botnets and state-sponsored intrusion campaigns, even inexpensive consumer hardware can become strategically relevant. Small devices, large consequences. (apnews.com)
That exception process is where policy becomes operational. The more demanding the review, the more the rule behaves like a de facto domestic manufacturing requirement. The less demanding it is, the more the policy becomes a signaling device with limited market disruption. Right now, the evidence suggests the FCC wants the process to be hard enough to force supply-chain changes. (apnews.com)
This resembles earlier restrictions on other categories of covered equipment, where agencies used certification and approval processes to shape behavior without passing a broad standalone manufacturing statute. The result is a policy framework that can be applied quickly, but only if companies have the capital and capacity to respond quickly enough. That asymmetry will matter a lot.
That’s a critical distinction for readers who assume this is a China-only story. The rule targets foreign production, not just foreign ownership. So a U.S. company with an overseas factory footprint can be caught in the same net as an international brand, depending on how the FCC interprets the manufacturing and development chain. (apnews.com)
On the other hand, firms that already have U.S. assembly or can pivot quickly may see a relative advantage. If the approval pathway becomes burdensome, then companies with domestic manufacturing capacity could gain negotiating leverage over retailers and channel partners. In that sense, the policy may unintentionally create a premium for “approved and trusted” supply chains. (apnews.com)
Still, consumers should not assume the policy is painless. Once existing inventory sells through, the market may see fewer choices, longer product cycles, and potentially higher prices. AP explicitly noted the possibility of shortages and price hikes as companies restructure supply chains and seek U.S. approval for new models. (apnews.com)
The longer-term effect is more subtle. Product refreshes may slow, premium models may get more expensive, and budget options may become harder to source if manufacturers cannot qualify quickly under the new rules. That could be especially painful for consumers who upgrade only when their service becomes unstable or their hardware fails. (apnews.com)
Enterprises will likely care less about the headline and more about the precedent. Once the FCC treats foreign production as a trigger for national-security exclusion, procurement teams will expect similar scrutiny across access points, mesh systems, smart gateways, and possibly other IoT-adjacent devices. That makes vendor due diligence more expensive, but also more central to risk management. (docs.fcc.gov)
There is also a systems implication. The FCC’s national-security posture suggests a future in which network gear is increasingly treated like defense-adjacent infrastructure. That may improve resilience in some cases, but it can also slow adoption of innovative products if the approval pipeline becomes too rigid. Security and speed are now in direct competition. (docs.fcc.gov)
This matters because the decision is not simply technical. It is also political messaging: a visible demonstration that the administration is willing to use federal power to reshape where sensitive technology is made. That can play well with voters who see supply-chain dependence as a vulnerability, but it can also alarm trade partners and technology vendors who view the move as protectionist.
The policy also dovetails with earlier congressional and agency concerns about routers and related consumer networking hardware. That preexisting political runway helps explain why the FCC can justify such a sweeping move now, rather than starting with narrower guidance or voluntary standards.
That evolution suggests the agency is becoming more comfortable with category-level intervention. The first phase dealt with known offenders. The second phase deals with risk classes and production geography. That shift is important because it changes the burden of proof from the government to the manufacturer. (docs.fcc.gov)
Another difference is speed. The October 2025 action was about tightening existing rules; the router decision appears to hit a much larger slice of the market with comparatively little warning. That means industry has less time to adapt, which is exactly why the policy feels disruptive. Regulatory certainty is one thing; regulatory surprise is another. (docs.fcc.gov)
That raises costs, and costs matter a lot in consumer networking. Router buyers are often price-sensitive, especially in the mass-market and ISP-bundled segments. If compliance drives up bill-of-materials costs or slows refresh cycles, the competitive field could narrow in ways that benefit a few high-margin players and hurt the lower-end market. (apnews.com)
There is also a strategic uncertainty for the broader hardware ecosystem. If routers can be singled out on national-security grounds because they are network chokepoints, then other devices that mediate sensitive traffic may be next. That includes certain smart-home hubs, access points, and maybe categories of IoT gear that today seem too mundane to attract scrutiny. The category boundary is now the real frontier.
The opportunity side is equally important. If companies respond by building more secure, more transparent, and more localized supply chains, consumers could eventually benefit from better trust and fewer hidden dependencies. In the best case, the policy nudges the market toward stronger baseline security and more resilient production. (docs.fcc.gov)
Another concern is transparency. Consumers may not understand why certain models disappear, retailers may not know how aggressively the rule will be enforced, and manufacturers may face uncertainty around what counts as sufficient domestic involvement. Ambiguity is expensive. (apnews.com)
Consumers should pay attention to product availability over the next few hardware refresh cycles, not just to the immediate news cycle. Retailers may continue selling existing stock for a while, but the real effects will show up when new models begin to cycle in or fail to appear. If the rule is enforced aggressively, the price and feature mix of consumer networking gear could change materially by the end of the year. (apnews.com)
Source: LinkedIn United States Bans Imports of All New Foreign Manufactured Routers Over Security Concerns
Routers have traditionally sat in the background of the consumer technology stack, quietly routing traffic between homes, offices, and the internet. That invisibility helped make them a weak point: if attackers compromise the gateway, they can observe, redirect, or disrupt traffic across an entire household or small business network. The FCC’s recent action builds on years of U.S. concern that networking gear can be used for espionage, botnets, infrastructure probing, and broader supply-chain compromise. (apnews.com)The decision did not emerge in a vacuum. In October 2025, the FCC announced new safeguards designed to close loopholes in the Covered List framework and strengthen supply-chain controls on importation and marketing. That action was already notable because it expanded the agency’s ability to deal with devices previously approved for sale, and it also signaled a more aggressive view of what constitutes an unacceptable national-security risk. (docs.fcc.gov)
By March 2026, the agency went further and applied that national-security logic to consumer routers produced in foreign countries. AP reported that the FCC said malicious actors have exploited security gaps in foreign-made routers to target households, disrupt networks, enable espionage, and facilitate intellectual-property theft. The agency’s framing matters because it treats routers not merely as consumer electronics, but as potential infrastructure chokepoints. (apnews.com)
This policy also fits a broader pattern of U.S. technology decoupling. The FCC has already taken hard lines against categories of foreign-adversary equipment, and it has signaled willingness to restrict approvals for newly covered devices rather than just banning specific vendors. In practical terms, that means the agency is no longer asking only “who made this?” but “where was it made, who touched it, and can the supply chain be trusted?” (docs.fcc.gov)
The new router move is especially important because networking hardware is a mass-market category with deeply globalized production. Unlike some enterprise gear, consumer routers are often designed in one country, assembled in another, and supported through software teams spread across several time zones. That complexity is exactly what makes the issue hard: a policy designed to reduce risk can also collide with the realities of modern manufacturing. That tension is the story here. (apnews.com)
What the FCC Actually Did
The FCC’s action is best understood as an expansion of its equipment-authorization regime, not a simple tariff or customs restriction. According to AP and the FCC’s own prior statements on Covered List changes, new device models on the list cannot receive FCC authorization and therefore cannot be imported for use or sale in the United States. Existing previously approved devices are treated differently, which is why current owners are not being told to throw anything away. (apnews.com)That distinction matters. The policy does not, at least immediately, outlaw every router currently on shelves or in homes. It targets future approvals, which means the commercial effect arrives through product refresh cycles, not through a sudden recall regime. For consumers, that softens the shock; for manufacturers, it creates a hard stop on new models that depend on foreign production pathways. (apnews.com)
Covered List Logic
The Covered List has historically been used to identify communications gear and services deemed to pose unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or public safety. The FCC’s October 2025 order said it was closing loopholes and strengthening controls on previously authorized devices and component parts, while also opening a path for broader future prohibitions. The router action appears to be the next step in that arc. (docs.fcc.gov)What changed is scale. Earlier actions tended to focus on named companies, specific product families, or clearly defined adversary-linked vendors. The router move is broader and more structural, because it sweeps in foreign production as a category. That is a meaningful shift from entity-based enforcement to supply-chain-based enforcement. (docs.fcc.gov)
- The rule affects new models, not just old vendor names.
- The FCC’s concern is national security, not ordinary product quality.
- Approval is now tied to manufacturing and development location.
- The decision reflects a preventive rather than reactive posture.
Why Routers Became a National Security Priority
Routers sit at a strategic intersection of convenience and vulnerability. They are present in almost every connected home and a large share of small offices, which makes them an attractive target for attackers looking for scale. A compromised router can serve as a relay, a surveillance point, or a launching pad for further intrusions. (apnews.com)The FCC’s language shows that policymakers now see the router as more than just a Wi‑Fi box. It is a perimeter device with access to DNS behavior, session metadata, and traffic patterns that can reveal a surprising amount about a user’s life and business activity. The fact that this concern is being translated into formal approval policy tells us that cyber risk is being treated as a procurement and manufacturing problem, not just a software patching problem. (apnews.com)
The Attack Surface Problem
A router can be vulnerable in several ways at once: insecure firmware, remote-management flaws, weak update systems, or hardware components with opaque provenance. The U.S. government’s concern is that these weaknesses may not be accidental, especially when the supply chain runs through jurisdictions viewed as strategic competitors. That is why the FCC’s risk framing references surveillance, network disruption, and espionage in the same breath. (apnews.com)This is also why the policy resonates with national-defense arguments. A household router is not a missile silo, but the aggregation of millions of household devices can still create meaningful exposure. In an era of botnets and state-sponsored intrusion campaigns, even inexpensive consumer hardware can become strategically relevant. Small devices, large consequences. (apnews.com)
- Routers can expose traffic patterns and metadata.
- Weak devices can become botnet nodes.
- Compromised routers can help attackers reach other systems.
- A large installed base makes routers high-value targets.
How the Exceptions Process Works
The FCC’s approach includes a conditional approval pathway, which is crucial because it prevents the rule from becoming a completely closed door. AP reported that producers of consumer-grade routers can still apply for conditional approval, and the FCC has framed those approvals as dependent on a finding that the devices do not pose unacceptable risks. (apnews.com)That exception process is where policy becomes operational. The more demanding the review, the more the rule behaves like a de facto domestic manufacturing requirement. The less demanding it is, the more the policy becomes a signaling device with limited market disruption. Right now, the evidence suggests the FCC wants the process to be hard enough to force supply-chain changes. (apnews.com)
Conditional Approval as Industrial Pressure
The conditional approval model is not just a security filter; it is a reshoring incentive. If companies must demonstrate a time-bound plan to shift manufacturing domestically, then the exception process becomes an economic lever as much as a national-security tool. That places the FCC in a role that resembles industrial policy through compliance.This resembles earlier restrictions on other categories of covered equipment, where agencies used certification and approval processes to shape behavior without passing a broad standalone manufacturing statute. The result is a policy framework that can be applied quickly, but only if companies have the capital and capacity to respond quickly enough. That asymmetry will matter a lot.
- Companies must show why foreign production is necessary.
- They must prove no unacceptable security risk.
- They may need a timeline to move production.
- Approval appears to be exception-based, not automatic.
The Industry Winners and Losers
The immediate market impact is likely to fall unevenly. Reuters-linked background reporting and AP’s coverage suggest that many major consumer router brands rely on overseas production, even when the brand itself is American. That means the policy is not simply a drag on “foreign companies”; it potentially affects U.S. names with globally distributed manufacturing. (apnews.com)That’s a critical distinction for readers who assume this is a China-only story. The rule targets foreign production, not just foreign ownership. So a U.S. company with an overseas factory footprint can be caught in the same net as an international brand, depending on how the FCC interprets the manufacturing and development chain. (apnews.com)
Brands Under Pressure
Companies such as Netgear, eero, and TP-Link are all implicated in the broader discussion because consumer routers are rarely built entirely in the United States. AP noted that it is unclear how much of the production for these brands is already domestic, and whether foreign-made routers produced by American companies are included. That uncertainty is itself a business problem, because uncertainty slows product planning and inventory commitments. (apnews.com)On the other hand, firms that already have U.S. assembly or can pivot quickly may see a relative advantage. If the approval pathway becomes burdensome, then companies with domestic manufacturing capacity could gain negotiating leverage over retailers and channel partners. In that sense, the policy may unintentionally create a premium for “approved and trusted” supply chains. (apnews.com)
- TP-Link faces reputational and supply-chain pressure.
- Netgear and eero may need to clarify production footprints.
- Smaller brands may struggle with compliance overhead.
- Companies with domestic assembly could gain relative advantage.
Consumer Impact: What Changes, and What Doesn’t
For consumers, the most important immediate point is that this is not a mandatory replacement order. AP reported that previously purchased routers can continue to be used, and the FCC says the updated restrictions apply to new device models. That means today’s home Wi‑Fi setup does not suddenly become illegal because of where it was manufactured. (apnews.com)Still, consumers should not assume the policy is painless. Once existing inventory sells through, the market may see fewer choices, longer product cycles, and potentially higher prices. AP explicitly noted the possibility of shortages and price hikes as companies restructure supply chains and seek U.S. approval for new models. (apnews.com)
Short-Term Stability, Long-Term Friction
The short term is mostly about continuity. Existing devices stay in service, updates are still allowed for at least a time horizon described in reporting, and retailers can continue selling models that already passed approval. So the average household will not need to panic-buy a router this week. (apnews.com)The longer-term effect is more subtle. Product refreshes may slow, premium models may get more expensive, and budget options may become harder to source if manufacturers cannot qualify quickly under the new rules. That could be especially painful for consumers who upgrade only when their service becomes unstable or their hardware fails. (apnews.com)
- Existing routers remain usable.
- Previously authorized models may remain on sale for now.
- New models from foreign production lines face approval barriers.
- Prices could rise if supply chains shift too slowly.
Enterprise and Infrastructure Implications
Although the policy is aimed at consumer-grade routers, the ripple effects will be felt in adjacent markets. Home networking often overlaps with SMB networking, and consumer-style products are frequently used in branch offices, startups, and temporary deployments. When certification rules change at the consumer edge, procurement habits often change elsewhere too. (apnews.com)Enterprises will likely care less about the headline and more about the precedent. Once the FCC treats foreign production as a trigger for national-security exclusion, procurement teams will expect similar scrutiny across access points, mesh systems, smart gateways, and possibly other IoT-adjacent devices. That makes vendor due diligence more expensive, but also more central to risk management. (docs.fcc.gov)
Procurement Gets Harder
Enterprise buyers already evaluate firmware support, patch cadence, support contracts, and supply-chain transparency. This rule adds a further filter: can the product even be approved for U.S. sale under the new framework? For large integrators, that means more legal review and potentially longer lead times. For smaller buyers, it could mean narrower choices and more vendor lock-in. (apnews.com)There is also a systems implication. The FCC’s national-security posture suggests a future in which network gear is increasingly treated like defense-adjacent infrastructure. That may improve resilience in some cases, but it can also slow adoption of innovative products if the approval pipeline becomes too rigid. Security and speed are now in direct competition. (docs.fcc.gov)
- Procurement teams will need new compliance checks.
- Vendor onboarding may take longer.
- Feature-rich consumer gear could move into a security-first approval lane.
- SMBs may feel the policy as a cost and choice constraint.
The Political and Strategic Context
The FCC’s action is tightly aligned with the Trump administration’s broader emphasis on industrial self-reliance and national-security screening of technology supply chains. Reporting around the policy ties it to a “defense-shoring” mindset, in which the United States seeks greater control over the hardware that underpins communications and critical infrastructure.This matters because the decision is not simply technical. It is also political messaging: a visible demonstration that the administration is willing to use federal power to reshape where sensitive technology is made. That can play well with voters who see supply-chain dependence as a vulnerability, but it can also alarm trade partners and technology vendors who view the move as protectionist.
National Security Meets Industrial Policy
The strongest argument for the FCC is that telecom and network equipment are too important to leave entirely to market logic. If an adversary can compromise a common device class at scale, then the cost of inaction can be severe. The counterargument is that broad manufacturing restrictions may punish low-risk suppliers and create shortages without guaranteeing perfect security. Both claims can be true at once. (docs.fcc.gov)The policy also dovetails with earlier congressional and agency concerns about routers and related consumer networking hardware. That preexisting political runway helps explain why the FCC can justify such a sweeping move now, rather than starting with narrower guidance or voluntary standards.
- The move supports a self-reliance narrative.
- It reinforces security-first industrial policy.
- It may provoke trade and market distortions.
- It reflects a broader shift away from purely voluntary cybersecurity measures.
How This Compares to Earlier FCC Actions
The most revealing comparison is with the FCC’s October 2025 order. That action closed loopholes in the Covered List and targeted importation and marketing controls for devices already deemed risky. The March 2026 router move extends that logic from named risky devices to a broader class of foreign-produced consumer networking equipment. (docs.fcc.gov)That evolution suggests the agency is becoming more comfortable with category-level intervention. The first phase dealt with known offenders. The second phase deals with risk classes and production geography. That shift is important because it changes the burden of proof from the government to the manufacturer. (docs.fcc.gov)
From Targeted Enforcement to Broad Deterrence
This is a classic regulatory pattern: start with specific threats, then expand once the framework is politically and legally stable. The Covered List began as a way to isolate certain vendors and products; now it is becoming a platform for broader exclusions. That makes the FCC more powerful, but also more exposed to criticism that it is moving beyond narrow telecom regulation into de facto trade control. (docs.fcc.gov)Another difference is speed. The October 2025 action was about tightening existing rules; the router decision appears to hit a much larger slice of the market with comparatively little warning. That means industry has less time to adapt, which is exactly why the policy feels disruptive. Regulatory certainty is one thing; regulatory surprise is another. (docs.fcc.gov)
- Earlier actions targeted specific vendors.
- The new rule targets a product category.
- The burden of compliance shifts toward manufacturers.
- The policy is more disruptive because it is broader and faster.
Competitive Implications for the Global Router Market
The global router industry is built on scale, cost optimization, and a heavily distributed supply chain. A U.S. rule that privileges domestic production changes the economics of product planning almost immediately. Manufacturers may have to duplicate engineering lines, split certification processes, or maintain separate product variants for the U.S. market. (apnews.com)That raises costs, and costs matter a lot in consumer networking. Router buyers are often price-sensitive, especially in the mass-market and ISP-bundled segments. If compliance drives up bill-of-materials costs or slows refresh cycles, the competitive field could narrow in ways that benefit a few high-margin players and hurt the lower-end market. (apnews.com)
Global Supply Chains Under Stress
For non-U.S. vendors, the choice may be stark: build in America, find a compliant exception, or exit the market. For U.S. vendors with foreign manufacturing, the policy may force a rethinking of how “American” a product needs to be in order to be sold as American. That ambiguity will likely become a competitive battlefield in itself. (apnews.com)There is also a strategic uncertainty for the broader hardware ecosystem. If routers can be singled out on national-security grounds because they are network chokepoints, then other devices that mediate sensitive traffic may be next. That includes certain smart-home hubs, access points, and maybe categories of IoT gear that today seem too mundane to attract scrutiny. The category boundary is now the real frontier.
- Manufacturers may need U.S.-specific product lines.
- Smaller firms could be priced out by compliance costs.
- The market may consolidate around trusted supply chains.
- Adjacent device categories may face future scrutiny.
Strengths and Opportunities
The FCC’s policy has real strengths, even if its implementation will be difficult. It aims at a genuine vulnerability class, gives the agency more leverage over risky supply chains, and may encourage domestic investment in networking hardware manufacturing. It also sends a clear signal to vendors that the U.S. market will not remain open to every product that passes routine radio certification. Clarity can be valuable even when it is inconvenient. (docs.fcc.gov)The opportunity side is equally important. If companies respond by building more secure, more transparent, and more localized supply chains, consumers could eventually benefit from better trust and fewer hidden dependencies. In the best case, the policy nudges the market toward stronger baseline security and more resilient production. (docs.fcc.gov)
- Encourages domestic manufacturing investment
- Raises the profile of supply-chain transparency
- May reduce exposure to high-risk foreign dependencies
- Forces vendors to improve security documentation
- Could improve trust in consumer networking hardware
- Gives regulators a clearer enforcement mechanism
- Potentially strengthens critical infrastructure resilience
Risks and Concerns
The downside is that sweeping rules often create collateral damage. A foreign-production ban can raise prices, reduce choice, and create approval bottlenecks without guaranteeing that every domestic product is secure by default. There is also the risk that the policy becomes so broad that it captures lower-risk products and companies that do not meaningfully increase national-security exposure. (apnews.com)Another concern is transparency. Consumers may not understand why certain models disappear, retailers may not know how aggressively the rule will be enforced, and manufacturers may face uncertainty around what counts as sufficient domestic involvement. Ambiguity is expensive. (apnews.com)
- Higher consumer prices
- Reduced product choice
- Possible inventory shortages
- Risk of overbroad enforcement
- Unclear treatment of U.S. brands manufacturing abroad
- Compliance burden for small and mid-sized vendors
- Potential trade friction with allies and suppliers
Looking Ahead
The next phase will be less about the headline and more about execution. Watch for how quickly manufacturers file conditional approval requests, whether the FCC grants them at scale, and how detailed those manufacturing-shift commitments must be. The market will also be watching for clarification on whether U.S.-based brands with overseas factories are fully caught by the rule or whether some can navigate around it through partial domestic assembly. (apnews.com)Consumers should pay attention to product availability over the next few hardware refresh cycles, not just to the immediate news cycle. Retailers may continue selling existing stock for a while, but the real effects will show up when new models begin to cycle in or fail to appear. If the rule is enforced aggressively, the price and feature mix of consumer networking gear could change materially by the end of the year. (apnews.com)
Key Things to Watch
- The number of conditional approvals granted
- Whether major vendors shift assembly to the U.S.
- Any FCC clarification on U.S. brands with foreign factories
- Retail inventory trends for existing approved models
- Price movement in the consumer router segment
- Follow-on actions affecting other connected devices
Source: LinkedIn United States Bans Imports of All New Foreign Manufactured Routers Over Security Concerns
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 18
- Article
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 27
- Article
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 18
- Article
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 10
- Article
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 69