Required to use smart features? Thank you Walmart for encouraging people not to connect their TVs to the internet!
kieron115
joined 2 years ago
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 =/
Based on the language, it would seem to exclude ISP provided routers as those are not “designed to be installed by the consumer”. It also excludes anything not SoHo.
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.
Now tell me how to brew beer while I run and you’ve got me on board.
Naw. It was originally written for Kirk and Uhura, but when the NBC executives found out they were worried it would offend TV stations in the south. The idea of having Uhura and Spock kiss was brought up because Spock is half-vulcan (which NBC thought racists would find less offensive???), but Shatner insisted that they stick the original script (perhaps out of ego, perhaps out of artistic integrity, who knows). Eventually NBC ordered that two versions of the scene be shot - one with the kiss and one without. Shatner intentionally flubbed every single take of the non-kiss version to force the executives' hands. It wasn't the first interracial kiss on televion, but it was the first instance of a scripted kiss between a white man and a black woman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_and_Uhura's_kiss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hKKkGhEDoU