> based on their behavior, they don't care.

Personally I see it as "based on their behavior, they don't understand"

We also need far more computer/tech literacy in the education system and populace.

In a healthy person, caring should pretty surely imply efforts to research the topic and eventual understanding.

Yes, but not caring could mean either not understanding or understanding but still not caring.

People can very easily understand but still not care. Caring about something is a zero sum competition for headspace. Throw in a newborn baby, a car wreck, a death in the family, and losing your passport, and see how much you care about your smart light bulb being secure.

> If you want to make a difference, an FCC sticker won't do it. Consumers will go for the cheaper one without the sticker. You'll have to mandate whatever minimal level of support you want these companies to provide.

Or you could respect the customers' revealed preference?

For many products, I'd agree. For things that can affect public safety or shared, publicly owned or essential resources like network connections, use of radio spectrum, etc. we've long accepted that regulations are necessary so that the services can be available to everyone and provided safely.

I just don't agree with this at all. I specifically avoid all smart plugs that don't have a UL mark (or European equivalent mark).

It's impossible to say that consumers don't care about a specific certification before it exists based on their existing behavior. Consumers _do not have any ability_ to distinguish on this axis at the moment. So, we can't say: "based on their behavior they don't care". They very well might, and just don't have the information necessary to tell.

FWIW, I want to claim that I personally care deeply about a lot of this stuff; but, if I go to Home Depot and buy a piece of dumb equipment (such as a run of the mill light bulb or an outlet), it never occurred to me that I might have to check that there is a UL mark on it... I somehow assumed that Home Depot wasn't allowed to sell something that wasn't certified for at least basic electricity safety in the US.

I haven't checked everything at Home Depot, but many reputable retailers won't sell things in their store unless they have such a mark.

It's "online marketplaces" like Amazon (or AliExpress) where you're actually purchasing from a random third party seller, and the marketplaces attempts to disclaim as much liability as possible that I'm more wary.

I actually don't know the specific laws or regulations on this. It's very possible that it's illegal for Home Depot to sell a non-UL or other nationally recognized laboratory mark. It's probably that it's illegal for third-party sellers on other sites to do it as well, but my faith in Amazon and other "online marketplaces" for policing their third party sellers on this kind of stuff is...not high.

I'm just trying to be a lot more careful about the stuff that goes into real circuitry, because I'm more used to playing with low-voltage DC stuff where I'm just not too fussed about it, so I feel OK ordering anything cheap that probably works.

---

Finally, I think it's actually a regulatory and consumer information _success_ that you feel safe buying something from Home Depot and wiring/plugging it into your house without thinking about the product safety risks. The reason for that is _those risks have largely been eliminated_. There was a time when you _did_ have to be super careful as a consumer of electrical products. Over the years, we've drastically improved the safety of these kinds of products to the point where we for the most part don't have to think about it anymore, because it's not a problem anymore. That's effective government regulation at work.

Do you think your mother, your uncle, your niece, your sister would do the same? I don't really buy that even 1% of the consumers will care about this label to the point of voting with their wallet on that basis.

That's great, then this proposal has _no harm_.

Manufacturers that believe the same thing as you can just opt to forego placing the FCC's mark on their packaging. We can just test the theory in the marketplace. If you and those manufacturer's suspicion is correct, then the mark will just fall by the wayside unused.

The only way manufacturers could be harmed by the requirements to obtain this mark is if consumers _do care_.

So, where's the harm in testing your theory against mine? It's very similar to the Energy Star program run by the EPA, which is a voluntary mark which is now on many appliances sold in the United States.

It points to the question of why they would go for something so meek when they have the power to be effective. If the FCC displays submissiveness to the markets they're supposed to regulate then I want a reason for it, because I'm worried they're in some guy's pockets

Second issue is a cybersecurity label from a trusted source is already something that can be issued, by, say, the ISO consortium. You don't need the FCC to do that.

Third issue is while the FCC is doing that, they're not doing something else.

Fourth issue is while they're not doing something that works, the consumer still faces the issues that this was supposed to solve!

If you think stronger action is needed, please share it through an official comment. Even if we don't do what you suggest, thoughtful comments really do influence the rulemaking process.

As an aside, it's worth considering that there are also very sophisticated purchasers in this space, such as government and large businesses, and that a standardized, legally binding, label might help them insist on purchasing higher quality products.