Not your mission to fix a network design problem which should air gap all of those devices. USA taxpayers can't afford your agency scope creep.
It's a leading question of course.
If any government group should be providing guidance and best practices on how to air gap devices, maybe NSA should write the standards. This FCC proposal looks like a ploy to spend the ever-growing pot (reportedly ten billion USD each year) from the regressive USF phone bill tax instead of reducing the USF tax.
As mentioned in another comment, a plug-and-play home device which provides network isolation and filtering for IoT devices may have a market. I would likely be a buyer at home.
"The bigger culprit is the FCC’s spending on USF, which is close to $10 billion per year, practically doubling in size since 2001."
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2023/5/sen-cruz-it-s-past-du...
> If any government group should be providing guidance and best practices on how to air gap devices, maybe NSA should write the standards.
I guess this is a bad joke? It's hard to tell w/ the internet.
> This FCC proposal looks like a ploy to spend the ever-growing pot (reportedly ten billion USD each year) from the regressive USF phone bill tax instead of reducing the USF tax.
I can agree this is what it is under the hood [0].
> As mentioned in another comment, a plug-and-play home device which provides network isolation and filtering for IoT devices may have a market. I would likely be a buyer at home.
Here's the key - there isn't a market. Otherwise there would already be one (you are unique). That's the crux of the problem. IoT is a race to the bottom when it comes to consumers. Consumers compare "smart devices" to what they already have - a light switch, a light bulb - commodities - they don't think about security until it's too late.
So, that leads to:
> If any government group should be providing guidance and best practices on how to air gap devices
You can't have "guidance" and actually get anything done in the consumer devices space. Standards and certifications - rejection of devices that don't meet them.
When it comes to dealing with communications FCC is the 3-letter-agency, and there's no changing that.
I guess the question boils down to - mass spying on Americans with un-secured devices sending data to China or let the FCC handle the problem by potentially expanding the USF?
[0] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-65A1.pdf page 45
Open standards of tcpip allowed for tremendous innovation, unlike the old Bell System which regulated through monopoly what could be attached to the network.
I must say, we see extreme grow of cyber-crime as part of modern war. I think, in nearest future, cold war will guaranteed have huge cyber-crime part.
And, hacking of IoT devices has very significant share of cyber-crime now. For real war it is question of life and death, because hacked devices with radio emission, are used by hostile intelligence, to find targets for attacks of heavy weapon, but also, we seen cyber attacks on electric-energy infrastructure, indented to make blackout (fortunately for us, unsuccessful).
Chinese IoT devices are very special part of question, in many cases are connected to Chinese clouds, and this is also extremely dangerous, not only because potential unfriendly Chinese moves, but also because their security is not good enough, so in many cases, cyber-crime could intercept communications and interfere operation of device or even hijack control.
For example, exists smart door locks with camera and I hear hackers hacked them and used them to observe work of air defense, so enemy could tune their air attacks to make more harm.
In civilian life without war, videos from hacked door locks (or other IoT cameras) could be used for illegal surveillance, to coordinate riots, etc.