It&#x27;s a step in the right direction. The concern I have is that &quot;disabling&quot; the ability to use 3rd party firmware is still the primary means of compliance which is prima facie accepted, whereas if you don&#x27;t disable, then you have to make the case for why you comply, including coordinating with random 3rd parties and FCC may decide you haven&#x27;t done enough. Are manufacturers going to take this risk?<p>Ideally for a manufacturer to take the stance that they comply through disabling 3rd party firmware updates (versus the preferred method of... what exactly?) they should have to work harder than the alternative, but at least it should be an equally &quot;certain&quot; process and outcome. That shifts the calculus of a risk adverse company deciding how to comply.