A federal agency just reshaped the American home networking market without a single vote, public comment period, or congressional hearing. The Federal Communications Commission, through a quiet administrative action, has effectively handed Netgear a near-monopoly on Wi-Fi routers that can use a newly opened 6-GHz spectrum band — a decision that could affect every household and small business in the country for years to come.
Here’s what happened. The FCC opened up a portion of the 6-GHz spectrum for indoor use by low-power devices, a move that was broadly welcomed by the tech industry as a way to relieve congestion on existing Wi-Fi bands. But to use that spectrum, routers need to incorporate an Automated Frequency Coordination (AFC) system — essentially a geolocation database that ensures consumer devices don’t interfere with incumbent users of the band, such as utilities and broadcasters. The FCC approved several AFC system operators. Then things got complicated.
As Engadget reported, the certification process for routers that connect to these AFC systems has become a bottleneck of extraordinary proportions. Only Netgear has managed to get devices certified and to market. Every other major router manufacturer — TP-Link, Asus, Linksys, and others — remains locked out, unable to sell AFC-compliant standard-power devices in the United States. The result is a de facto monopoly that nobody at the FCC seems to have intended but nobody is moving quickly to fix.
The implications are significant. Standard-power operation on the 6-GHz band allows for dramatically better performance: faster speeds, longer range, and less interference. These are the routers that could finally deliver on the promise of Wi-Fi 6E and Wi-Fi 7 in larger homes and offices. Without AFC certification, competing manufacturers can only sell low-power indoor devices on the 6-GHz band — functional, but far less capable.
So how did Netgear end up alone at the finish line?
The answer lies in a tangle of regulatory process, testing lab capacity, and what critics describe as an FCC certification framework that wasn’t designed for this level of complexity. AFC systems require routers to query a database in real time, checking their geographic coordinates against a map of protected incumbents before transmitting at higher power levels. The router must prove it can do this reliably. The testing protocols are new. The labs that perform the testing are few. And the FCC’s own equipment authorization process, which relies on private Telecommunications Certification Bodies (TCBs), has moved at a pace that competitors say is glacial.
Netgear, to its credit, invested early and aggressively in the AFC certification process. The company worked closely with AFC database operators and testing labs to get its Orbi and Nighthawk product lines through the gauntlet. It now sells several Wi-Fi 7 routers that can operate at standard power on 6 GHz — a genuine technical and commercial advantage.
But one company’s preparedness doesn’t explain why everyone else is still waiting. Industry sources point to several factors. The FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology has been slow to issue guidance on testing procedures for AFC-dependent devices. Some TCBs have been reluctant to certify devices without clearer direction from the Commission. And the handful of testing labs equipped to perform the necessary measurements are booked months out.
The competitive distortion is real and measurable. Consumers shopping for a high-end Wi-Fi 7 router with full 6-GHz capability in the United States have exactly one brand to choose from. Netgear’s pricing reflects this — its top-tier Orbi systems run well above $1,000. Without competitive pressure from TP-Link, Asus, or others, there’s little incentive to bring prices down.
This matters beyond retail pricing. TP-Link, the world’s largest seller of Wi-Fi routers by volume, has been under intense scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers over its Chinese ownership and potential national security risks. The Commerce Department has been investigating the company, and there has been talk of a possible ban on TP-Link products. If that ban materializes while the AFC certification bottleneck persists, American consumers would face a market with one premium option and no budget alternatives capable of full 6-GHz performance. That’s not competition. That’s a policy failure compounding a regulatory failure.
The TP-Link situation adds a layer of geopolitical complexity that the FCC almost certainly didn’t anticipate when it designed the AFC framework. Congressional leaders from both parties have raised alarms about Chinese-manufactured networking equipment in American homes, citing risks of surveillance and data exfiltration. But the proposed remedy — restricting or banning TP-Link — only works if the market has viable alternatives. Right now, for standard-power 6-GHz routers, it doesn’t.
And the problem extends to the enterprise market. Small businesses, schools, and local governments that need high-performance Wi-Fi are similarly constrained. Enterprise-grade access points from Cisco, Aruba, and others face the same AFC certification hurdles. The commercial Wi-Fi market, worth billions annually, is watching a regulatory process designed to prevent interference instead prevent competition.
Some industry observers have called for the FCC to streamline the AFC certification process — or to temporarily allow standard-power operation without AFC while the system matures. The Wi-Fi Alliance, the industry group that promotes Wi-Fi standards, has been lobbying for faster action. But the FCC, now operating under Chairman Brendan Carr, has been focused on other priorities, including broadcast spectrum policy and AI regulation.
There’s a historical parallel here. In the early 2000s, the FCC’s slow rollout of rules for the 5-GHz band delayed the adoption of 802.11a Wi-Fi by years, giving an advantage to companies that had invested in the less capable but more readily available 2.4-GHz 802.11b standard. The market eventually sorted itself out, but not before consumers spent billions on inferior technology. The 6-GHz bottleneck risks a similar outcome at a time when reliable high-speed Wi-Fi has become as essential as electricity.
Critics aren’t accusing the FCC of favoritism toward Netgear. Nobody is alleging corruption or backroom dealing. The problem is structural: a certification regime that functions as a single-lane road when the market needs a highway. Netgear got through first. Everyone else is stuck in traffic.
The fix isn’t complicated in theory. The FCC could issue expedited guidance to TCBs, fund additional testing capacity, or create a temporary authorization pathway for devices that have passed AFC interoperability testing but haven’t completed full certification. Any of these would break the logjam. None of them have happened.
Meanwhile, Netgear is selling routers. Lots of them. The company’s stock has reflected the advantage, and its marketing materials prominently feature the “standard-power 6 GHz” capability that competitors can’t match. It’s a perfectly legal commercial advantage born from a regulatory accident.
For consumers, the practical advice is frustrating but straightforward: if you want the best possible Wi-Fi 7 performance today, you have one choice. If you want to wait for competition to arrive and prices to drop, nobody can tell you how long that wait will be. Weeks? Months? The FCC isn’t saying, because the FCC likely doesn’t know.
This is what happens when spectrum policy, industrial competition, and national security concerns collide in an agency that moves at bureaucratic speed while technology markets move at commercial speed. The 6-GHz band was supposed to be a gift to American consumers — more spectrum, better Wi-Fi, faster everything. Instead, it’s become a case study in how good regulatory intentions can produce anticompetitive outcomes.
One company won. Everyone else — manufacturers, consumers, and the competitive market itself — is still waiting for permission to play.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication