added new translation of compulsory routers timeline

svn path=/trunk/; revision=28850
9 years ago · 10dc96bcd7
parent 8840bfb168
commit 10dc96bcd7
1 changed files with 195 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/activities/routers/timeline.en.xhtml
+++ b/activities/routers/timeline.en.xhtml
@ -0,0 +1,195 @@
+<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
+
+<html>
+  <head>
+    <title>Compulsory routers – Timeline – FSFE</title>
+  </head>
+  <body id="routers" class="article" microformats="h-entry">
+
+<!-- Breadcumb -->
+<p id="category"><a href="/activities/routers/routers.html">Compulsory routers</a></p>
+<!-- / Breadcumb -->
+
+<h1 class="p-name">Timeline of compulsory routers</h1>
+
+<div class="e-content">
+
+<div id="introduction">
+
+<p>Compulsory routers are a delicate topic and just because of that very complex. 
+Many government agencies, corporations, and organisations already contributed to 
+the public discussion and took part in numerous hearings and comments. Here the 
+FSFE lists the most important events which lead to the current state and also draws 
+a picture of the future development of compulsory routers.</p>
+</div>
+
+<h2>Current state and glance into the future</h2>
+
+<p>The current situation is unclear. It appears there was a meeting of the 
+Federal Network Agency and some associations. None of the associations 
+that the FSFE contacted prior were invited to this meeting. To our knowledge <a
+    href="/news/2014/news-20140328-01.html">the original draft from February</a> 
+has been revised and is currently being coordinated between the Ministry of Economic 
+Affairs and other ministries. After that there shall be another opportunity for commenting 
+before the regulations are passed on to the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag).</p>
+  
+<p>At the moment it is still unclear how the network termination point is exactly specified.
+According to <a
+href="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tkg_2004/__45n.html">§45n TKG</a> it seems to 
+be the opinion of the Federal Network Agency that they are neither allowed to set a final 
+definition of the network termination point (ergo up to what point the Internet service 
+provider’s jurisdiction reaches) nor are they required to define verifiable measuring tools to measure 
+the quality of the Internet. This is peculiar because at both hearings they mostly dealt with 
+this topic.</p>
+
+<p>It is possible these aspects are going to be clarified by the German telecommunication law. 
+The cause for this may be the European <a
+  href="http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-legislative-package">
+TSM package (Telecoms Single Market)</a>. It is, however, unclear if and when this 
+Europe-wide package will come. Therefore we fear that the legal ambiguities lead to 
+consumers continuously being restricted. In a few years this would be hard to reverse.</p>
+
+<h2>The story so far</h2>
+
+<ul>
+    <li><strong>28.03.2014</strong>: 
+        Together with the CCC and other projects and experts, the FSFE praises the basic 
+        idea in a <a href="/news/2014/news-20140328-01.html">press release</a> and a
+        <a href="/activities/routers/files/20140328_Stellungnahme-TKTransparenzV-FSFE.pdf">
+        detailed statement (German) </a> but clearly criticises that users are further burdened
+         and that the proposed test methods are inconsistently considered. Most interestingly, 
+         the formulation of the regulation is substantially weaker than that in the coalition 
+         agreement, and the still-unaddressed question of network termination points is not 
+         even mentioned.</li>
+    
+    <li><strong>24.02.2014</strong>:
+        After the first large hearing, the Federal Network Agency publishes a <a 
+        href="/activities/routers/files/20140224_BNetzA-TKTransparenzV-Entwurf.pdf">
+        transparency bill</a> that eliminates compulsory routers and should improve the
+        transparency of telecommunication companies for customers. Comments
+        may be submitted until the end of March 2014.</li>
+
+    <li><strong>16.12.2013</strong>: 
+     After the German Federal Parliament elections in the end of September, the coalition agreement
+     is officially signed. In it, the CDU, CSU, and SPD clearly speak out against 
+     compulsory routers and demand that <a href="/news/2013/news-20131211-01.html#1">
+     every customer must receive all necessary access information unasked.</a>
+     Such a clear statement of position from the coalition parties can be explained by
+     the media response (for example from 
+     <a href="http://www.golem.de/news/routerzwang-fsfe-warnt-vor-grossen-nachteilen-durch-provider-geraete-1311-102562.html">Golem (German)</a>, 
+  <a href="http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/FSFE-und-Konsumentenbund-beziehen-Stellung-gegen-Zwangsrouter-2039691.html">Heise (German)</a> and
+  <a href="https://netzpolitik.org/2013/routerzwang-ccc-fsfe-und-konsumentenbund-veroeffentlichen-stellungsnahmen/">Netzpolitik (German)</a> as well as 
+  <a href="http://www.focus.de/digital/internet/nahrung-fuer-aengste-experten-gegen-router-zwang-von-internet-providern_aid_1150249.html">Focus (German)</a>, 
+  <a href="http://www.fr-online.de/digital/experten-wenden-sich-gegen-routerzwang-beim-internet-zugang,27395004,24917956.html">Frankfurter Rundschau (German)</a>, 
+  <a href="http://www.n-tv.de/technik/Routerzwang-nur-bei-Providern-beliebt-article11679651.html">NTV (German)</a> and
+  <a href="http://www.sueddeutsche.de/digital/aktivisten-gegen-provider-mit-aller-macht-gegen-den-routerzwang-1.1811577">Süddeutsche (German)</a>)
+   and the enormous interest from the population.</li>
+    
+    
+    <li><strong>04.11.2013</strong>: The FSFE joins numerous other 
+    organisations and individuals by sending an <a href="/activities/routers/files/20131104_Stellungnahme-Schnittstellen-398-FSFE.pdf">extensive public statement to the Federal Network Agency</a> (<a 
+    href="/news/2013/news-20131104-02.html">here the press release</a>) upon 
+    completion of the public hearings. The statement contains answers to 
+    almost all the posed questions with specific regard to the existing and 
+    potential disadvantages of compulsory routers.
+
+    <p>The majority of the 309 statements argues against compulsory routers. 
+    Unsurprisingly, the only two groups that are in favour are Internet Service Providers 
+    and Network Providers. Notable arguments have been filed by e.g. AVM, CCC, 
+    and Sipgate. The Federal Networking Agency has <a 
+    href="/activities/routers/files/20140414_Verzeichnis-Stellungnahmen-3982013.pdf">collected all statements</a>.</p></li> 
+    
+    
+    <li><strong>20.09.2013</strong>: The Federal Network Agency starts a <a 
+    href="/activities/routers/files/20130920_Anhörung-Schnittstellen-3982013.pdf">public hearing (398/2013)</a> 
+    on the disputed network termination points. At the hearing, many - partly very 
+    technical - questions related to possible definitions are posed which are directly 
+    related to compulsory routers. Just a few days later the FSFE publishes <a 
+    href="https://blogs.fsfe.org/mk/routerzwang-fsfes-schreiben-zur-konsultation-der-bundesnetzagentur/">a preliminary statement</a>, 
+    in which it voices serious concerns for security, consumer-friendliness, 
+    and competition.</li>
+
+ <li><strong>31.07.2013:</strong>: In a <a
+    href="http://www.computerundrecht.de/netzneutralitaet-zweiter-entwurf(1).pdf">second 
+    draft of the "net neutrality regulation", compulsory routers are discussed in §3</a> (PDF). 
+    Contrary to the first draft, the term used now is “Endgerätenetzneutralität”, which (roughly)
+    translates to "terminal device net neutrality".</li>
+
+  <li><strong>25.06.2013</strong>: The Federal Network Agency organises a 
+  workshop on the topic of compulsory routers and designs four models for resolution.</li>
+
+  
+   <li><strong>17.06.2013</strong>: The BMWi (Ministry of Economic) presents the <a
+    href="http://www.cr-online.de/Netzneutralitaetsverordnung_Entwurf_des_BMWI_17.6.2013.pdf">draft 
+    of a net neutrality regulation according to §41a Abs.1 TKG</a> (PDF). In §3, 
+    compulsory routers are specifically addressed and rejected.</li>
+    
+    <li><strong>04.06.2013</strong>: The <a 
+    href="/activities/routers/files/20130604_Antwort-Bundesregierung.pdf">federal 
+    government responds to the "minor interpellation"</a> made on the 
+    17th of May. In it, open questions are treated very carefully and responsibilities 
+    are more or less redirected towards the Federal Network Agency. The BMWi 
+    does not consider itself to be part of the topic, since the FNA at this point of 
+    time still is involved in talks with Network Providers and router manufacturers. An <a 
+    href="https://netzpolitik.org/2013/router-zwang-bundesregierung-unternimmt-nichts-bundesnetzagentur-will-nach-prufung-nochmal-reden/">article 
+    on Netzpolitik</a> summarises these circumstances thoroughly.</li>
+    
+    
+    <li><strong>17.05.2013</strong>: The fraction “DIE LINKE” poses a <a 
+    href="/activities/routers/files/20130517_Kleine-Anfrage-Linke.pdf">“minor interpellation” 
+    to the federal government</a> related to the statements made by the Federal Networking Agency. 
+    In it, the question on whether a router qualifies as an access point or a telecommunication 
+    device and in how far the end-user may interfere with it is posed.</li>
+    
+  
+    <li><strong>22.01.2013</strong>: Among others, the German manufacturer 
+    of telecommunication devices AVM <a href="http://avm.de/presse/presseinformationen/2013/avm-zu-aussagen-der-bundesnetzagentur-wegen-routerzwang-und-nichtherausgabe-von-kennwoertern/">comments on the issue</a> and 
+    compares the situation with the mobile market, where providers 
+    do not dictate to their customers which phone to use.</li>
+    
+      <li><strong>10.01.2013</strong>: The roots of the public debate of compulsory routers 
+      can be found in a <a href="http://pastebin.com/F7UHra0h">reply to an anonymous user 
+      made by the Federal Network Agency</a>. 
+    The user criticises the coupling of his DSL contract with a specific router. He does so in reaction to an <a 
+    href="http://www.pcwelt.de/ratgeber/Online-Keine_Chance_dem_Router-Zwang_-6945376.html">extensive article of the professional magazine "PC-WELT"</a>, 
+    in which the common practices of DSL providers are criticised. 
+    The Federal Networking Agency deems this behaviour to be justified, 
+    since the DSL provider in question defines the router to be part of the 
+    network and thus the infrastructure he provides. Therefore, the end-user 
+    should and must not exchange it against another device.
+
+<p>Here, the basic conflict becomes clear: the Federal Network Agency cannot 
+or does not want to decide where the network of the Internet provider ends and 
+from where the user has full control. Especially in terms of routers that include 
+a modem and numerous other functions (IAD, Integrated Access Device), there 
+are many unresolved issues and a need for clear definitions. </p></li>
+
+</ul>
+
+</div><!--/e-content-->
+
+
+  </body>
+
+<sidebar promo="our-work">
+
+ <dynamic-content />     
+
+<h2>More about compulsory routers</h2>
+    <ul>
+        <li><a href="http://blog.mehl.mx/2014/why-free-choice-of-routers-is-an-unnegotiable-must/">Why free choice of routers is an nonnegotiable must</a></li>
+    </ul>
+    
+    <ul>
+       <li><a href="http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/FSFE-und-Konsumentenbund-beziehen-Stellung-gegen-Zwangsrouter-2039691.html">Article on heise.de (05.11.2013) about compulsory routers (German)</a></li>
+    </ul>
+
+</sidebar>
+
+  <timestamp>$Date$ $Author$</timestamp>
+</html>
+<!--
+Local Variables: ***
+mode: xml ***
+End: ***
+-->