FSFE/fsfe-website
25
31
Fork 91
Code Issues 65 Pull Requests 12 Wiki Activity

initial draft by lucas

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Max Mehl
2022-07-28 14:30:03 +02:00
parent 1f6570014d
commit 33e7fae5d1
3 changed files with 539 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

22
activities/deviceneutrality/activity.en.xml Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<activityset>
<version>1</version>
<activity id="devices" date="2021-11-01" status="active">
<title>Device Neutrality</title>
<description>
Although digital devices are ubiquotous today, the number of devices on which users
cannot run Free Software is exponentially increasing. The consequence is an increased
loss of control over users’ technology. Device neutrality aims to
enable end-users to bypass gatekeepers to have a non-discriminatory use of
Free Software on their devices.
</description>
<link href="/activities/devices/devices.html" />
<image url="/graphics/logos/dn-logo.png" />
<order priority="5" highlight="yes" />
<tags>
<tag key="policy" />
</tags>
</activity>
</activityset>

226
activities/deviceneutrality/devices.en.xhtml Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,226 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Device Neutrality</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<h1 class="p-name">Device Neutrality</h1>
<div class="e-content">
<div id="introduction">
<p>Although digital devices are ubiquotous today, the number of devices on which users
cannot run Free Software is exponentially increasing. The consequence is an increased
loss of control over users’ technology. Device neutrality aims to
enable end-users to bypass gatekeepers to have a non-discriminatory use of
Free Software on their devices.</p>
</div>
<figure class="max-width-100 no-border">
<img
src="https://pics.fsfe.org/uploads/big/de9a14dc3122b5c304d8644d584abb6c.png"
alt="Device neutrality: safeguarding free software in devices"/>
</figure>
<h2>General Purpose Computers and Free Software</h2>
<p>Digital devices are a present reality in all aspects of life. We use them for work, communication,
entertainment and internet access. Such devices are powerful machines, allowing us to have access to
an huge ammount of features, and perform an infinite number of tasks. Our smartphones, tablets, laptops
and other connected devices are <i>general purpose computers</i>. It means we can potentially run any software
we want to make full use of the hardware. Software freedom depends how we can run software in devices.
Safeguarding <a href="/freesoftware/freesoftware.html">Free Software four freedoms</a> over operating systems,
drivers, app stores, browsers and any software is crucial not only for freedom of choice, but also for a healthy,
competitive and democratic digital enviroment.</p>
<figure class="max-width-100 no-border">
<img
src="https://pics.fsfe.org/uploads/medium/f249f62be8feafee1ce40b9128c91a11.jpg"
alt="Several people working together in a table with different kinds of devices."/>
<figcaption>
We use and interact with devices everyday. Software freedom depends how we can control them. Photo credit:
Helena Lopes, Unsplash License.
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Gatekeeper Control and Monopoly over Devices</h2>
<p>Although the devices we use are general purpose computers, device manufacturers, vendors and internet platforms
have been restricting software freedom due by exercizing their monopolistic control over our equipment. Operating
systems, browsers and app-stores constitute a "<i>termination monopoly</i>" which grants such companies powers in the sense
that they could be considered "gatekeepers" of gateways for end-user to access and control software running on their devices.</p>
<p>Therefore, manufacturers, vendors and platforms controlling devices may perform a "<i>gatekeeper function</i>" in similar ways that
a provider of an internet access connection controls a "gateway" to the internet. For instance, today's reality of digital markets
demonstrate that end-users have very few alternatives concerning operating systems and app-stores for mobile devices. Browser
market is also highly concentrated. Even worse is the control access and control over operating system of connected devices such as
smartwatches and internet of things (IoT) equipment. In general terms, tech companies achieve their gatekeeper power by:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Restricting Software Freedom</strong>: Gatekeepers limit users to install different operating systems,
browsers, apps stores, drivers, etc on their devices. They also impose on users pre-installed apps and control
their uninstallation.</li>
<li><strong>Locking devices down</strong>: Such companies hinder interoperability, exercise tie control over APIs
and apply proprietary standards, hampering functionalities and blocking access to drivers and hardware. </li>
<li><strong>Increasing switching costs</strong>: Gatekeepers mantain users in „walled gardens“, tie devices to online
accounts, bundle app-stores and hamper data portability, making it harded for users to switch software,
devices and services.</li>
</ul>
<figure class="max-width-100 no-border">
<a href="https://pics.fsfe.org/uploads/big/6bf2afc0835df12555350fd4f765acfa.png">
<img
src="https://pics.fsfe.org/uploads/big/6bf2afc0835df12555350fd4f765acfa.png"
alt="Gatekeeper power over devices: restricting software freedom, locking devices down and increasing switching costs."/>
</a>
</figure>
<h2>Device Neutrality and Free Sofware</h2>
<p>The monopolistic power of gatekeepers threats software freedom, indiviual autonomy, consumer
welfare and digital sovereingty. Device Neutrality represent ways to desintermediate the power of
gatekeepers to reestablish competition on markets and end-user control over devices. Users should
be able to bypass gatekeepers to restate the ability to run Free Software in their equipment.
Device Neutrality's main goal is to resolve the termination monopoly over devices so users can
enjoy software freedom and have access to alternative services and content with their devices.</p>
<p>Since its genesis, the FSFE has been working to put control over technology in the hands of end-users.
Along the years, we have gained experience with several dedicated activities focused on how users can keep
their control over devices. For us, re-establishing user control over devices and fair competition on digital
markets require the fostering and protection of the following princiles:</p>
<figure class="max-width-100 no-border">
<a href="https://pics.fsfe.org/uploads/big/5c451f840cf325cf4dfddf2fa243ec26.jpg">
<img
src="https://pics.fsfe.org/uploads/big/5c451f840cf325cf4dfddf2fa243ec26.jpg"
alt="Device Neutrality Principles: software freedom, no vendor lock-in and end-user control over data."/>
</a>
</figure>
<ul>
<li><strong>Software Freedom</strong>: blocking end-users' freedom to install, run and uninstall software on
their devices is a central source of gatekeepers control. Altough gatekeepers may argue that installing third
party software could be potentially harmful to users due to security, data integrity and privacy concerns, in
fact commercial interests are the main drive to lock users in. Instead, regaining control over devices require
safeguarding software freedom. Users should have the ability to install and uninstall any software,
including operating systems and app stores. Besides, gatekeepers should provide to third party software
the same access privileges as the pre-installed ones.</li>
<li><strong>No lock-in</strong>: Keeping users in very restrictive enviroments is another key source of gatekeeper
control. Users can only access and use different services if their devices can interact and communicate with other
devices and services. Big tech exercises direct control over their customers by locking them into a
very limited number of proprietary alternatives that operate within a "compatible" but not interoperable ecosystem.
This results in less freedom for users and increasing of switching costs. Therefore, high degrees of interoperability,
wide implementation of <a href="/freesoftware/standards/index.html">Open Standards</a> and easy access to APIs'
specifications and functionalities invoked by third party apps are fundamental. Equally important,
devices should not be bundled with app stores and online accounts. Gatekeepers should permit
third-party app stores and code repositories in their devices. Gatekeepers should provide non-discriminatory
acess to Free Software in their stores and not favor or give undue preference to their own products. </li>
<li><strong>End-user control over data</strong>: Breaking monopolies over devices necessarily requires empowering users to
control their own data on equipment. Smartphones, smartwatches and computers are very personal equipment which
accumulate a large amount of personal and non personal data that users care about. Such data constitutes a switching cost
that, taken together, can be decisive for users to exercise their freedom to changing devices. This is especially problematic
for switching between operating systems. Besides, the importance of the correlation between data and software tends to grow, encompassing
further developments with artificial intelligence and future technologies, which will create an additional layer of complexity
for end-users controlling their data. That's why end-users should be able to easily transfer personal data from apps, operating systems
and devices. Most importantly, gatekeepers should be bound to <a href="/freesoftware/standards/index.html">Open Standards</a> and
common interfaces for data transfer.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Digital Markets Act: enforcing Device Neutrality in the EU</h2>
<p>Device Neutrality got attention from policy makers in Europe and in 2022 was included in the
<a href="/activities/devices/devices.html">Digital Markets Act (DMA)</a>, the European Union's largest
initiative to regulate gatekeepers in digital markets. Although the law contains the principles for
making Device Neutrality a reality, its regulations concern only very large platforms. The DMA establishes
obligations for gatekeepers - “do’s” and “don’ts” they must comply with, and prescripts fines and penalties
for infringements. The DMA encompasses several rules concerning Device Neutrality, including
safeguarding the right to unistall pre-installed software, several measures for preventing lock-in,
as well as fostering interoperability and end-user control over personal data.</p>
<h2>Making Device Neutrality a reality</h2>
<p> Since its genesis, the FSFE has been working to put control over technology in the hands of
users. Along the years, we have gained experience with several dedicated activities focused on
how users can keep their control over devices. For instance, our
<a href="/activities/routers/routers.html">Router Freedom</a> and
<a href="/activities/radiodirective/radiodirective.html">EU Radio Lockdown</a> refer to
the hardware layer of net neutrality principles. Such activites relate with what could be
considered the first step for Device Neutrality from the perspective of
telecommunications law. Besides, our activities focused on digital sustainability, as
<a href="/activities/upcyclingandroid/">Upcycling Android</a> have a strong component
for Device Neutrality, as the freedom to install and run software in general
purposes computers, interoperability and Open Standards are important
elements for a sustainable digital future. </p>
<figure class="max-width-100 no-border">
<a href="https://pics.fsfe.org/uploads/medium/991c7845beed330024615173a7c4175d.jpg">
<img
src="https://pics.fsfe.org/uploads/medium/991c7845beed330024615173a7c4175d.jpg"
alt="Three happy persons work together with computers and smartphones."/>
</a>
<figcaption>
People should be in control of technology. Help us to make Device Neutrality a reality!
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Nevertheless, although the Device Neutrality principles may sound common knowledge
for the Free Software community, it is far from being current commercial practices by gatekeepers.
Monitoring the enforcement and compliance of the DMA, the conduction of device-related activities and
promoting software freedom requires a lot of ressources. <a href="https://my.fsfe.org/donate">Please consider
becoming a FSFE donor</a>; you help make possible our long-term engagement and professional commitment in
defending people's rights to control technology.</p>
</div><!--/e-content-->
<related-feed tag="deviceneutrality"/>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Enforcing Device Neutrality</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/devices/dma.html">Device Neutrality and the DMA</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>Free Software and Devices</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/routers/routers.html">Router Freedom</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/upcyclingandroid/">Upcycling Android</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/radiodirective/radiodirective.html">EU Radio Lockdown</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

291
activities/deviceneutrality/dma.en.xhtml Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,291 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Device Neutrality and the DMA</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<h1 class="p-name">Device Neutrality and the DMA</h1>
<div class="e-content">
<div id="introduction">
<p>Device Neutrality is the policy concept to regulate monopoly over devices and
re-establish end-user control over their digital equipment. The Digital Markets Act (DMA)
regulates the economic activity of large digital platforms and introduces Device Neutrality
in the EU legislation.</p>
</div>
<figure class="max-width-100 no-border">
<img
src="https://pics.fsfe.org/uploads/big/de9a14dc3122b5c304d8644d584abb6c.png"
alt="Device neutrality: safeguarding free software in devices"/>
</figure>
<h2>Digital Markets Act: an Overview</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en">Digital Markets Act (DMA)</a> is a EU law approved in 2022 to regulate the economic activity of large digital
platforms that act as "gatekeepers" in an attempt to create a fairer and more competitive
market for online platforms in the EU. The DMA is an important advancement for setting
several anti-monopoly obligations that impact software freedom, interoperability and control
over personal data. The three principal elements of the DMA refers to the designation of
gatekeepers, the list of do's and dont's and the enforcement mechanisms.</p>
<figure class="max-width-100 no-border">
<a href="https://pics.fsfe.org/uploads/big/3b13a012bddb1d0e1511b69aa58d7ceb.png">
<img
src="https://pics.fsfe.org/uploads/big/3b13a012bddb1d0e1511b69aa58d7ceb.png"
alt="DMA and Device Neutrality: gatekeeper designtation, device neutrality obligations, enforcing obligations and monitoring compliance."/>
</a>
</figure>
<h3>Who are the gatekeepers</h3>
<p>The scope of the DMA does not cover all digital services in the markets, but only to those qualifying as 'core platform services' (CPSs)
listed in Art. 2(2). These include online intermediation services, search engines, social networks, video sharing platforms,
messaging apps, operating systems, web browsers, virtual assistants, cloud computing services and online advertising.</p>
<p>The DMA constitutes asymmetric regulation. Its obligations do not apply to all tech companies,
but only to those providers which have been designated as "<i>gatekeepers</i>". Such designation is done by the European
Commission based on a cumulative "three criteria test" listed in Art.3(1): Gatekeepers are those companies
with "significant impact on the EU internal market", which "control an important important gateway for business
users to reach end-users", and enjoy an "entrenched and durable position in the market".</p>
<p>The DMA presumes the three-criteria test is met when a provider of CPS is above some thresholds for a certain
period (in general 3 years), which are lay down in Art. 3(2). The company should present an annual EU turnover
≥ EUR 7.5 billion, or an average market capitalisation or equivalent fair market value ≥ EUR 75
billion and the CPS sould be provided in at least 3 Member States. For the provided CPS, a reach of more than 45 million
monthly active end-users in the EU and ≥ 10.000 in the last financial year. The Commission can designate gatekeepers
not necessarily that meet these requirements, but fall under the criteria of Art. 3(1).</p>
<h3>Device Neutrality rules in the DMA</h3>
<p>The two principal DMA objectives are promoting "contestability" and "fairness" in digital markets. These are specific
legal terms. Since DMA concerns economic rights, it is a consumer protection legislation on a strict sense, but it contains
rules that affect directly and indirectly end-users. For the DMA, "<i>fairness</i>" means the imbalance of power between
gatekeepers and business users which confers a disproportionate advantage for the gatekeeper. On its turn, "<i>contestability</i>"
aims to limit the monopolistic power of gatekeepers by allowing their disintermediation for better competition in the markets.
For Device Neutrality both objectives mean that end-users have the right of access to alternative routes to market, and third
party services and products (e.g. Free Software) should enjoy equitable treatment relative to the gatekeeper's services.
In other words, gatekeepers should not restrict business and end-users from accessing rival routes to market for acessing
content, software and other digital services. </p>
<figure class="max-width-100 no-border">
<a href="https://pics.fsfe.org/uploads/big/41853f80b7b2b1eea6491c84ef2f574a.png">
<img
src="https://pics.fsfe.org/uploads/big/41853f80b7b2b1eea6491c84ef2f574a.png"
alt="Device Neutrality Principles: software freedom, no vendor lock-in and end-user control over data."/>
</a>
</figure>
<p>For each of the gatekeeper’s core platform services designated by the Commission, a set of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ obligations
are imposed in Arts. 5-7, coupled with corrective mechanisms (Arts. 8-13). Provisions related to Device Neutrality are:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Art. 5(3)</strong>: Gatekeepers cannot prohibit business users (e.g. app developers) to set different prices and
conditions for their apps in alternative stores (e.g. F-Droid).</li>
<li><strong>Art. 5(4)</strong>: Gatekeepers cannot prohibit business users (e.g. app developers) to conclude contracts with
consumers outside of the gatekeeper' app store, so that they are not required to use the app store's payment system.</li>
<li><strong>Art. 5(5)</strong>: Gatekeepers should allow end-users to access and use through a business user’s app (e.g. a third-party
pp) any content,
subscriptions, features or other functionalities, even when these have been acquired outside of the gatekeeper’s CPSs (e.g.
using a subscription acquired outside the gatekeeper's app).</li>
<li><strong>Art. 5(7)</strong>: Gatekeepers cannot require business users to subscribe to any other core platform service. For
instance, gatekeepers cannot make access to their app stores conditional upon app developers integrating a <i>"Sign in with ...."</i>
function into their apps. </li>
<li><strong>Art. 5(8)</strong>: Gatekeepers cannot make business and end-users register or sign-in for a service or app conditional
to other gatekeeper's service or app. </li>
<li><strong>Art. 6(3)</strong>: Gatekeepers are requested to allow and technically enable end users to un-install any
pre-installed software in devices excluding those essential to the functioning of the operating system or device,
and which cannot be offered by third parties on a standalone basis. Besides, gatekeepers must also allow and technically
enable end-users to change those default settings on operating system as long as they do not endager the integrity of
its operating system or hardware.</li>
<li><strong>Art. 6(4)</strong>: Gatekeepers are requested allow and technically enable the installation and use of third-party apps or
app stores on its operating system. They must allow these apps and app stores to be accessed via side-loading. Gatekeepers
cannot prevent these third-party apps and app stores from prompting users to decide whether the downloaded app (store) should
be the default. However, gatekeepers can take strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that a third-party app
(store) does not endager the integrity of its operating system or hardware or to enable end-users to effectively enable security.</li>
<li><strong>Art. 6(5)</strong>: Gatekeepers cannot prefer their own products and services more favorably in ranking and search results,
or in their own app stores.</li>
<li><strong>Art. 6(6)</strong>: Gatekeepers cannot restrict the ability of end-users to switch between and subscribe to different apps and services
that are accessed via the operating system or app store.</li>
<li><strong>Art. 6(7)</strong>: Gatekeepers should allow business users (service providers and hardware providers) free and effective interoperability
with the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system. However, gatekeepers can take strictly necessary and proportionate
measures to ensure interoperability does not undermine the integrity of their operating system and hardware.</li>
<li><strong>Art. 6(9)</strong>: Gatekeepers should provide end-users (and third parties authorized by end-users) with effective "real time data portability"
(data interoperability) of data provided or generated by these end-users.</li>
<li><strong>Art. 6(12)</strong>: Gatekeepers should provide business users (third party software developers) fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access
conditions to their app stores, search engines and operating systems.</li>
<li><strong>Art. 7</strong>: Gatekeepers of messaging apps (number-independent interpersonal communication service in the language of the law)
make basic functionalities of this service interoperable with other messaging apps from other providers by providing the necessary technical interfaces or
similar solutions upon request and free of charge. This obligation has been further specified in the law:
<ol>
<li>Immediatly after gatekeeper designation: End-to-end text messaging and the sharing of images, voice messages, videos and other attached files
between two individual end users should be implemented immediatly after the EC designtating the gatekeeper.</li>
<li>Within 2 years of designation: End-to-end text messaging within groups of individual end users and the sharing of images, voice
messages, videos and other attached files between a group chat and an individual end-user.</li>
<li>Within 4 years of designation: End-to-end voice and video calls between two individual end users and between a group chat and an
individual end user.</li>
</ol>
</li>
</ul>
<h3>Enforcement mechanisms</h3>
<p>The DMA represents a new attitude towards platform regulation. It is a hybrid form of competition and telecommunications law,
whereby a designated authority identifies subjects who will fall under the scope of the regulation. However, unlike telecom law,
which charges national regulatory authorities, enforcement is centralized on the European Commission. Besides, differently from competition
law, the Commission imposes remedies on them in advance and not after long and lenghty antitrust procedures.
For that, the Commission was granted significant legal powers for enforcing the obligations.</p>
<p>Companies falling under the quantitative thresholds of gatekeeper desingation criteria (Art. 3(2) should automatically notify
the Commission, which which will identify the services and products that will be regulated. The Commission can also conduct an investigation
and designate further companies as gatekeepers that meet the qualitative criteria of Art. 3(1).</p>
<p>Gatekeepers should provide audit reports to the Commission on the measures implemented within 6 months after their designation (Art. 11(1).
The DMA contains anti-circumvention provisions in Art. 13(4) forbidding gatekeepers to engage in behaviour that undermines the effective
implementation of the obligations.</p>
<p>The DMA provides the EC with a market investigation tool (Art. 16) to examine whether a company should be designated as a gatekeeper,
to investigate non-compliance by gatekeepers and to update the list of services and the obligations. In case of non-compliance,
the gatekeepers the possibility to offer commitments to end further proceedings. The Commission can impose fines up to 10% of the yearly
turnover and, in case of systematic non-compliance, refusal to give information, etc. periodic penalty payments up to 5% of the average daily
worldwide turnover (Arts. 30-31).</p>
<p>An important element for private enforcement is located in Art. 27 which grants any third party (including business, end-users and competitors)
the ability to inform the regulatory national authority about any gatekeeper practice or behaviour that falls within the DMA’s scope.</p>
<h2>DMA and concerns for Free Software</h2>
<p>The monopolistic power of large tech corporations causes distortions on digital markets affecting negatively end-users' rights and
control over devices. User freedoms relating to Free Software depends on an political and economical enviroment in which they can
exercise their free choice when using their devices without being stuck on closed enviroments under control of gatekeepers.
Digital markets will benefit with DMA regulating the commercial practices of large platforms, forcing them to facilitate access to
Free Software in devices. Device Neutrality translates in the DMA as stricter consent rules for pre-installed apps, safeguards against
vendor lock-in, and data portability. The right for end-users to use their own device and operating system is an important factor
to guarantee access of Free Software operating systems to dominant platforms. As a daily reality for many users this option
enlarges the audience for Free Software adoption. However, the future holds challenges for the practical implementation of
the DMA rules and ultimately Device Neutrality.</p>
<figure class="max-width-100 no-border">
<a href="https://pics.fsfe.org/uploads/medium/7bd8e2f6b3f88a3b2d049f92f471c91c.jpg">
<img
src="https://pics.fsfe.org/uploads/medium/7bd8e2f6b3f88a3b2d049f92f471c91c.jpg"
alt="A man looks into a smartphone."/>
</a>
<figcaption>
The DMA represents a significant step for breaking monopolies over devices. However practical implementation may present
challenges for Free Sofware and Open Standards.
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h3>Open Standards are missing</h3>
<p> Still in the legislative process, the FSFE defended the inclusion of clear language mandating the adoption of Open Standards for the
interoperability obligations, which was not contemplated in the final version of the law. Instead, the DMA mentions "<i>free and effective
interoperability</i>" (art. 6(7) regarding hardware and software features that can be accessed/controlled via an operating system by
third parties, as well as "<i>fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access conditions</i>" to app stores, search engines and
operating systems. The solution adopted may allow gatekeepers to implement proprietary standards and restrictive access to
APIs that are incompatible with Free Software. This was a lost chance to leverage competition with accessible and non-discriminatory
technical specifications. Open Standards remain an important element for innovation by allowing market actors to innovate on top of
technical standards.</p>
<h3>Security concerns vs commercial interests</h3>
<p>Another source of concern relates to how the law allows gatekeepers to limit interoperability for the sake of integrity and security of
the gatekeepers' services or devices (art. 6 (3) and (7). Our experience demonstrates that companies have been electing security concerns
to limit users' rights and software freedom even at the ausence of empirical evidence of such risks for the integrity of the devices.
Instead, commecial interests are the main drive to persue such restrictive practices. Such disposition in the DMA has the potential to
hinder compliance or even, in a worse case, strengh or consolidate the gatekeepers' entranched position in the market.</p>
<h3>Complex digital and market enviroments</h3>
<p>The procedural enforcement efforts also raise questions regarding achieving real and effective Device Neutrality. The DMA encompasses
the regulation of several complex layers of devices, as operating systems, browsers, apps stores, as well as interoperability and data
portability. Similarly to telecommunications law, such measures would require further specification and further regulatory efforts
oriented for practical implementation. As our experience has shown with Router Freedom in the EU, although the related telecom rules
were much simpler to implement, even so it has been taking years to be properly applied by national regulators in the EU.
Threfore, not only the lobbying power of such platforms, the allowances the law made towards "security and integrity", the absence of
clear language mandating Open Stardards and also market pressure can relativize the enforcement priorities of the Commission and other
policy making bodies.</p>
<h2>Your help for Device Neutrality is needed</h2>
<p>The FSFE has a large experience in monitoring compliance with telecommunications and internet legislation, working together with
the commission in antitrust cases, as well as with national regulatory bodies. We will continue to dedicate efforts in the process of
enforcing the DMA and making Device Neutrality a reality in the EU. For that we count with your support for our work with a donation.
Get active and help us empowering you to regain control over your devices!</p>
<figure class="max-width-100 no-border">
<a href="https://pics.fsfe.org/uploads/big/a9669e241527f1769e2fe67418a77f0d.jpg">
<img
src="https://pics.fsfe.org/uploads/big/a9669e241527f1769e2fe67418a77f0d.jpg"
alt="Screenshot from the Core Values video: software freedom."/>
</a>
<figcaption>
Although the DMA represents an important step towards software freedom and devices, its practical implementation will be complex
and will require substantial efforts for compliance enforcement and monitoring. We need your help to make Device Neutrality a reality!
</figcaption>
</figure>
</div><!--/e-content-->
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Regaining control over devices</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://wiki.fsfe.org/Activities/CompulsoryRouters/">Device Neutrality and Free Software</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>Related activities</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/routers/routers.html">Router Freedom</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/upcyclingandroid/">Upcycling Android</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/radiodirective/radiodirective.html">EU Radio Lockdown</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->