Update Router Freedom pages #1074
No reviewers
Labels
No Label
bug
build
cgi Scripting
design
disruptive
documentation
duplicate
easy
feature-request
help wanted
javascript
priority/low
question
system-hackers
tagging
text
translations
wait/bugfix
wait/inprogress
wait/misc
wait/proofread
wontfix
xsl
No Milestone
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: FSFE/fsfe-website#1074
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "lucas.lasota/fsfe-website:new-router-freedom"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Hello,
I am submitting the new version of the Router Freedom page. After the review, if everything is ok, please merge.
Thank you!
Lucas
Some suggestions, otherwise good. Thank you!
@ -27,0 +31,4 @@
<p>However, many ISP across Europe do not comply with the regulation yet, imposing their own routers to consumers in a clearly contradiction with the Net Neutrality principle. Their argumentation concerns the location of the network termination point (NTP), an arbitrary definition between the limits of the user’s private and ISP’s network equipment. They introduced a debate to determine whether the NTP would be located inside the end-user domain, so they can use their own modem and router, or the NTP would be part of the domain of the network operator, so end-users cannot use their own router with a private modem. In this case, the users should use the ISP's router.</p>
<div class="image"> <img src="/picturebase/routers/ntp-transp.png" alt="Network Termination Point"/></div>
Fixed, thanks for clarifying that.
@ -39,0 +39,4 @@
<p>In order to protect this freedom, the <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2015.310.01.0001.01.ENG">article 3(1) of the Net Neutrality Directive</a> establishes that the enforcement of the respective open internet rules is task for the National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) of each European country. They must check the application of the Directive’s rules accordingly to the technical guidelines of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC).</p>
<p>However, the awareness for such fundamental topic is still <a href="https://fsfe.org/activities/routers/timeline.html">very low</a> across Europe. Users are not being consciously informed about the risks of not having the freedom to choose their own equipment. It is unacceptable to limit Router Freedom on the basis of a arbitrary definition that only benefits ISPs and subjugates users to a very unfair and submissive situation.</p>
Could you explain why we link to the timeline here when it comes to the awareness?
It was a bug. Inserted the right link to the wiki. Thanks!
@ -39,2 +47,4 @@
<p>The infringement of the Router Freedom may happen by different restrictions, such as:</p>
<ol>
I would suggest to make this an unordered list since there is no weighting between the points. So
<ul>
instead of<ol>
Done!
@ -99,3 +95,2 @@
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/routers/timeline.html">Timeline of compulsory routers</a></li>
<li><a href="https://wiki.fsfe.org/Activities/CompulsoryRouters/Implementation/Germany">Status of the new law's implementation in Germany</a></li>
<li><a href="https://wiki.fsfe.org/Activities/CompulsoryRouters/">Router Freedom wiki page</a></li>
Please think of a more attractive name. What can people find there? Perhaps "Further information" or "Steps to get active"?
I like when we "defend rights or freedom". So I put "How to defend Router Freedom".
new-router-freedomto Update Router Freedom pagesFixed the spotted bugs and implemented the suggestions. Thank you, Max!
Sorry, just got around to review the changes.
I wonder why your last commit removed the paragraph starting with
<p>In order to protect this freedom, the <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2015.310.01.0001.01.ENG">article 3(1) of the Net Neutrality Directive</a>....
.Was that an accident?
After a general review, I realized that this paragraph was doubled in the code. That's why I deleted it :)