Source files of,,,,, and Contribute:
You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.

240 lines
14 KiB

  1. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
  2. <html>
  3. <version>1</version>
  4. <head>
  5. <title>Compulsory routers – Timeline</title>
  6. </head>
  7. <body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
  8. <!-- Breadcumb -->
  9. <p id="category"><a href="/activities/routers/routers.html">Compulsory routers</a></p>
  10. <!-- / Breadcumb -->
  11. <h1 class="p-name">Timeline of compulsory routers</h1>
  12. <div class="e-content">
  13. <div id="introduction">
  14. <p>Compulsory routers are a delicate topic and just because of that
  15. very complex. Many government agencies, corporations, and organisations
  16. already contributed to the public discussion and took part in numerous
  17. hearings and comments. Here the FSFE lists the most important events
  18. which lead to the current state and also draws a picture of the future
  19. development of compulsory routers.</p> </div>
  20. <h2>Current state and glance into the future</h2>
  21. <p>After almost three years of intensive debates, the German Bundestag
  22. passed the law for „choice and connection of telecommunication terminal
  23. devices“. This law unambigously declares compulsory routers invalid and
  24. establishes freedom of choice of terminal devices.</p>
  25. <p>The passed law became effective on August 1 2016. The FSFE monitors
  26. the compliance of the law and asks its supporters, other organisations
  27. and administrations to do the same.</p>
  28. <ul>
  29. <li><strong>01.08.2016</strong>: The law comes into effect. <a
  30. href="/news/2016/news-20160725-01.html">From now on</a> all Internet
  31. Service Providers have to enable new clients to use alternative
  32. modems and routers to connect to the internet. The FSFE is monitoring
  33. the implementation by sending out testing devices to volunteers for
  34. them to check whether their ISPs obey the law, and <a
  35. href="">collecting
  36. the results</a>.</li>
  37. <li><strong>27.11.2015</strong>: Although the Federal Council fought the bill
  38. against compulsory routers in the first place, it now does not oppose it
  39. anymore in its last consultation about it.</li>
  40. <li><strong>05.11.2015</strong>: The German Bundestag passes the
  41. essentially unmodified law and thereby the abolishment of compulsory
  42. routers.</li>
  43. <li><strong>28.10.2015</strong>: The FSFE and nine other
  44. organisations in civil society and economy send <a
  45. href="/activities/routers/files/20151027_Verbaendeschreiben.pdf">a
  46. letter</a> to 132 parliament committee members in which they ask the
  47. MPs to support the bill without any modifications.</li>
  48. <li><strong>07.10.2015</strong>: The Federal Cabinet and the BMWi
  49. don't grant the demands for examining the draft. <a
  50. href="/activities/routers/files/20151001_Gegenaeußerung_BK.pdf">In its
  51. writing</a> the Cabinet clearly explains that there's no reason for
  52. departing from the "technologically neutral implementation of
  53. terminal device freedom in Germany" by adding exceptions for certain
  54. providers or devices. </li>
  55. <li><strong>25.09.2015</strong>: The Federal Council publishes its <a
  56. href="/activities/routers/files/20150925_BR-Stellungnahme.pdf">comments</a>
  57. on the bill. It questiones the draft's essential foundations and
  58. adopts arguments of network providers which only act as
  59. pretence.</li>
  60. <li><strong>12.08.2015</strong>: The Federal Cabinet passes the <a
  61. href=",property=pdf,bereich=bmwi2012,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf">law
  62. bill for router freedom</a> which is seen as positive by the FSFE.
  63. The step follows the European Commission's notification and
  64. commentary term until July 8th. During that phase only a small formal
  65. ambiguity has been criticised.</li>
  66. <li><strong>25.02.2015</strong>: The German Ministry of Economics published a
  67. first <a
  68. href=",property=pdf,bereich=bmwi2012,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf">draft
  69. law to ban compulsory routers (German)</a>. Except missing enforcing measures
  70. FSFE welcomes the draft.</li>
  71. <li><strong>29.09.2014</strong>:
  72. After the further procedures were unclear for a long time, <a
  73. href="">
  74. published an internal revised draft of the transparency bill (German)</a>.
  75. The <a href="/news/2014/news-20140929-01.html">FSFE critisises the
  76. draft</a> because it legitimises the incapacitation of customers. Instead
  77. of prohibiting compulsory routers as decided in the coalition agreement,
  78. the draft enables internet providers to hinder customers who want to use
  79. another device.</li>
  80. <li><strong>28.03.2014</strong>:
  81. Together with the CCC and other projects and experts, the FSFE praises the basic
  82. idea in a <a href="/news/2014/news-20140328-01.html">press release</a> and a
  83. <a href="/activities/routers/files/20140328_Stellungnahme-TKTransparenzV-FSFE.pdf">
  84. detailed statement (German)</a> but clearly criticises that users are further burdened
  85. and that the proposed test methods are inconsistently considered. Most interestingly,
  86. the formulation of the regulation is substantially weaker than that in the coalition
  87. agreement, and the still-unaddressed question of network termination points is not
  88. even mentioned.</li>
  89. <li><strong>24.02.2014</strong>:
  90. After the first large hearing, the Federal Network Agency publishes a <a
  91. href="/activities/routers/files/20140224_BNetzA-TKTransparenzV-Entwurf.pdf">
  92. transparency bill</a> that eliminates compulsory routers and should improve the
  93. transparency of telecommunication companies for customers. Comments
  94. may be submitted until the end of March 2014.</li>
  95. <li><strong>16.12.2013</strong>:
  96. After the German Federal Parliament elections in the end of September, the coalition agreement
  97. is officially signed. In it, the CDU, CSU, and SPD clearly speak out against
  98. compulsory routers and demand that <a href="/news/2013/news-20131211-01.html#1">
  99. every customer must receive all necessary access information unasked.</a>
  100. Such a clear statement of position from the coalition parties can be explained by
  101. the media response (for example from
  102. <a href="">Golem (German)</a>,
  103. <a href="">Heise (German)</a> and
  104. <a href="">Netzpolitik (German)</a> as well as
  105. <a href="">Focus (German)</a>,
  106. <a href=",27395004,24917956.html">Frankfurter Rundschau (German)</a>,
  107. <a href="">NTV (German)</a> and
  108. <a href="">Süddeutsche (German)</a>)
  109. and the enormous interest from the population.</li>
  110. <li><strong>04.11.2013</strong>: The FSFE joins numerous other
  111. 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
  112. href="/news/2013/news-20131104-02.html">here the press release</a>) upon
  113. completion of the public hearings. The statement contains answers to
  114. almost all the posed questions with specific regard to the existing and
  115. potential disadvantages of compulsory routers.
  116. <p>The majority of the 309 statements argues against compulsory routers.
  117. Unsurprisingly, the only two groups that are in favour are Internet Service Providers
  118. and Network Providers. Notable arguments have been filed by e.g. AVM, CCC,
  119. and Sipgate. The Federal Networking Agency has <a
  120. href="/activities/routers/files/20140414_Verzeichnis-Stellungnahmen-3982013.pdf">collected all statements</a>.</p></li>
  121. <li><strong>20.09.2013</strong>: The Federal Network Agency starts a <a
  122. href="/activities/routers/files/20130920_Anhörung-Schnittstellen-3982013.pdf">public hearing (398/2013)</a>
  123. on the disputed network termination points. At the hearing, many - partly very
  124. technical - questions related to possible definitions are posed which are directly
  125. related to compulsory routers. Just a few days later the FSFE publishes <a
  126. href="">a preliminary statement</a>,
  127. in which it voices serious concerns for security, consumer-friendliness,
  128. and competition.</li>
  129. <li><strong>31.07.2013:</strong>: In a <a
  130. href="">second
  131. draft of the "net neutrality regulation", compulsory routers are discussed in §3</a> (PDF).
  132. Contrary to the first draft, the term used now is “Endgerätenetzneutralität”, which (roughly)
  133. translates to "terminal device net neutrality".</li>
  134. <li><strong>25.06.2013</strong>: The Federal Network Agency organises a
  135. workshop on the topic of compulsory routers and designs four models for resolution.</li>
  136. <li><strong>17.06.2013</strong>: The BMWi (Ministry of Economic) presents the <a
  137. href="">draft
  138. of a net neutrality regulation according to §41a Abs.1 TKG</a> (PDF). In §3,
  139. compulsory routers are specifically addressed and rejected.</li>
  140. <li><strong>04.06.2013</strong>: The <a
  141. href="/activities/routers/files/20130604_Antwort-Bundesregierung.pdf">federal
  142. government responds to the "minor interpellation"</a> made on the
  143. 17th of May. In it, open questions are treated very carefully and responsibilities
  144. are more or less redirected towards the Federal Network Agency. The BMWi
  145. does not consider itself to be part of the topic, since the FNA at this point of
  146. time still is involved in talks with Network Providers and router manufacturers. An <a
  147. href="">article
  148. on Netzpolitik</a> summarises these circumstances thoroughly.</li>
  149. <li><strong>17.05.2013</strong>: The fraction “DIE LINKE” poses a <a
  150. href="/activities/routers/files/20130517_Kleine-Anfrage-Linke.pdf">“minor interpellation”
  151. to the federal government</a> related to the statements made by the Federal Networking Agency.
  152. In it, the question on whether a router qualifies as an access point or a telecommunication
  153. device and in how far the end-user may interfere with it is posed.</li>
  154. <li><strong>22.01.2013</strong>: Among others, the German manufacturer
  155. of telecommunication devices AVM <a href="">comments on the issue</a> and
  156. compares the situation with the mobile market, where providers
  157. do not dictate to their customers which phone to use.</li>
  158. <li><strong>10.01.2013</strong>: The roots of the public debate of compulsory routers
  159. can be found in a <a href="">reply to an anonymous user
  160. made by the Federal Network Agency</a>.
  161. The user criticises the coupling of his DSL contract with a specific router. He does so in reaction to an <a
  162. href="">extensive article of the professional magazine "PC-WELT"</a>,
  163. in which the common practices of DSL providers are criticised.
  164. The Federal Networking Agency deems this behaviour to be justified,
  165. since the DSL provider in question defines the router to be part of the
  166. network and thus the infrastructure he provides. Therefore, the end-user
  167. should and must not exchange it against another device.
  168. <p>Here, the basic conflict becomes clear: the Federal Network Agency cannot
  169. or does not want to decide where the network of the Internet provider ends and
  170. from where the user has full control. Especially in terms of routers that include
  171. a modem and numerous other functions (IAD, Integrated Access Device), there
  172. are many unresolved issues and a need for clear definitions. </p></li>
  173. </ul>
  174. </div><!--/e-content-->
  175. </body>
  176. <sidebar promo="our-work">
  177. <h2>More about compulsory routers</h2>
  178. <ul>
  179. <li><a href="">Status of the new law's implementation in Germany</a></li>
  180. </ul>
  181. <h2>External articles about compulsory routers</h2>
  182. <ul>
  183. <li><a href="">First testing devices sent out (German)</a></li>
  184. <li><a href="">Why free choice of routers is an unnegotiable must</a></li>
  185. </ul>
  186. </sidebar>
  187. </html>
  188. <!--
  189. Local Variables: ***
  190. mode: xml ***
  191. End: ***
  192. -->