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.

news-20150902-01.en.xhtml 6.9KB

  1. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  2. <html newsdate="2015-09-02">
  3. <head>
  4. <title>The long road from compulsory routers to freedom of choice</title>
  5. </head>
  6. <body>
  7. <h1>The long road from compulsory routers to freedom of choice</h1>
  8. <p newsteaser="yes">The router. Despite often being dusty it is one
  9. of the most important devices needed for using the internet or phones.
  10. However: Most users in Germany don’t own this device even though it
  11. is located inside their homes and they pay for it.</p>
  12. <p>At least still. Because recently the <a
  13. href=";v=1">Cabinet of Germany, the chief executive body of the Federal Republic of Germany</a>, passed a draft to abolish compulsory routers.
  14. So all users may use a different device from the one the provider delivered
  15. and they may modify it freely.</p>
  16. <h2>What are compulsory routers?</h2>
  17. <p>For a long time it didn’t look as good for those who wanted
  18. to connect their own router to the socket in the wall. Often the
  19. providers don’t publish the account credentials to the customer.
  20. They may deny any support or block the access completely.
  21. This may sound like the sort of problem you want to have but it has
  22. <a href="/activities/routers/">enormous consequences for privacy,
  23. security and competition</a>. In most cases a router handles all
  24. telephone and internet connections. Many devices are full of
  25. security holes. With certain protocols the provider can control the
  26. router remotely. They may then alter the quality of the internetconnection
  27. for certain services. Alternative devices that for example use Free
  28. Software have privacy and security in mind. But the chances of such
  29. devices on such a closed market are slim at best because many users
  30. need to make a great effort as long as the providers don’t go along.
  31. This is a unjustified discrimination against users of Free Software as well as
  32. the producers of such Free devices. We should always maintain full
  33. control over the devices we use.</p>
  34. <p>
  35. The key point in the debate about router compulsion is the definition
  36. of the network termination point. This defines, where the public network,
  37. that of the provider, ends, and where that of the customer begins. This
  38. division should actually be the box in the wall, but many providers also
  39. include the provided end device. From this perspective, it is legitimate
  40. to deny the customer the access data for replacement of this device.
  41. With most cable providers, the modem first has to be registered by a
  42. technician in a data center. The technical reasons that supposedly
  43. support this requirement are in fact just a pretense and not technically
  44. valid. In the USA, the market is somewhat liberalised, and the portended
  45. mass network failures are not to be seen.</p>
  46. <h2>What happened previously</h2>
  47. <p><a href="/activities/routers/timeline.html">Since the beginning of
  48. 2013,</a> the public debate over compulsory routers has grown,
  49. accompanied by the FSFE. The German Federal Network Agency <a
  50. href="">remained
  51. vague (German)</a> as to whether router compulsion should be <a
  52. href="/news/2014/news-20140929-01.html">legally legitimized,</a> even
  53. after numerous hearings and workshops where not only the FSFE
  54. but also the majority of hundreds of statements spoke out against it.
  55. Eventually, the Federal Ministry of Economy (BMWi) took over at the
  56. end of 2014. The ministry proposed a satisfactory bill and overcame
  57. all necessary hurdles in the legislative process, from ratification by
  58. the EU Commission and the Federal Cabinet. The law is now waiting
  59. for approval of the Federal Parliament and Federal Council.</p>
  60. <p>
  61. We would have wished for further legal codification of user rights for
  62. communications devices, but the current situation guarantees a basic
  63. level of user freedom, at least for the intermediate term. In order to
  64. even reach this state, a considerable amount of work was necessary.
  65. As the FSFE, we built up a small team of internal and external experts,
  66. which has created detailed position statements for many of the
  67. hearings of the Federal Network Agency, which dealt with user
  68. freedom in the spirit of Free Software and open standards as well
  69. as economic aspects. Even after the transfer to the Ministry of Economy,
  70. we critically supervised the process in agreement with other organisations
  71. and drew attention to deficiencies and positive developments.</p>
  72. <p>
  73. With a modification of the <a
  74. href="">FTEG (German)</a> (Law
  75. on Radio Units and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment) and <a
  76. href="">TKG (German)</a>
  77. (Telecommunications Law), the previous deficiencies should be remedied.
  78. The passive network termination point should be clearly defined, the
  79. operator should be obliged to provide, unprompted, the "necessary
  80. access data and information for the connection of telecommunications
  81. terminal equipment and the use of the telecommunication services,"
  82. and a fine of 10,000 Euro should be set in case they violate these
  83. information requirements.</p>
  84. <h2>It's not over yet</h2>
  85. <p>
  86. At the moment, the law is at the Federal Council for opinions and
  87. will afterwards come before the Federal Parliament for three
  88. readings. If the law is adopted, the approval of the Federal
  89. Council is still necessary to abolish the router compulsion six
  90. months after the announcement. In order for this to actually
  91. succeed, we must oversee this process and be sure that the
  92. proposal is not watered down. You can help us with this:
  93. contact your representative so that they pass this law without
  94. any further limitations, in order to ensure this absolute minimum
  95. of end-device freedom, user protection, and security.</p>
  96. <p>
  97. After that, it will also be exciting. Will internet providers be
  98. obstructive in supporting the use of user devices? Can all devices
  99. be seamlessly used with alternate routers? Will discrimination of
  100. some sort still take place in spite of this law? We can be happy
  101. about the previous successes, but this topic is too controversial
  102. for the friends of alternative end devices to be lulled into a false
  103. sense of security. For the future Internet of Things, where
  104. refrigerators and thermostats will be accessible via the internet,
  105. routers and end-device freedom in general play a more central
  106. role. We believe that we have not seen the last of this topic, and
  107. that we must establish and protect device freedom in other European
  108. countries.</p>
  109. </body>
  110. <tags>
  111. <tag content="Routerzwang">routers</tag>
  112. <tag content="Deutschland">de</tag>
  113. <tag content="Politik">Policy</tag>
  114. </tags>
  115. </html>