204 lines
12 KiB
HTML
204 lines
12 KiB
HTML
<?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 Federal Ministry of Economy (BMWi) reworked its former bill for
|
||
revision of the Telecommunication Act to unambiguously free cable and
|
||
DSL internet users from compulsory routers. We evaluated the draft as
|
||
positive in large part because it can finally end the discrimination of
|
||
internet users' choice of terminal devices. Only smaller wordings could
|
||
be formulated more precisely to preemptively close possible legal
|
||
loopholes.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>The bill has been presented to the EU commission and the member
|
||
states for comments until beginning of July. According to our
|
||
information only one small formal ambiguity has been criticised furing
|
||
this process. The BMWi currently fixes this and will introduce it to
|
||
the Federal Cabinet. Afterwards the parlamentary process is planned to
|
||
start in fall 2015. We hope that ministers and representatives will
|
||
withstand the pressure of enemies of free and fair terminal device
|
||
choice, and defend and restore the rights of internet users.</p>
|
||
|
||
<ul>
|
||
|
||
<li><strong>25.02.2015</strong>: The German Ministry of Economics published a
|
||
first <a
|
||
href="http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/P-R/referentenentwurf-gesetz-zur-auswahl-und-zum-anschluss-von-telekommunikationsendgeraeten,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi2012,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf">draft
|
||
law to ban compulsory routers (German)</a>. Except missing enforcing measures
|
||
FSFE welcomes the draft.</li>
|
||
|
||
<li><strong>29.09.2014</strong>:
|
||
After the further procedures were unclear for a long time, <a
|
||
href="https://netzpolitik.org/2014/intransparente-transparenzverordnung-kehrt-zum-routerzwang-zurueck-wir-veroeffentlichen-den-aktuellen-entwurf/">Netzpolitik.org
|
||
published an internal revised draft of the transparency bill (German)</a>.
|
||
The <a href="/news/2014/news-20140929-01.html">FSFE critisises the
|
||
draft</a> because it legitimises the incapacitation of customers. Instead
|
||
of prohibiting compulsory routers as decided in the coalition agreement,
|
||
the draft enables internet providers to hinder customers who want to use
|
||
another device.</li>
|
||
|
||
<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: ***
|
||
-->
|