Less than 24 hours left to provide your feedback on the EU guidelines for #RouterFreedom! #BEREC is running a #PublicConsultation defining whether your router will belong to you or to your ISP. Please participate now, it's as easy as sending an email!
@fsfe I'll see how I participate just because Lego Technics figurines are great ^_^
And you are great too, thank you!
@fsfe done 🙂
Thanks a lot, every submission makes a difference!
Damn, I missed the comment deadline because I wanted to read the whole BEREC guidelines thing first and it was a long read....
That being said, I think insisting on having Network Termination at point A isn't a good idea.
As a consumer I'd prefer B, because routers with a WAN port are easier to get than routers with a builtin DOCSIS modem. And then I don't have to change my router when I switch ISPs or when the ISP changes the access method (eg. from DOCSIS to PON).
@Wolf480pl Sorry to hear that. Perhaps you can still hand it in if you already prepared something?
Regarding your argument: point A gives you the full freedom. You can use the modem/router by the ISP and attach your own device after it, but you can also select your own modem and router or combination of both.
@fsfe Didn't really manage to prepare anything. At 17:30 I finished reading, and was about to think of what I should write :/
As for point A - yes, in theory it gives me the most freedom. But in practice, I think what would happen is:
- ISPs wouldn't offer standalone modems unless forced to. Users will have to pick between an ISP-provided router with builtin modem, or their own modem and router.
- standalone modems (as opposed to integrated into routers) would be niche, and therefore more expensive for users to buy one
- interoperability between user's own modem and ISP's access network would be a problem, with the ISP trying to shift blame onto the user
- router market would be more fragmented, because of different integrated modem types, and each fragment would be less diverse
And I don't really see much benefit for a user to have their own modem.
Also, the BEREC draft has a lot of valid arguments how ISPs have valid technical reasons to prefer C over A. What the draft fails to emphasize though, is that most of the arguments for C apply equally to B.
IOW, B is almost as good as C for the ISP, and almost as good as A for the user. IMO that's a win-win.
And honestly, if we could get everyone to standardize on something like "Ethernet with public IP on DHCPv4, a /56 of IPv6 on DHCPv6-PD, and optionally a VLAN for TV and SIP for VOIP" as a Network Termination Point, I think that'd be ideal.
@Wolf480pl @fsfe Good arguments, but after 3 years of #RouterFreedom in Germany, I cannot confirm your concerns. You have ISP that offer standalone modems and those that offer integrated devices (what actually most people seem to prefer). You have a small but healthy market of manufacturers. And so far, no major compatibility issue arose. Quite the opposite: ISPs try to sneak compulsory routers to their customers, and definitely not because of technical reasons.
IMHO, B is as bad as C
@Wolf480pl @fsfe Only some reasons: no control over technology in my apartment, two separate devices (power costs, security), more complex configuration, modem monocultures. And the market for IADs (modem+router) would cease to exist in Europe. Normally, I like compromises, but here it just does not make sense to ban #RouterFreedom in my/our opinion.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!