Follow

Less than 24 hours left to provide your feedback on the EU guidelines for ! is running a defining whether your router will belong to you or to your ISP. Please participate now, it's as easy as sending an email!

See how to make yourself heard, and the 's response on the current draft: fsfe.org/news/2019/news-201911

@fsfe I'll see how I participate just because Lego Technics figurines are great ^_^

@jerger
Thanks a lot, every submission makes a difference!

@fsfe
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.

@fsfe
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 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

@mxmehl @fsfe
hmm ok, if the ISPs provide standalone modems, I guess that'll work fine.

Still, I'm curious, how is B as bad as C for you?
There must be some cool stuff that I could do with my own modem but can't do with my own router + ISP's modem that I'm missing out on ;)

@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 in my/our opinion.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

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!