German network operators have requested the national regulator Bundesnetzagentur to start procedures to exclude Router Freedom from fiber networks. In a co...
I can understand that if they are selling gigabit fibre, deploying optional modem-only installs, and having inexperienced users complaining they aren’t getting gigabit speeds because they are using some €15 mini tplink WiFi AP thing, then having to trouble shoot that and potentially look like the bad guys by saying “the hardware you have bought is trash”.
I would get mad about that if I had to support that.
Maintaining some sort of “minimum requirements” or “only supported hardware” list considering there are SSSOOOO many routers out there (never mind whitebox openwrt/opnsense/pfsense/mikrotik/raw-linux whatever) is impossible.
And Intel pcie 4-port gigabit cards are so commonly counterfeits (especially on eBay, for those enthusiasts) which could throw so many issues before it even gets to os/userland.
I don’t know what the Router Freedom thing is. Sounds amazing to me based on the name (and knowing the EU).
I can understand why ISPs might get antsy when stuff has to run gigabit wirespeed.
But maybe “we only guarantee wirespeed on our hardware”… but if the hardware they are providing is just a modem, it might be hard to remotely debug and provide support.
I think I’m rambling.
Just have an officially supported list of modems/routers. Realistically 10 would be enough. If a customer calls in asking for technical support you can just say “we only offer support for the devices on the list” anyone who wants more power can buy off list devices knowing they won’t have technical support.
Yeah nah. BYO router has been a thing for decades in Australia, we ran through the normal checks and tests and if you ran into somthing like ‘mah wifi don’t woooork’ on a user supplied modem you patted them on the head and said it wasn’t your fuckin’ problem as the ISP.
I hear what you are saying, but the EU probably has extra contract laws protecting consumers.
And that’s what I don’t know about.
I would fully expect the EU to have laws that say “if you are an ISP and you are advertising gigabit symmetrical fibre, you will have legal obligations to prove that the user is able to receive that, regardless of BYO router”.
And that gets very difficult to do if the ISPs demarcation is a modem/bridge… so the ISP needs to provide a more expensive CPE to allow users to use their own router, whilst still maintaining the ability to prove that the user’s equipment is the fault and not the fibre line.
Because wirespeed gigabit can be difficult to provide if the user is doing stupid things with NAT and filters on cheap hardware (which an ISP provided router would allow for remote inspection or would be limited).
For example, here is a $330 rackmount mikrotik router that does 250mbps for 64 byte packets with lots of firewalling (https://mikrotik.com/product/rb1100ahx4#fndtn-testresults).
And here is a $219 mikrotik router that does 414mbps for 64 byte packets with lots of firewalling (https://mikrotik.com/product/rb5009ug_s_in#fndtn-testresults).
So, even more expensive doesn’t mean better (mikrotik is maybe a bad example for hardware, but they have great test results. And 64 byte packets is like death for any network! That’s smaller than a ping packet, literally the smallest packet possible. But maybe they are required by EU law to support it? Like the EU government realistically understands networking when drafting laws)
I think that’s where I lost myself to rambling.
EU making it difficult for ISPs to comply with law requiring advertised speeds when fibre gets to wirespeed (1, 2.5, 5, 10 or even 25 Gbps) and users can use their own (potential shit, even shit & overpriced) hardware that the user doesn’t know how to properly run.
Like I said, I have no idea if the EU allows for allowances of “user hardware isn’t my problem” sorta thing for BYO router.
BYO routers have been A Thing in a lot of countries. I haven’t worked for an ISP for nearly 20 years, and they were very common even back then. With the demarcation being provision of service it’s extremely easy to see them as online in RADIUS and anything past that is not your problem - anything past the primary entry point is the customer’s concern, same as any other utility.
If you have equipment that’s not authing, that’s a slightly different kettle of fish - usually involves basic troubleshooting but if there’s a seriously farked router or the end user can’t even log into the unit then the responsibility doesn’t lie with the ISP. It never does with a BYO.
The EU isn’t going to go crazy monkeypants with this shit, that’s ridiculous fearmongering. They’re simply stating that ISPs can’t force customers to proprietary hardware.
I can understand that if they are selling gigabit fibre, deploying optional modem-only installs, and having inexperienced users complaining they aren’t getting gigabit speeds because they are using some €15 mini tplink WiFi AP thing, then having to trouble shoot that and potentially look like the bad guys by saying “the hardware you have bought is trash”.
I would get mad about that if I had to support that.
Maintaining some sort of “minimum requirements” or “only supported hardware” list considering there are SSSOOOO many routers out there (never mind whitebox openwrt/opnsense/pfsense/mikrotik/raw-linux whatever) is impossible.
And Intel pcie 4-port gigabit cards are so commonly counterfeits (especially on eBay, for those enthusiasts) which could throw so many issues before it even gets to os/userland.
I don’t know what the Router Freedom thing is. Sounds amazing to me based on the name (and knowing the EU).
I can understand why ISPs might get antsy when stuff has to run gigabit wirespeed.
But maybe “we only guarantee wirespeed on our hardware”… but if the hardware they are providing is just a modem, it might be hard to remotely debug and provide support.
I think I’m rambling.
I mean the solution is already being done.
Just have an officially supported list of modems/routers. Realistically 10 would be enough. If a customer calls in asking for technical support you can just say “we only offer support for the devices on the list” anyone who wants more power can buy off list devices knowing they won’t have technical support.
That’s how American ISPs do it.
That’s how the German Telekom does it too with other connection options. It’s definitely not an insurmountable problem for ISPs.
Lol, my super old second hand 20€ Archer C7 with OpenWRT has better WiFi speeds than the supplied Fiber Router/Modem.
Imagine that, it has real antennas!
Yeah nah. BYO router has been a thing for decades in Australia, we ran through the normal checks and tests and if you ran into somthing like ‘mah wifi don’t woooork’ on a user supplied modem you patted them on the head and said it wasn’t your fuckin’ problem as the ISP.
I hear what you are saying, but the EU probably has extra contract laws protecting consumers.
And that’s what I don’t know about.
I would fully expect the EU to have laws that say “if you are an ISP and you are advertising gigabit symmetrical fibre, you will have legal obligations to prove that the user is able to receive that, regardless of BYO router”.
And that gets very difficult to do if the ISPs demarcation is a modem/bridge… so the ISP needs to provide a more expensive CPE to allow users to use their own router, whilst still maintaining the ability to prove that the user’s equipment is the fault and not the fibre line.
Because wirespeed gigabit can be difficult to provide if the user is doing stupid things with NAT and filters on cheap hardware (which an ISP provided router would allow for remote inspection or would be limited).
For example, here is a $330 rackmount mikrotik router that does 250mbps for 64 byte packets with lots of firewalling (https://mikrotik.com/product/rb1100ahx4#fndtn-testresults).
And here is a $219 mikrotik router that does 414mbps for 64 byte packets with lots of firewalling (https://mikrotik.com/product/rb5009ug_s_in#fndtn-testresults).
So, even more expensive doesn’t mean better (mikrotik is maybe a bad example for hardware, but they have great test results. And 64 byte packets is like death for any network! That’s smaller than a ping packet, literally the smallest packet possible. But maybe they are required by EU law to support it? Like the EU government realistically understands networking when drafting laws)
I think that’s where I lost myself to rambling.
EU making it difficult for ISPs to comply with law requiring advertised speeds when fibre gets to wirespeed (1, 2.5, 5, 10 or even 25 Gbps) and users can use their own (potential shit, even shit & overpriced) hardware that the user doesn’t know how to properly run.
Like I said, I have no idea if the EU allows for allowances of “user hardware isn’t my problem” sorta thing for BYO router.
BYO routers have been A Thing in a lot of countries. I haven’t worked for an ISP for nearly 20 years, and they were very common even back then. With the demarcation being provision of service it’s extremely easy to see them as online in RADIUS and anything past that is not your problem - anything past the primary entry point is the customer’s concern, same as any other utility.
If you have equipment that’s not authing, that’s a slightly different kettle of fish - usually involves basic troubleshooting but if there’s a seriously farked router or the end user can’t even log into the unit then the responsibility doesn’t lie with the ISP. It never does with a BYO.
The EU isn’t going to go crazy monkeypants with this shit, that’s ridiculous fearmongering. They’re simply stating that ISPs can’t force customers to proprietary hardware.