German network operators have requested the national regulator Bundesnetzagentur to start procedures to exclude Router Freedom from fiber networks. In a co...
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 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.