German network operators have requested the national regulator Bundesnetzagentur to start procedures to exclude Router Freedom from fiber networks. In a co...
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.
Advertised speed cannot be reasonably interpreted to include consumer-side routing, that’s like thinking a car’s advertised top speed applies regardless of local traffic regulations. Add an asterisk and the smallprint “with an ISP-provided or equivalent bridge directly connected to a single sufficiently fast client device”.
Also, if ISPs actually provided a proper bridge people would not be using their own stuff. Practically speaking the issue is not some watts of power but getting rid of routing layers and being able to see (not necessarily control) some information about the fibre link. I’m pretty sure if ISPs asked nicely mikrotik would build them a thing with an sfp and a 10g copper port on different sides of the box with some empty space to throw some fibre windings in, mount it to the wall covering the incoming hole, supply power, connect anything via pppoe (or maybe it’s time for a successor).
Actually that was how my first dsl ISP supplied things: A modem and a router. You could toss the router, connect the modem to a switch, and even have five simultaneous pppoe sessions. And I don’t think even non tech savvy customers are all that hell-bent on AIO devices given that you might not want your AP to sit in a cellar with bad reception.
…actually, that’s not even dissimilar to how things are in power distribution: Over here you have the house connection, a beefy thing with melt fuse and power meter, out of which comes three-phase to the actual distribution box. Ordinary electricians aren’t allowed to touch the thing with the power meter, they need an agreement with the network operator to handle that stuff. Which is kinda important because not every operator’s infrastructure looks the same, grounding requirements might differ etc. it’s a whole can of worms.
On a different note: It might be a good idea for ISPs to switch to advertising link and upstream speed separately. It’s not like they’re going to provision for a gazillion gigabit links going full tilt at the same time, anyway, but you can provision for a minimum guaranteed speed and allow line speed when sufficiently many other customers aren’t using upstream. “Fast if the roads are free and we guarantee traffic jams no slower than X”.
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.
Advertised speed cannot be reasonably interpreted to include consumer-side routing, that’s like thinking a car’s advertised top speed applies regardless of local traffic regulations. Add an asterisk and the smallprint “with an ISP-provided or equivalent bridge directly connected to a single sufficiently fast client device”.
Also, if ISPs actually provided a proper bridge people would not be using their own stuff. Practically speaking the issue is not some watts of power but getting rid of routing layers and being able to see (not necessarily control) some information about the fibre link. I’m pretty sure if ISPs asked nicely mikrotik would build them a thing with an sfp and a 10g copper port on different sides of the box with some empty space to throw some fibre windings in, mount it to the wall covering the incoming hole, supply power, connect anything via pppoe (or maybe it’s time for a successor).
Actually that was how my first dsl ISP supplied things: A modem and a router. You could toss the router, connect the modem to a switch, and even have five simultaneous pppoe sessions. And I don’t think even non tech savvy customers are all that hell-bent on AIO devices given that you might not want your AP to sit in a cellar with bad reception.
…actually, that’s not even dissimilar to how things are in power distribution: Over here you have the house connection, a beefy thing with melt fuse and power meter, out of which comes three-phase to the actual distribution box. Ordinary electricians aren’t allowed to touch the thing with the power meter, they need an agreement with the network operator to handle that stuff. Which is kinda important because not every operator’s infrastructure looks the same, grounding requirements might differ etc. it’s a whole can of worms.
On a different note: It might be a good idea for ISPs to switch to advertising link and upstream speed separately. It’s not like they’re going to provision for a gazillion gigabit links going full tilt at the same time, anyway, but you can provision for a minimum guaranteed speed and allow line speed when sufficiently many other customers aren’t using upstream. “Fast if the roads are free and we guarantee traffic jams no slower than X”.