Compulsory Routers in your country

Sam Liddicott sam at liddicott.com
Fri Jan 17 10:26:57 UTC 2014


I think that if the router could be a bridge (making it no more than
an ADSL interface) I would not care much as I can isolate it from my
network using my own choice of router.

If it were stuck as a router then I would be annoyed, although I could
insert a bridge between their router and my network.

Sam

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Carsten Agger <agger at modspil.dk> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 01/16/2014 04:12 PM, Max Mehl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> To be short: You have a Compulsory Routers, if you're not able
>>>> to replace parts or everything of your infrastructure needed
>>>> for internet access and related services like VoIP/TV. If the
>>>> ISPs does not give you full privileges or information (or uses
>>>> closed standards) for using completely different hardware, you
>>>> have a Compulsory Router in your rooms.
>>
>>> Then I do have a compulsory router, I believe.
>>
>> So even in Denmark (I guess?), that's a pity. Can I ask you which
>> service provider you use? I just thought about adding all this
>> information by you and others in this thread to the wiki page [1].
>>
>
> I'm using Verdo Tele, which have a collaboration with www.waoo.dk/ -
> see http://www.verdo.dk/privat/kompetencer/tele.aspx
>
> I'm undecided as what to think of it. On the one hand, it's a piece of
> equipment in my house which I can't control.
>
> On the other hand, it's  a gadget at the end of a fiber optical
> connection. I suppose there need to me *some* device to convert that
> to Ethernet, and I don't know the technology well enough to know what
> my options are.
>
> On the other hand, the box is clearly a part of *their*
> infrastructure, not as much of mine. When I moved into the house there
> was some problems with the box, and they had to take tha "package" off
> it and put it back again. The "package" is the combination of
> Internet, phone and many or few TV channels chosen by the customer.
>
> This means that they control which services they provide to me by a
> setting on that box. I think it's a little bit stupid that they choose
> to do so on a box in my house and not in a box on their own premises,
> but I'm too ignorant of the specific technology to be sure it's a bad
> choice.
>
> But that clearly means that the box is *their* infrastructure, not
> mine - my infrastructure begins at the box' Ethernet, phone and TV
> outlets (and I've put up a wireless network behind it - am shopping
> for one which supports OpenVPN to connect to AirVPN or a similar
> privacy-conscious provider. The Ethernet has a public IBv4 address so
> there's no NAT issue. I haven't tested IPv6.)
>
> So in that respect, I think that security and privacy wise I'm no
> worse off than if they'd placed their infrastructure on their own
> premises. Then there's the environmental thing - their box consumes
> about 10W of power and is always on, and that does cost me (30€ a
> year, I believe) and is undesirable.
>
> But well, feel free to comment. The compulsory router issue is new for
> me, and I'm unsure about the issues.
>
> Best,
> Carsten
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlLY+r0ACgkQletyW1YzdSE0uwCfQaNAXK7twEdbxbMg3eVV7Jlm
> XbEAni1oQuIv7yLx6VlrC6U30jeaZwbw
> =fNXQ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at fsfeurope.org
> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion



More information about the Discussion mailing list