Compulsory Routers in your country

Alessandro Rubini rubini at gnudd.com
Fri Jan 17 10:36:15 UTC 2014


> 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, the box is clearly a part of *their*
> infrastructure, not as much of mine.
>
> [...]
>
> 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.

I think your analysis is correct.

> But well, feel free to comment. The compulsory router issue is new
> for me, and I'm unsure about the issues.

The compulsory router is a serious issue, but I agree it doesn't apply
to your use case.  As you say, there must be a line between the
service provider and the service customer.  In your case, the line is
at the near end of the "router" (i.e., the router is theirs). And you
can connect what you want to the outlets, so so have your own
wireless, your own telephone set and your own tv set.  That's right.

I think satellite tv is similar: the decoder is theirs.

The issue blessed "compulsory routers" is different: with a normal DSL
line the situation is similar to old telephone or power lines: the
company offers a cable that carries data or power and you use those
resources as you want.  Owned phone recording tools, own ups, own
microwave oven and cordless device, etc.  Sure the phone number and
power limits are agreed by contract and are limited, but the limit is
on the far end of the cable. The line between theirs and mine is at
the local end of the cable, before the equipment (for power, after the
circuit safety breaker, to prevent disruption of the far end).

A DSL line is the same: the PPPoE being provided is a general-purpose
service, that can be exploited in several ways, without disrupting the
far end.  Just like I wouldn't accept a mandatory phone set on my desk
or a mandatory microwave oven, I don't accept a compulsory router.

Sure I can accept a "complimentary" microwave oven from the power
company or a complimentary pbx from the phone company, and even the
option to rent each of them, as long as I control those devices.
Thus, providers that offer a router for an extra cost or give you the
router included in the base contract are fine for me, as long as the
thing is under my control.

I refuse a phone that lowers voice volume when connecting to certain
regions or an oven that denies cooking unhealthy meals.  Similarly, I
refuse to be unable to control the data sent to and from their
equipment (the remote one).

It's mainly a matter of net neutrality, which turns out being a matter
of freedom.  But a freedom that's easy to circumvent, by contractual
offers: people accept a black box in their cars to pay less insurance
costs, they would accept mandatory healthy-only ovens or night-only
lamps if that would decrease the cost of a kWh, they accept mandatory
routers if the cost of the dsl line is less.

The problem with routers is worse, because the difference between
Carsten's very-high-tech and not-yet-standard device and my
very-standard DSL signalling to a conventional owned router[1] is tiny to
most people.  Technology is more and more depicted as black magic, a
picture well received by non-technical people.  So I expect soon to be
unable to ssh out of a friends ethernet because of a limited device --
but the limit may well be on the far side of the cable, and it would
make no difference.

So yes, compulsory routers are an issue, but mainly an issue of net
neutrality.  And such neutrality is a concern for so little a fraction
of the user base, that it is going to be a very difficult battle.

/alessandro, too verbose as usual

[1] I told an half lie: my router is actually theirs because it include
telephone services, but I chose a company that gives me full access to
the local device. So am I affected by the compulsory router illness
or not?




More information about the Discussion mailing list