German network operators have requested the national regulator Bundesnetzagentur to start procedures to exclude Router Freedom from fiber networks. In a co...
Frankly even if (4) was your only goal here, that feels like more than enough reason.
Not sure how it goes where you are, but where I’m from (New Zealand), FTTH is widely available but the exact locations within houses where ONTs get installed often leaves a lot to be desired.
If you don’t want your router in one corner of your house where it only provides WiFi signal to half your rooms, you either have to have an installer who’ll tolerate your request (due to the way they’re paid for installations if you suggest something that takes more time you’ll often meet some resistance), run cables of your own from the ONT to a better location for the router, or go with better access points.
Well if you can’t use the router to connect to the fiber, they maybe you can do this :
Fiber > isp router > ethernet > custom router > devices.
This would just add a slight negligible latency increase and maybe limit the max speed to the ethernet port, but you’ll get all the benefits of the second router.
The second router having it’s DHCP network with it’s firewall.
If they allow their router to be configured as a modem maybe. Else wise you would be behind double NAT for ipv4 and double firewalled for ipv6. This would be worse than everything else.
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.
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”.
My ISP provides an ONT and wireless router. It takes some convincing, but they will put their router in bridged mode, which disables all the routing and Wi-fi stuff so you can manage your own network. If you have a VLAN capable router you can connect directly to the ONT. In those cases they will indeed not support anything more than a single Ethernet connected computer.
I’m not sure how that’s affected if you also get their home phone or cable/streaming service since that’s all delivered over the same fibre drop.
Good god no.
Getting my own modem and using my own router was the only way I could:
The box they gave me had no configuration options outside of renaming the SSID and was only able to do dual stack light. Ridiculous.
Frankly even if (4) was your only goal here, that feels like more than enough reason.
Not sure how it goes where you are, but where I’m from (New Zealand), FTTH is widely available but the exact locations within houses where ONTs get installed often leaves a lot to be desired.
If you don’t want your router in one corner of your house where it only provides WiFi signal to half your rooms, you either have to have an installer who’ll tolerate your request (due to the way they’re paid for installations if you suggest something that takes more time you’ll often meet some resistance), run cables of your own from the ONT to a better location for the router, or go with better access points.
Well if you can’t use the router to connect to the fiber, they maybe you can do this : Fiber > isp router > ethernet > custom router > devices.
This would just add a slight negligible latency increase and maybe limit the max speed to the ethernet port, but you’ll get all the benefits of the second router.
The second router having it’s DHCP network with it’s firewall.
Also double NAT
If they allow their router to be configured as a modem maybe. Else wise you would be behind double NAT for ipv4 and double firewalled for ipv6. This would be worse than everything else.
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.
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”.
My ISP provides an ONT and wireless router. It takes some convincing, but they will put their router in bridged mode, which disables all the routing and Wi-fi stuff so you can manage your own network. If you have a VLAN capable router you can connect directly to the ONT. In those cases they will indeed not support anything more than a single Ethernet connected computer.
I’m not sure how that’s affected if you also get their home phone or cable/streaming service since that’s all delivered over the same fibre drop.
You guys are lucky, my ISP’s router is not even accessible without their app (yes no local connection, just over the internet).
That’s TERRIBLE. Can you get your own modem / router at least?
Yeah, I got another router to setup a subnet at least, and disable the wireless capabilities of my ISP’s router.