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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
