Digital Networks Act: the FSFE calls for strong and consistent protection of Router Freedom
For more than a decade, the Free Software Foundation Europe has worked to protect Router Freedom in Europe. The European Union is about to reform the telecom sector with the proposed Digital Networks Act. We call for a clear and harmonised approach that upholds this freedom across all Member States.
Router Freedom is the right of users to choose and operate their own routers, modems, and other equipment used for internet connection. It is important for user autonomy, competition, and privacy as it would enable users to run Free Software operating systems on their routers and modems of choice. Router Freedom is understood in a broader context as a crucial element of Device Neutrality, and it requires that network operators must allow end-users to run Free Software on their devices.
For over ten years, the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) has been successfully advocating for this freedom across Europe with successes in Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Greece, and Belgium, respectively.
The proposed Digital Networks Act (DNA) aims to reform the telecommunications sector in the European Union (EU). In the previous iteration (2018-2020) of regulation of routers, the EU introduced several technical rules that fragmented the implementation of Router Freedom by allowing national regulators to exclude this right from determined network topologies when “objective necessities” were in place. Unfortunately, many member states used this opportunity to exclude Router Freedom from fibre networks. Now, the DNA presents an opportunity to close this fragmentation gap by securing Router Freedom in a consistent and effective manner across the European Union.
Fragmented regulatory framework
Router Freedom is formally recognised in EU law; however, the practical implementation depends largely on how the Network Termination Point (NTP) is defined. The NTP marks the boundary between the provider’s network and the user’s terminal equipment. If this point is defined, for example, behind a provider-supplied router, users are effectively prevented from using their own devices, even if Router Freedom is nominally guaranteed. For Router Freedom, ensuring that the NTP is clearly defined at the appropriate access point is therefore essential.
Only the designation of the NTP at the passive physical point where the public network connects to the end-user's premises guarantees Router Freedom for all European users.
Although BEREC, the European telecom regulatory body, issued guidelines setting Router Freedom as the default for all network topologies, it allowed national authorities to set exclusions. Recent examples illustrate this fragmentation. In Austria, regulatory decisions have weakened Router Freedom by allowing interpretations of the NTP that restrict users’ ability to replace provider-supplied routers. In Italy, the regulatory framework has shifted back and forth over time, creating uncertainty and instability for users, manufacturers, and internet service providers (ISPs). These divergent approaches show that non-binding guidance alone has not been sufficient to ensure consistent protection of Router Freedom across the EU.
You should control your router, not the ISP
This fragmentation of rules across member states has led to limited oversight on how ISPs treat customers who use their own equipment for internet connection. In the most comprehensive study the FSFE has conducted to date, the following issues were identified:
- Limitations to freedom of choice. Some ISPs restrict end-users from connecting their routers and modems to the public network. This is observed more intensively in countries where the position of the NTP is not regulated in a configuration favourable to end-users.
- ISP’s lock-in. Some ISPs impose other restrictions that increase switching costs by end-users, like charging for provided equipment and imposition of fines when end-users use their own equipment. Lock-in is significantly more notable on fibre networks and in countries where Router Freedom is not established by legislation.
- Provision of proprietary devices. The routers, modems and optical fibre devices provided by ISPs are generally proprietary. End-users cannot inspect their firmware or install an alternative operating system. This is especially problematic with fibre connections, since many contracts prohibit end-users to change the optical equipment imposed by ISPs.
Security issues. The lack of Router Freedom generates negative consequences for network security. Some ISPs do not provide security updates for their devices. When end-users cannot manage their own routers, they become more exposed to security flaws.
- Unlawful commercial and technical practices. Even where Router Freedom has been established by legislation, ISPs can still hamper end-users’ ability to choose and use their own routers and modems. Some ISPs make it cumbersome to replace the ISP's equipment, take a long time to provide login data or other access credentials, fail to offer technical support for the network, or threaten end-users who use personal routers with contract termination or fines.
This situation undermines not only user rights, but also the internal market of the EU. If you pay the electricity to power your router, it should be as much under your control as your own coffee machine or laptop, not something dictated by your internet provider. Different national rules on where the network ends and the user’s equipment begins create barriers for device manufacturers, complicate cross-border offerings, and erode trust in EU-level protections.
What FSFE calls for in the DNA: Router Freedom should be secured at the EU level!
The position of the FSFE is that the Digital Networks Act (DNA) must move beyond fragmented national rules and establish a clear, operational framework ensuring effective and uniform protection of Router Freedom. This requires setting a harmonised default across the EU that properly reflects the interests of end-users and consumers. Any deviation due to network topology should remain the exception, not the rule, and must be transparently justified.
Several regulators have already supported this approach. Germany’s national authority has rejected many of the arguments raised by internet service providers against Router Freedom, confirming users’ right to choose their own terminal equipment in fibre networks as well. Similarly, in 2023, Belgium formally introduced Router Freedom covering all network types, including fibre. Finland implemented Router Freedom as early as 2014 and reaffirmed its commitment in 2021. In the same year, the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets published rules confirming Router Freedom for consumers in the Netherlands.
In order to protect Router Freedom and make sure that a harmonised approach across the EU is implemented, amendments in Recital 14, Article 69, and Article 125 of the proposed text are necessary. The changes are needed to consolidate the identification of the NTP at the passive physical point of the network, by default.
"With the upcoming legislative discussions on the Digital Networks Act, we call on EU policymakers to establish Router Freedom as a clear and enforceable principle across the Union, guaranteeing all European consumers the right to use their own terminal equipment, no matter the network topology, and putting a definitive end to regulatory fragmentation", states Lucas Lasota, FSFE's Legal Programme Manager
Today, we have submitted our position on Router Freedom to the European Commission’s consultation on the Digital Networks Act. You can read it here.
Support FSFE’s work on Router Freedom
The engagement of the FSFE in European and national policy processes requires sustained effort, including participation in meetings, consultations, and in-person discussions with policymakers and regulators across Europe. If you value Router Freedom and want to support our work, please make a donation. Your contributions help cover essential costs such as travel and coordination, enabling the FSFE to continue advocating effectively for users’ rights in the Digital Networks Act and beyond.