[proofread] [EN] Router Freedom in Italy
"Richard L. Schmeidler" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.fsf.europe.translators |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAKbK2awGtMUFk0CNBMo94RYciVsvxcdk95WGy1C11a3O3rzX1A@mail.gmail.com> |
I have proofread this news item. I am attaching a version of the xhtml from your webpreview that reflects my suggestions for improvements. 1. "Italy was one of the first countries in Europe to implement specific rules supporting Router Freedom in 2018." I suggest rewriting as "In 2018, Italy was one of the first countries in Europe to implement specific rules supporting Router Freedom." My version says that Italy's action in 2018 was one of the first such actions in Europe. In the version as it now stands, a much weaker and much less interesting assertion is made: Of the countries that acted in 2018, Italy was one of the first. 2. "However, since then, the national regulator AGCOM has introduced a series of exceptions" Insert commas before and after "AGCOM." This suggestion assumes that AGCM is the only such authority in Italy. If there is more than one, the commas should still be inserted, but "the" should be replaced by "a." (And in this case, the commas should also be removed from the corresponding assertion in the header paragraph of this news item.) See https://wiki.fsfe.org/TechDocs/Mainpage/Translations/Styleguide , English Rules #6. [I know that my suggestions for a variety of rewritings in different cases look inconsistent, but I have tried to suggest the best English usage for each case. As always, I will be delighted to try to explain my reasonings about English usage -- or anything else -- to anyone who asks me to do so.] 3. "In 2020, BEREC has set standardized requirements for national regulators to evaluate Router Freedom." I suggest removing "has." English usage. 4. "In contrast, the Netherlands and Belgium committed Router Freedom for all type of networks, following the evaluation criteria proposed by BEREC." Insert "to" after "committed." English usage. 5. "In 2022, Router Freedom faced another setback in Italy during an antitrust case ruled by the Italian competition authority AGCM." (a) Insert "upon" (or "on") after "ruled." English usage. (b) Insert a comma after "authority." This suggestion assumes that AGCM is the only such authority in Italy regulating telecoms. Otherwise, no change need be made here. See my #2, above. 6. "Nevertheless, in 2023, the Italian telecom authorityhomologated this antitrust agreement, reducing the certification costs." Insert a space between "authority" and "homologated." 7. "requesting ISPs in the country to make the network interoperable with any router that complies with EU device regulations" I cannot read the decision cited. I am therefore not making any suggestion for a change to this news item in this respect. However, it seems strange that the Dutch regulator would "request" that the Dutch ISPs refrain from these restrictions. I would think that the regulator would require this. 8. "We claimed that the Italian regulator should apply the BEREC Guidelines on the NTP to decide on this matter." I suggest replacing "claimed" with "argue." (a) It is not incorrect to say "claimed." But although I have not seen the study, it seems likely that "argued" would be a more appropriate verb than "claimed." (b) If this study is recent and the FSFE has not changed its position, it would be even better to replace "claimed" with "claim" or "argued" with "argue." 9. Countries like Belgian and the Dutch authorities followed this procedures and have not find any technological necessity to limit Router Freedom on their respective countries. (a) I suggest replacing "Countries like Belgian and the Dutch" with "The Belgian and Dutch regulation." This sentence should either address the actions of the countries or of the countries' regulation authorities. My preference is the latter. If you prefer that this sentence address what the countries have done, different rewritings of this sentence than what I am suggesting will be necessary in some places. (b) I suggest inserting "have" before "followed." This is not obligatory, but it better reports that the regulators' behavior is continuing. English usage. (c) I suggest replacing "this procedures" with "the BEREC procedure." (In any event, the mismatch of singular and plural between "this" and "procedures" should be corrected.) (d) Replace "find" with "found." (e) Replace "on" with "in." On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 10:28 AM Ana Galan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear all, > > we want to publish tomorrow the following: > https://webpreview.fsfe.org/cgi/fsfe.pl?pad=1286 > > Dario is translating the report (that we need to link tomorrow) so if > any of you have time to translate it into Italian would be great . > > Best, > > Ana > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > Translators mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All > participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: > https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct -- "The problem with quotes on the internet is that it is difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine." -- Abraham Lincoln _______________________________________________ Translators mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
pad1286.en_1.xhtml
(text/html, 6.1 KB)
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <html newsdate="2024-10-16"> <version>1</version> <head> <title>Exceptions against Router Freedom undermine users’ rights in Italy</title> </head> <body> <h1>Exceptions against Router Freedom undermine users’ rights in Italy</h1> <p>In 2018 Italy implemented Router Freedom. However regulatory decisions in 2019 and 2023 introduced exceptions for fiber networks. The Free Software Foundation Europe has now urged Italy’s telecom regulator, AGCOM, to remove these restrictions and fully restore users' rights to choose their own equipment to connect to fiber networks.</p> <figure> <img src="https://pics.fsfe.org/uploads/big/d77d9c6c1dd67bde4691263433e0448a.png" alt=" "/> </figure> <p>In 2018, Italy was one of the first countries in Europe to implement <a href="https://www.agcom.it/provvedimenti/delibera-348-18-cons">specific rules supporting Router Freedom</a>. However, since then, the national regulator AGCOM has introduced a series of exceptions undermining <a href="/activities/routers/routers.html">Router Freedom rights</a>, negatively impacting the rights of consumers to use their own equipment to connect to fiber networks. The FSFE has [prepared a study on why Router Freedom should be respected in Italy](link TBD), urging AGCOM to reconsider its decision based on European standardized requirements for Router Freedom.</p> <h3>Regulatory exceptions and certification procedures against Router Freedom</h3> <p>In 2019, Italian telecom operators pushed for an exception against Router Freedom in fiber networks, <a href="https://www.agcom.it/provvedimenti/comunicazione-2-luglio-2019.">which AGCOM confirmed</a>. This exception significantly limited the ability of consumers to use their own modems to connect directly to the fiber network. AGCOM’s decision allowed internet service providers (ISPs) to impose the use of optical network terminals (ONTs), with the exception of personal routers on bridge mode. In 2020, BEREC set <a href="/news/2020/news-20200601-01.html">standardized requirements for national regulators</a> to evaluate Router Freedom. However, the Italian regulator has not re-assessed its decision. In contrast, <a href="/news/2021/news-20210805-01.html">the Netherlands</a> and <a href="/news/2023/news-20231113-02.html">Belgium</a> committed to Router Freedom for all type of networks, following the evaluation criteria proposed by BEREC.</p> <p>In 2022, Router Freedom faced another setback in Italy during <a href="https://www.agcm.it/dotcmsdoc/bollettini/2022/7-22.pdf">an antitrust case ruled upon by the Italian competition authority, AGCM</a>. The largest telecom operator in the country, TIM, was requested to allow terminal equipment from other ISPs in its fiber network. While this commitment would have the potential to establish Router Freedom in the country, TIM proposed a certification procedure for any device seeking to be connected to the operator’s network. However, the costs involved in the certification procedures were prohibitive (around 100.000 euros), and TIM required that the device should be certified again after every software update. Nevertheless, in 2023, the Italian telecom authority<a href="https://www.agcom.it/provvedimenti/delibera-11-23-cir"> homologated this antitrust agreement</a>, reducing the certification costs. These certification schemes are contrary to net neutrality and open internet, because they create barriers for end-users to use the equipment of their choice. As example, <a href="https://www.acm.nl/system/files/documents/beleidsregel-handhaving-besluit-eindapparaten.pdf">the Dutch regulator ACM decided in 2021 against any kind of obligatory certification procedures or device black-list</a> against router manufacturers, requesting ISPs in the country to make the network interoperable with any router that complies with EU device regulations.</p> <h3>Router Freedom matters – also for Italy</h3> <p>The FSFE has prepared a [study explaining why it is necessary for AGCOM to re-evaluate its position in respect to freedom of terminal equipment]. We argue that the Italian regulator should apply the BEREC Guidelines on the NTP to decide on this matter. The Belgian and Dutch regulation authorities have followed the BEREC procedure and have not found any technological necessity to limit Router Freedom in their respective countries. The study concludes that allowing end-users to choose and use their own terminal equipment supports their best interests regarding privacy, data protection and security. Freedom of terminal equipment is also key for fair competition, market innovation, technical interoperability and digital sustainability.</p> <h3>Further material</h3> <ul> <li>The FSFE’s request to AGCOM regarding Router Freedom in fiber networks [EN] [IT]</li> </ul> <h2>Router Freedom needs your support!</h2> <p><a href="/activities/routers/index.html">Router Freedom</a> is the right that customers of any Internet Service Provider (ISP) are able to choose and use a private modem and router instead of equipment provided by the operator. Since 2013, the Free Software Foundation Europe has been successfully engaged with Router Freedom, promoting end-users’ freedom in many European countries. Join us and learn more about the <a href="/news/2021/news-20210330-01.html">several ways to get involved</a>. Please consider <a href="https://my.fsfe.org/donate">becoming a FSFE donor</a>; you help make possible our long-term engagement and professional commitment in defending people’s rights to control technology.</p> </body> <tags> <tag key="news">News Item</tag> <tag key="deviceneutrality">Device Neutrality</tag> <tag key="routers">Router Freedom</tag> <tag key="it">Italy</tag> <tag key="front-page"/> <tag key="highlights">highlights</tag> </tags> <discussion href=""/> <image url="https://pics.fsfe.org/uploads/big/d77d9c6c1dd67bde4691263433e0448a.png" alt=" Illustration explaining why Router Freedom is important. It has four bubbles explaining the importance of upgrading your router, avoiding router monopoly,securing your connection, and choosing your own router"/> </html>