3 ms·

Registration per se is not harmful or restrictive - except that some (figuratively speaking) poor developer in Russia now has to deal with a four-page form in G

by orless 10y ago

Registration per se is not harmful or restrictive - except that some (figuratively speaking) poor developer in Russia now has to deal with a four-page form in German which isn't even really suitable for software. The problem is not the registration, the problem is that BNetzA considers software to be "telecommunication services" and thus subject to regulation. There are 152 paragraphs in the TKG (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tkg_2004/index.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tkg_2004/index.html), how much would it cost a software vendor to comply with everything? Or how much would it cost even to find out what a software vendor would have to comply with? There was a pretty good reason Google went to court over the question whether GMail is a "telecommunication service" or not (https://www.noerr.com/de/newsroom/News/gmail-ist-ein-telekommunikationsdienst-im-sinne-des-tkg.aspx https://www.noerr.com/de/newsroom/News/gmail-ist-ein-telekom...). Google lost, by the way. From the other hand, the list of "providers" includes a lot of organisations like "Antennengemeinschaft Schreiersgrün e.V" - roughly translated as "Antenna community of the village Schreiersgrün (registered society)".

FungalRaincloud 10y ago
It does seem pretty odd to consider software a telecommunication service, to me, absolutely. All the software is doing is wrapping up a message for someone else to send. It would sort of be like considering envelopes, paper and writing (when taken together) to be a mail service. Taken another way, if we think of XMPP as a telecommunication service, and require providers to register, do we also consider HTTP to be a telecommunication service, and also require registration of every public access HTTP server? Both are protocols that, at their core, pass messages. Who's going to ratify all of those forms? This feels like it would be expensive to enforce, and if the law does not explicitly name XMPP (or explicitly define the difference between a telecommunication service that it covers and one that it does not in a way that excludes such widely used things as HTTP), it should not be selectively applied to XMPP. It should either be rewritten, or applied to technologies that existed or were expected when it was drafted.

by orless 10y ago

FungalRaincloud 10y ago

It does seem pretty odd to consider software a telecommunication service, to me, absolutely. All the software is doing is wrapping up a message for someone else to send. It would sort of be like considering envelopes, paper and writing (when taken together) to be a mail service. Taken another way, if we think of XMPP as a telecommunication service, and require providers to register, do we also consider HTTP to be a telecommunication service, and also require registration of every public access HTTP server? Both are protocols that, at their core, pass messages. Who's going to ratify all of those forms? This feels like it would be expensive to enforce, and if the law does not explicitly name XMPP (or explicitly define the difference between a telecommunication service that it covers and one that it does not in a way that excludes such widely used things as HTTP), it should not be selectively applied to XMPP. It should either be rewritten, or applied to technologies that existed or were expected when it was drafted.