In the same way that a consumer is exercising their right to take their car into a repair shop that is not owned by the manufacturer, a consumer should be able to develop, and implement a new operating system on their router or other devices. Given the history of open source software, and the percentage of the world that is run by linux and open source software, open source has proven themselves to be reliable and secure.
Specifically focusing on routers: they have a history of being poorly maintained by the companies which produce them, and are frequently very vulnerable. Practices such as using the same default password on all produced routers of a specific kind show a history which prioritizes sales over security. Given this, consumers need the ability to have an alternative OS provider which prioritizes security, and has a history quickly patching new vulnerabilities. (This gets worse when you consider IOT devices where the producing companies frequently go under and no longer can support or patch their devices, assuming they were one of the few IOT devices that cared about patches to begin with)
The presences of an alternative OS forces router manufactures to compete and roll out more frequent security updates, as well as new features when applicable. This offers consumers a safer and more diverse market. It also makes it easier for new competitors to enter the market if a branch of an open source OS realizes they have a solid product that delivers better than the current market.
Product manufacturers also frequently end support for devices well before their consumer base retires use of those devices, leaving many users in a position of being forced to purchase a newer more expensive model or keep their current functional model at the risk of introducing security vulnerabilities. This drives up costs on each iteration and leads consumers in a modern smart phone like problem where new phones are too expensive to migrate towards, but their current phones are not allowed to be maintained. Alternative OSs also prevent situations where a company purposefully destroys their old devices forcing users to upgrade.
In whole, this proposal may seem to have a good intent but it clearly is lead astray by closed source advocates who do not have an end consumers interest. It also seems to be poorly thought out when it comes to the implications towards common linux based alternatives, on but not limited to wifi routers.
The views and opinions expressed here are entirely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official opinion of the European Commission. The Commission cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information contained in them. Neither the Commission, nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf, may be held responsible for the content or the information posted here. Views and opinions that violate the Commission’s feedback rules will be removed from the site.