At the meeting on fosdem, people proposed writing a manifest. Though I (gnrp) have been suspicious about that, I now think it might be a good idea.
If, some day, there is an international organisation, or label, or whatever to gather DIYISPs, this should be the manifest to explain the goals of it. Thus, there is no reason to repeat things an ISP does not directly care for – this is what other NGOs are for and where you should rather support them directly.
Note that this is not directly DIYISP. There are several ISPs which would not adhere to this manifest, and this is intended. There is no need to force a manifest on everyone who wants to say he's doing a DIYISP.
In contrast to the Ethics page, this manifest should be something other ISPs can sign, not something which describes our background and goals. With something signed, it is easier to work together and to have a central list where the ISPs adhering to these values, where you can go and ask for help if you need a project.
Or, different: DIYISP should be a resource (legally and technically) for everyone to find information about how to create your own ISP. Naturally, it does not have any political restrictions upon its editors. This manifest, in turn, should found a formation of ISPs sharing the same goals. They can try to maintain the DIYISP wiki as one of their goals. But from a wiki alone, there will be few to no cooperation.
This manifest is obviously not indended for:
You should also note that the points stated here are the ideal situation. There are certain points where the ISP will not be able to fulfill them because of
This manifest is intended for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) which want to adhere to moral standards not declared nor realistically declarable by democratic law.
It shall settle basic rules any user of the ISP signing the manifest can rely on to always have fulfilled if he is a member or customer of this ISP.
There are numerous cases where a user of services is “paying” with his data. Where data is explicitly sold or the private data of a user is analysed to be used to to get more money out of him.
A user must be able to rely on its data being secure, not being used against him or for the purpose of increasing somebody else's income or situation.
Thus, the ISP, if not legally forced to do so, will never use any of the data stored by or about its users for any other purpose than
The ISP will not hand out data to third parties when not being legally forced or having to do so to provide its services.
In times where there are billions of Internet users, specific information about a user is not as interesting anymore as it has been. What is more important is the user's social interactions, since they can be statistically analysed and provide information the user maybe doesn't even know about himself.
Logs long reaching back are a security risk in case somebody else gets access to them. The ISP will do as best as he can to minimize the data being saved and to not store it longer than necessary.
If there is data retention by law, the ISP will make sure to not store the data longer than required or to store more data than required..
The access speeds of consumer connections has grown up to a point where the quality of services can be distinguished by the speed they are delivered with. “Real-time” applications like watching a video or listening to audio streams are heavily depending on a fast delivery, otherwise they are not considered usable. Larger providers tried to exploit this and try to sell their own services with a faster speed and artificially limiting the access to others. Since this can lead to a blurred view of the world, with slow services along with the information they contain not being used anymore, we refuse this concept.
The ISP will not artificially limit the bandwidth of a user he provides access to if this is not part of the contract between the ISP and the user.
The ISP will do as best as he can to provide its users equal and fast access to the whole Internet.
Censorship restrains information, no matter if the censor think it is right to do so. A provider should be a neutral instance, only providing access to the Internet, but not judging its content.
The ISP will not participate in engagements aiming at the restriction of Internet access in any kind. The ISP will not restrict Internet access in any way. If legally forced to implement filtering, it will do not more than required.
The Internet has become colorful and easy to use, so everyone can participate. On the other hand, the Internet has become a place where everybody is already comfortable. Its users are mostly only consuming contents, without knowing the technical background. But this is dangerous, since people are not able anymore to control the infrastructure they use. If, for whatever reason, the Internet access, or a specific service, would shut down, only few, if any at all, people would be able to repair that.
The ISP has the goal to spread knowledge about the Internet and its usage, to help users becoming more than a consumer. The ISP wants its users to be able to also create services, instead of only using them.
Everything claimed by an organisation is only relevant if it is able to actually fulfil these claims. But it is difficult to guarantee if you are depending on something or somebody else.
Thus, the ISP wants to be autonomous. The ISP does as best as he can to run services by itself, ensuring full control over services offered to its users.
In order to allow the spread of knowledge, you have to pass it. Thus, the ISP is open to everyone. The ISP invites its members to help maintain the services.
Advertising is everywhere. Advertising is annoying. We don't want to live in a world where every single mail you write, every post you leave somewhere is used to advertise something.
Thus, the ISP advertising-free: There is no advertising ever on the services the ISP provides. The ISP might send out newsletters or choose its own forms of advertising, but the services without advertising.