The EU becomes a worse and worse idea every year. It was good while it lasted. This will be the first year I vote for an anti-EU party locally. It pains me, but it's been enough already :/

Are they cool with you installing whatever you want on whatever you own - or are you in "cutting off the nose to spite the face" mode?

Have you read it? It would mean, for example, the end of OpenWrt.

What about the rest of recent terrible regulations and laws?

Then give feedback. The process is open for that reason. If you remove the EU from this you will have the insividual regulators ask for the same. Austria and Switzerland for instance push for this.

//edit: also even the proposed regulation would not prevent custom firmwares. You just meed to lock down the radio.

This. Article 13. Article 11. TTIP. CETA.

Stupid ideas coming out of EU are more and more frequent.

I don't want to give feedback. I want accountable and professional political representation that will not dare to come up with such ideas in the first place.

Politicians will always come up with dangerously worded good intentions every once in a while, regardless of which parliament it is — national or European. At least at the European level the number of folk that pick up on the risks of such articles is significantly higher than at the national level — especially for smaller countries.

Asking for feedback on complex legislature proposals is surely preferable to exclusively taking notes from meetings with lobby groups behind closed doors. Besides, national governments often ask for feedback on proposed laws too!

Each body that can introduce legislation represents a possible attack vector against our remaining freedom. Each additional tear of government is more distant from the voter, more difficult to oversee, communicate with and oppose.

I have to ask why should such piece of legislation exist in the first place? What problems of today does it aim to solve? What is the quantified impact of these problems that we need to adopt new regulation? I have read related documents and there is no such reasoning, just vague boilerplate.

The trade-off for delegating some of the national sovereignty to the EU is that as independent nations we cannot trade and deal with other powerful entities such as the US and China nearly as effectively. For example, a country like the Netherlands risks having trade deals dictated to them rather than negotiated as equals.

With the Brexit looming over the United Kingdom, already the effects of leaving the influence of the EU bloc behind are becoming clear, with the US attempting to dictate the terms of their post-EU trade deal.

Regulation such as this is necessary to harmonize the various national laws on this subject so manufacturers can target the single market of the EU without having to certify their gear in each member state. This is mentioned in the documents about this law as well (I've closed my browser tabs after submitting my feedback, but it's there). I'm not too well versed in this matter, but the net-benefit seems to be economic.

The EU and it democratic institutions can be vastly improved, but we are better of with them than without them — especially now.

The only way to achieve that is to regularly give feedback in areas you understand well. The representation that will not dare to come up with such ideas in the first place wont happen out of nothing.

What's your problem with CETA?

TTIP would have been a good step forward to harmonize US-EU-Japan regulations on a lot of things.

I'm not saying there were no problematic parts of trade agreements (US' strong intellectual protection and sort of lax food safety regulations are always a big worry for example).

>Austria and Switzerland for instance push for this.

This is the kind of law that's only pushed by wealthy countries like Germany or the UK. I live in a shithole which would never get a law like this. Getting rubbish like this, net neutrality, copyright reforms, etc. would never happen here on its own because we have much bigger fish to fry.

You say that but many EU countries had crazy laws on radio and telecommunications in the past.

The section in question lists different points and then says:

"The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 44 specifying which categories or classes of radio equipment are concerned by each of the requirements set out in points (a) to (i) of the first subparagraph of this paragraph."

So it says that the Commission has a way to decide which categories/classes of radios fall under e.g. point (i). This does not mean ALL radio devices would automatically be subject to the point (i).

Or am I missing something?

I am saying that you need to compare alternatives - in this case an (often authoritarian) anti-EU party.

Unless of course it violates the arbitrary, imaginary monopolies on abstract works and ideas.