3 ms·

This is not madness. Many (if not all) EU countries have a law that regulates contracts. One principle is that the one in the weaker position in the contract sh

This is not madness. Many (if not all) EU countries have a law that regulates contracts. One principle is that the one in the weaker position in the contract should have some protections. This can be seen as an extension to such a law. It appears that consumers are in the weaker position in the contract here because major ISP can in (silent) agreement to refuse to provide a fair contracts. For example they are in such position because majority of consumers do not care.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
zerostar07 8y ago
In europe ISPs dont have monopolies. Thats legitimate - the government should interfere to make sure there are options. This doesnt make the law right though because then > they are in such position because majority of consumers do not care is like stating that users are idiots that need a nanny state.
- eveningcoffee 8y ago
  >In europe ISPs dont have monopolies. Usually no, but regardless it does not mean that they could not cooperate to create unfriendly environment without any real options. Let me give you a simple example. Let say company X and Y are providing service Z. For this service alone profit for company X is $1 per customer and $2 for company Y. If they sold the information about their customers then their profit would be $11 and $12 accordingly. Now would either of companies get any competitive advantage from not selling customer data? >is like stating that users are idiots that need a nanny state. No. These kind of laws do not care about the idiots. They care about the rest of us. We should be not forced into position where the options are the following: 1) €20, 100 Mbs, full tracking, 2) €20, 20 Mbs, no tracking. This law states that the consumers should be not forced into a position where they have to compare products by tracking. If it still did not click for you then here is an analogy. Customers should be not forced to choose between products 1) €12, totally safe, 2) €10, kills you maybe. It is not ethical.
- Fnoord 8y ago
  > In europe ISPs dont have monopolies. They do. That, or duopolies. Their *polies might be on a tighter leash, but that's about it.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

zerostar07 8y ago

In europe ISPs dont have monopolies. Thats legitimate - the government should interfere to make sure there are options. This doesnt make the law right though because then > they are in such position because majority of consumers do not care is like stating that users are idiots that need a nanny state.

eveningcoffee 8y ago
>In europe ISPs dont have monopolies. Usually no, but regardless it does not mean that they could not cooperate to create unfriendly environment without any real options. Let me give you a simple example. Let say company X and Y are providing service Z. For this service alone profit for company X is $1 per customer and $2 for company Y. If they sold the information about their customers then their profit would be $11 and $12 accordingly. Now would either of companies get any competitive advantage from not selling customer data? >is like stating that users are idiots that need a nanny state. No. These kind of laws do not care about the idiots. They care about the rest of us. We should be not forced into position where the options are the following: 1) €20, 100 Mbs, full tracking, 2) €20, 20 Mbs, no tracking. This law states that the consumers should be not forced into a position where they have to compare products by tracking. If it still did not click for you then here is an analogy. Customers should be not forced to choose between products 1) €12, totally safe, 2) €10, kills you maybe. It is not ethical.
Fnoord 8y ago
> In europe ISPs dont have monopolies. They do. That, or duopolies. Their *polies might be on a tighter leash, but that's about it.