7 ms·

We‘ve got a problem in germany with anything spent for by tax money. If something is done by tax money and some private company is doing the same with their own

by tpetry 7y ago

We‘ve got a problem in germany with anything spent for by tax money. If something is done by tax money and some private company is doing the same with their own money the will go to court because the other one has an unfair advantage. For example we have some tv channels being run by tax money (not absolutely correct, its a forced pay for everyone not included in taxes but its basically the same) without any ads. Any many free private channels fiddled with ad pauses. The tax ones wanted to put their movies online in a netflix style for free long before netflix but the private ones wonnin court because it would be unfair. Nowadays they are allowed to put them online but only for 30 days after airing in tv, everything else would be unfair to the real low-quality free channels...

inferiorhuman 7y ago
would be unfair to the real low-quality free channels... There are German comedy channels?
- 7177Y 7y ago
  Hey! There is nothing funny about German humour!
  - HenryBemis 7y ago
    German Humour??????? It's like saying Australian Mozzarella... it simply doesn't exist (or legally it shouldn't!) Let's keep the humour where it belongs (away from Central Europe)(sad thing is that one-by-one the Monty Pythons are leaving us)
  - chrisbennet 7y ago
    Where would we be without humor? Germany
mikorym 7y ago
If that is the argument, then I think the priority now for the DWD is to offer a cheaper and better product. I think this also means that the DWD can now be more business orientated and perhaps grow their income? I am not German, but I am trying to see whether this can be to the DWD's advantage.
- hef19898 7y ago
  Maybe. Not legal expert, but if I remember well, they public broadcasting services were sued (?) for having to many paid commercials. So I could at least imagine the DWD being attacked if they sell their app for 10 cents or so.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > DWD is to offer a cheaper and better product. How? Their product is "free", unless you count taxes. They could make it "cheaper" by keeping it free and not using taxes.
- vgaldikas 7y ago
  Well if they do it for cheaper, won't it as well open them up to the same 'unfair advantage' accusations?
- travisoneill1 7y ago
  Lets say that the government and DWD developed equivalent apps but DWD did it at half the cost. If the government app has to charge users based on its costs, then it will be twice as expensive, and lose out to the more efficient private company. But if they are just allowed to give it out to consumers for free (which a private company can't do) then it will dominate the market even though it is not the best use of resources. I assume that is the rationale for this law.
  - xenonite 7y ago
    If you meant DWD (=government) did it at double the cost, then this makes sense.
    - nybble41 7y ago
      I believe travisoneill1 was confusing the government weather service DWD with the firm filing the suit, WetterOnline.
  - mikorym 7y ago
    There is another analogy to this: Meteoblue. [1] Maybe they can similarly spin off the weather app into a company with some kind of status that retains some of its original purpose (which I guess is supplying weather information to German nationals). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteoblue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteoblue
risyachka 7y ago
I can see how this can have sense. But it doesn't.
abetusk 7y ago
But couldn't this same argument be applied to healthcare and education? Why is healthcare and education exempt but some other industry not?
- lumberjack 7y ago
  They are not. They are being slowly dismantled, but they are very popular so they have to do it slowly to not cause too much protest.
  - barneygumble742 7y ago
    This is in Germany or the U.S.?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - lumberjack 7y ago
      Western Europe, actually. Germany, UK and Netherlands in particular but I'm sure the trend is the same in other countries.
unethical_ban 7y ago
It's shit like this that gets people to go from "Capitalism needs tweaks" to "It is rotten to the core". It should be completely obvious that the government has an interest in providing weather details to its citizens as a whole for planning and safety. Private citizens and companies are not entitled to markets, especially when it comes to public knowledge and safety!

by tpetry 7y ago

inferiorhuman 7y ago

would be unfair to the real low-quality free channels... There are German comedy channels?

7177Y 7y ago
Hey! There is nothing funny about German humour!
- HenryBemis 7y ago
  German Humour??????? It's like saying Australian Mozzarella... it simply doesn't exist (or legally it shouldn't!) Let's keep the humour where it belongs (away from Central Europe)(sad thing is that one-by-one the Monty Pythons are leaving us)
- chrisbennet 7y ago
  Where would we be without humor? Germany

mikorym 7y ago

If that is the argument, then I think the priority now for the DWD is to offer a cheaper and better product. I think this also means that the DWD can now be more business orientated and perhaps grow their income? I am not German, but I am trying to see whether this can be to the DWD's advantage.

hef19898 7y ago
Maybe. Not legal expert, but if I remember well, they public broadcasting services were sued (?) for having to many paid commercials. So I could at least imagine the DWD being attacked if they sell their app for 10 cents or so.
luckylion 7y ago
> DWD is to offer a cheaper and better product. How? Their product is "free", unless you count taxes. They could make it "cheaper" by keeping it free and not using taxes.
vgaldikas 7y ago
Well if they do it for cheaper, won't it as well open them up to the same 'unfair advantage' accusations?
travisoneill1 7y ago
Lets say that the government and DWD developed equivalent apps but DWD did it at half the cost. If the government app has to charge users based on its costs, then it will be twice as expensive, and lose out to the more efficient private company. But if they are just allowed to give it out to consumers for free (which a private company can't do) then it will dominate the market even though it is not the best use of resources. I assume that is the rationale for this law.
- xenonite 7y ago
  If you meant DWD (=government) did it at double the cost, then this makes sense.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    I believe travisoneill1 was confusing the government weather service DWD with the firm filing the suit, WetterOnline.
- mikorym 7y ago
  There is another analogy to this: Meteoblue. [1] Maybe they can similarly spin off the weather app into a company with some kind of status that retains some of its original purpose (which I guess is supplying weather information to German nationals). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteoblue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteoblue

risyachka 7y ago

I can see how this can have sense. But it doesn't.

abetusk 7y ago

But couldn't this same argument be applied to healthcare and education? Why is healthcare and education exempt but some other industry not?

lumberjack 7y ago
They are not. They are being slowly dismantled, but they are very popular so they have to do it slowly to not cause too much protest.
- barneygumble742 7y ago
  This is in Germany or the U.S.?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - lumberjack 7y ago
    Western Europe, actually. Germany, UK and Netherlands in particular but I'm sure the trend is the same in other countries.

unethical_ban 7y ago

It's shit like this that gets people to go from "Capitalism needs tweaks" to "It is rotten to the core". It should be completely obvious that the government has an interest in providing weather details to its citizens as a whole for planning and safety. Private citizens and companies are not entitled to markets, especially when it comes to public knowledge and safety!