|
|
|
|
|
by svv
5659 days ago
|
|
6 - To paraphrase "ISPs should be free to put whatever they want in their contracts". The reality is that 'freedom of contract' is not fair when there is a huge difference in bargaining power, the markets can't sort it out for the reasons discussed above, and government intervention is appropriate. Even if there actually is a huge difference in bargaining power, it does not follow that government intervention is appropriate. Existence of some sort of "unfairness" in the market does not mean (1) that restricting people from entering such contracts is moral and (2) that government intervention will result in a better outcome. 7 - To paraphrase, "Network operators own their equipment and should be able to do what they like with it". That is like saying gun owners should be able to do what they like with their gun, even shoot people. [...] Not it is not. Shooting (innocent) people infringes on their rights. "Exploiting a market position", even if one believes it to be a reasonable issue, does not. The analogy does not apply at all. The point here is that network operators to not have the obligation to use their own property to provide services to anyone, in the first place. There's nothing wrong if they decide to start offering those services for a ridiculously high price -- it's much better than no service at all. And there's nothing wrong if they also decide to offer bandwidth discounts to certain web sites. |
|