>Do you want a free market or not? I don't understand how forcing companies to provide transparency data is not regulation. How is this any better in your eyes than forcing them to treat all data the same?

I explained this in my other comment so I'll just paste it here:

>I did say I'm not opposed to all regulation. Free markets only work perfectly with perfect information, so I support almost any regulation that's about making information public. I've got no problem with forcing companies to put nutrition information on all their products, for example. I'm not the one who's deciding on things solely based on whether they are regulation or not.

The reason this is better is because you're only forcing them to provide information, not change business practices.

>Not only that, but you are attempting to work around regulation by creating even more complicated regulations on top of the original.

I'm supporting making the info public, which is needed for markets to be truly free.

>When you have to jump through a tangled mess of hoops to get to a solution that has an obvious, simple answer then you are doing something wrong.

I went through some of the problems with the obvious answer above.

>The only ones who get hurt by this are telecoms.

I gave use-cases and reasons why a consumer might want it. Why are you ignoring those?