The price dictation is more of something similar to the WTO: roaming is pretty isomorphic to tariffs, in one sense. Technically speaking it isn't (tariffs do not represent anything other than some line, roaming is because you're actually on some other guy's network) but de facto larger carriers end up with plans to mutualise this anyways. Getting rid of tariffs is nice.

Also I don't see the link between price control and data retention. You're conflating everything under government. I'm pretty sure these two things underwent completely different processes.

You seem to be under the impression that there is a separate "evil" arm of governments that can be cut away somehow, letting you retain the good (or, rather, convenient) bits while getting rid of the bad ones.

That kind of fantasy is why we won't get rid of PRISM or the data logging directive. Government will only ever work for its own benefit, it's just that every once in a while, it's in its benefit to throw you a bone.

actually yeah, what you're talking about is something called checks and balances, where the bad is mitigated as much as possible.

Even in your situation where government works in its own benefit, these are conflicting:

- The executive wants the data logging because it makes investigations easier , so less police work

- The judicial would not want this because it would make more open and shut cases, those reducing the need for workforce there

Even here , by applying your logic, checks and balances work

That would be a wholly more convincing argument had checks and balances actually prevented the data retention directive and the NSA excesses. They didn't. Now what?