ButtUgly: Main_blogentry_290804

The saga continues (and hopefully ends here)

I wrote recently on a company which sends advertisements disguised as bills. I sent an email to the Finnish Consumer Ombudsman, and finally received a reply.

The official response says that the company "has agreed to stop such advertising, and is also closing down their web page. Closing of the web page has been influenced by a disagreement between the company and their ISP". So, perhaps the ISP should've sent their bill disguised as an advertisement *grin*.

I have to say that I found it quite pleasurable to talk to the Consumer Agency. If only they would respond faster to the initial email: "Yeah, we have received your mail, and are processing it." Now there was no indication that they actually had received the mail, which was kinda annoying. But all in all, I like the fact that we are moving towards a state where we can talk to the government agencies and bureucracies using email and other electronic ways of communication.

But is it always good? Before, you needed to talk to a faceless bureucrat in some gray building deep in the city center, but at least it was personal. These days, you send an email, and you have no idea who responded, as personalities are hidden behind catch-all email addresses or switchboard numbers.

However, it's not an "or" question. We can still choose to go and meet the bureucrats in person, if we choose to. And probably get a better service than before, because they now have less people coming to meet them. That's what the Internet gives us - more choices to pick from. That's why it's good, I think.