It's noble and all, but I think that the same decision would be made even if only business aspects were taken into account. Imagine being "that one ISP where you cannot download movies". They would probably loose many current and potential customers by having that stamp, even among customers that do not illegally download any movies at all.

I'm Swedish myself and I have Bahnhof as my ISP. They are a company which builds much of their image on issues such as integrity and privacy, and that image is what got me to choose them over other options which were slightly(!) more expensive. So, all the sudden you have a company that gets a lot of appreciation from the public, and it's not like they are spending more money on their infrastructure just because they do everything they can to avoid tapping their customers' traffic.

This seems like a no-brainer decision, which is why I find it hard to understand why it's not like this everywhere.

> They would probably loose many current and potential customers by having that stamp, even among customers that do not illegally download any movies at all.

I think you are grossly overestimating the amount of thought the general public puts into which ISP it uses (when it has a choice).

It was Internode that put up the fight initially. They were then bought by iiNet, who was then purchased by TPG. One great company was subsumed into a pretty-good one, which was then taken over by a mediocre-to-poor one.

You should read about Bahnhof. They are true Champions.

They refused to give out traffic logs. When this was overruled, they gave their customers free VPN and encouraged them to use it.

Bredbandsbolaget are not that awewsome. They often try to raise their fees without the customers knowing.

Most ISPs in Sweden would react this way, but if you want one ISP to rule them all, that would be Bahnhof.