Slashdot Mirror

Well done, ACCC!

The 38-page PDF

(via Ars Technica - "Google tries anonymously fighting eBay's PayPal-only policy")

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/maintain/create/index.phtml?contentTypeItemId=9133&informationSpaceItemId=268347&inPop=1&returnUrl=.&type=Other

Link to online complaint form

Sure. Just visit their website and fill in an online complaint

I would strongly urge all OZ Ebayers to lodge a complaint online to the ACCC. I wouldn't be so worried if Paypal/Ebay didn't have carte-blanche to my accounts. But when they create a monoply like this and also increase the costs at the same time, while reducing the risk of financial security i think they really need to be taken to task and regulated just like any other financial institution's.

Lodge a complaint at (general complaints form):

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml?itemId=54217

This is what i (very hurriedly) wrote to give some an idea of what to lodge if they want to complain but aren't sure what to write:

Ebay as of 17th June 2008 is removing all forms of payment from being allowed in almost all auctions and is forcing all sellers (and buyers) to instead use their Paypal online debit/credit system. This not only creates a banking and auction house monopoly for Paypal, and by extension Ebay, it also greatly increases the costs to all sellers who then are forced to partially subsidize the payments from buyers in the new multiple fees introduced. More worryingly though is the fact that while all other forms of payment, including direct bank deposit, arguably the most popular form of fast and fee-free payment system used in Australia, will not be allowed, Paypal is not a regulated bank, and as such we are literally at the mercy of Ebay/Paypal with absolutely no guarantees of security for our accounts.
While Paypal and Ebay insist this is done to increase the safety of payments made for items purchased, there exists a long history of abuse from Paypal with regards to account freezes with no reasons provided, numerous cases of buyer fraud where items have been force ably and automatically refunded by Paypal to customers routinely claiming non-receipt of goods, debits for non-existent fees, etc. There is also virtually no form of arbitration when these events occur, with Paypal arbitrarily enforcing their will onto the consumers/sellers. Paypal also has the ability to withdraw funds from accounts and credit cards on a whim at any time, with no protection whatsoever to the consumer.

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml?itemId=815327&Go.x=9&Go.y=6 I suggest every australian does this and complains

Funnily enough, I thought the Australian government was also pretty serious about anti-competition laws.

I'm hoping for (not necessarily expecting) a massive smackdown by the ACCC.

Thank God I live in Australia where ISP's *must* describe exactly what the customer is getting for their money thanks mainly to the ACCC and TIO. We've even got a nice community built search form based on that information so you can easily compare ISP's.

It seems to me that this is anti-competitive. That's exactly the sort of thing the Australian Competetion and Consumer Commission (ACCC) should look into. The problem tends to be that the ACCC seems to be a very political organisation.

Just so you know, Sony lost the case in the first instance, but won on appeal.

Just so you know, Sony lost the case in the first instance, but won on appeal.

The major reason to hate region locking is that we are in region 4 with the Kiwis and Central & South America. A lot of stuff will be produced for region 1 or 2 but will never be 're-coded' for region 4 because "it won't sell enough." (Although some of the smarter producers in the UK make their disks 2 and 4.) Thus, Australians have to get unlocked players to be able to see it, or they can learn Spanish and Portuguese. The ACCC sees this as an unfair restriction and has supposedly taken steps to fix it.

With all of this trouble, people wonder why we just download stuff.

To answer your original question, the ACCC says this.

The major reason to hate region locking is that we are in region 4 with the Kiwis and Central & South America. A lot of stuff will be produced for region 1 or 2 but will never be 're-coded' for region 4 because "it won't sell enough." (Although some of the smarter producers in the UK make their disks 2 and 4.) Thus, Australians have to get unlocked players to be able to see it, or they can learn Spanish and Portuguese. The ACCC sees this as an unfair restriction and has supposedly taken steps to fix it.

With all of this trouble, people wonder why we just download stuff.

To answer your original question, the ACCC says this.

Australian Consumer and Competition Commission

The best method for class action law suits against false advertisers in Australia, is simply to rally enough people to complain to the ACCC http://www.accc.gov.au/ and they will sue the false advertisers for you, regardless of any legal loopholes the company lawyers try to invent and pretend are real.

They are being pursued over the matter. The claim in the linked article that the advertiser reached settlement with the regulators appears to be a fabrication. I can find no reference to back this up.

The ACCC news release found at http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/ 792088/fromItemId/2332, dated 12th July 2007, includes the advertiser as party to current proceedings.

Google greatly increases it's profit margin by not spending any where enough money upon ensuring the quality of their adds or the companies they are promoting or the products they are promoting adhere to requirements of mi minimum marketing standards.

SO they are tackling the largest and as a result most abusive of fair marketing principles, in cheap entry level marketing companies. As for the ACCC being visible in Australia, just ask the Banks, Oil Companies, Phone Companies, Internet Companies etc., they are very visible in Australia http://www.accc.gov.au/ and are not to be compared with near indivisible for profit versions in other countries.

The piece of law that they are sueing under is a thing called the Trade Practices Act 1974. Section 52 is a very broad section of that act that prohibits Misleading and Deceptive conduct.

If you read the press release on the ACCC website , they are also sueing the Trading Post, which traditionally was a paper you could buy advertising items for sale. As a guess, they are looking to clean up the online advertising business to discourage behaviour that would lead to people being mislead into buying from the wrong company.

Just a bit of background for the American readers. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is part of the Australian Federal Government. They normally deal with cases of large scale misbehaviour by companies (the smaller disputes between an individual and a company normally fall to the state fair trading body). Their resposibility is to ensure that the companies are providing their products to the customers in a reasonable way. Areas they look at include, price collusion, third line forcing, misleading and deceptive advertising (includes descriptions, prices and availability), anti-competitive behaviour, product saftety, etc.

Their normal preference is to obtain a court enforceable undertaking from the company in question, that will often include, changes in behaviour, corrective advertising and recompense to the customers affected. A good example of this is the case against Repco . In that case the results was that Repco agreed to a court enforcable undertaking to:

1. Advertise to admit they did not have enough stock for the sale in question
2. Recompense the people that complained with like goods or a gift voucher
3. Undertake a monitored program to ensure they complied with the Trade Practices act.

Note there was no financial benefit from this to the ACCC, the only recpompense went to the customers affected.

In some cases, the ACCC will take an organisation all the way through the system, and ask that the result be a fine, like in the case of Safeway, where they sucessfully fined the company $8.9 Million for price fixing, and one of the staff received a fine of $50,000. From memory all of the fines are per offence, and have provisions against the employees/officers of a company to help discourage bad behaviour. As you can see to take that kind of action takes a long time (in the Safeway case, it was 10 years because it went all the way through the court system).

The piece of law that they are sueing under is a thing called the Trade Practices Act 1974. Section 52 is a very broad section of that act that prohibits Misleading and Deceptive conduct.

If you read the press release on the ACCC website , they are also sueing the Trading Post, which traditionally was a paper you could buy advertising items for sale. As a guess, they are looking to clean up the online advertising business to discourage behaviour that would lead to people being mislead into buying from the wrong company.

Just a bit of background for the American readers. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is part of the Australian Federal Government. They normally deal with cases of large scale misbehaviour by companies (the smaller disputes between an individual and a company normally fall to the state fair trading body). Their resposibility is to ensure that the companies are providing their products to the customers in a reasonable way. Areas they look at include, price collusion, third line forcing, misleading and deceptive advertising (includes descriptions, prices and availability), anti-competitive behaviour, product saftety, etc.

Their normal preference is to obtain a court enforceable undertaking from the company in question, that will often include, changes in behaviour, corrective advertising and recompense to the customers affected. A good example of this is the case against Repco . In that case the results was that Repco agreed to a court enforcable undertaking to:

1. Advertise to admit they did not have enough stock for the sale in question
2. Recompense the people that complained with like goods or a gift voucher
3. Undertake a monitored program to ensure they complied with the Trade Practices act.

Note there was no financial benefit from this to the ACCC, the only recpompense went to the customers affected.

In some cases, the ACCC will take an organisation all the way through the system, and ask that the result be a fine, like in the case of Safeway, where they sucessfully fined the company $8.9 Million for price fixing, and one of the staff received a fine of $50,000. From memory all of the fines are per offence, and have provisions against the employees/officers of a company to help discourage bad behaviour. As you can see to take that kind of action takes a long time (in the Safeway case, it was 10 years because it went all the way through the court system).

The piece of law that they are sueing under is a thing called the Trade Practices Act 1974. Section 52 is a very broad section of that act that prohibits Misleading and Deceptive conduct.

If you read the press release on the ACCC website , they are also sueing the Trading Post, which traditionally was a paper you could buy advertising items for sale. As a guess, they are looking to clean up the online advertising business to discourage behaviour that would lead to people being mislead into buying from the wrong company.

Just a bit of background for the American readers. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is part of the Australian Federal Government. They normally deal with cases of large scale misbehaviour by companies (the smaller disputes between an individual and a company normally fall to the state fair trading body). Their resposibility is to ensure that the companies are providing their products to the customers in a reasonable way. Areas they look at include, price collusion, third line forcing, misleading and deceptive advertising (includes descriptions, prices and availability), anti-competitive behaviour, product saftety, etc.

Their normal preference is to obtain a court enforceable undertaking from the company in question, that will often include, changes in behaviour, corrective advertising and recompense to the customers affected. A good example of this is the case against Repco . In that case the results was that Repco agreed to a court enforcable undertaking to:

1. Advertise to admit they did not have enough stock for the sale in question
2. Recompense the people that complained with like goods or a gift voucher
3. Undertake a monitored program to ensure they complied with the Trade Practices act.

Note there was no financial benefit from this to the ACCC, the only recpompense went to the customers affected.

In some cases, the ACCC will take an organisation all the way through the system, and ask that the result be a fine, like in the case of Safeway, where they sucessfully fined the company $8.9 Million for price fixing, and one of the staff received a fine of $50,000. From memory all of the fines are per offence, and have provisions against the employees/officers of a company to help discourage bad behaviour. As you can see to take that kind of action takes a long time (in the Safeway case, it was 10 years because it went all the way through the court system).

I would love it if articles would link to the sites of the people involved.

See http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/ 792088/fromItemId/142

They are mainly seeking injuctions, declarations, and order. The only monetary request is for costs. You can argue that costs can be inflated, but this is still not a "fine them $x million" lawsuit that you see elsewhere in the world. The ACCC is looking for a change in behaviour from Google and, if proven right, money to cover the ACCC's expenses.

After reading that URL, I think you'll agree that the ACCC is in the wrong. But can we dispense with the "they're after the money" posts, please? The ACCC is requesting something similar to a newspaper retraction, not a fine. If someone finds information that they're seeking a fine, please post it.

Ad agencies like Google are going to have to address this. The law on this varies by country, but given that Google regulates the style, content, and format of ads, then charges for them, they're clearly not just a passive conduit. More significantly, Google acts as an ad agency when it places ads on the web sites of others. It determines where, when, and how often the ad runs. That's acting as an ad agency. Ad agencies are routinely held liable in false advertising lawsuits. Sites on which Google ads run probably qualify for a safe harbor, but Google, acting as an ad agency placing ads on the sites of others, does not.

It's not clear how much liability an Internet ad agency has for content, but failure to take basic steps to identify the advertiser running the ad looks like negligence.

Here's a summary of US false advertising federal law. "The FTC can pursue the advertiser, its agency, and their employees. It can fine, and enjoin, them. If the advertiser or agency is a subsidiary of another company, the FTC can go after the parent. The FTC can even impose liability for false advertising on a merged successor."

Similar principles prevail in Australian law. "The Commission does not necessarily expect (advertising) agencies to independently check the technical claims made about a product, but if they are complicit in an obviously misleading presentation, and fine print is used to obscure an offer's restrictions, then difficulties start to arise."

ACCC (Australian Consumer and Competition Commission http://www.accc.gov.au/ ) rules, if you have a receipt from their store that specifies not only the stores ABN (Australian Business Number), as well as other unique identifiers (Including the stores trading name and if applicable, branch) and for the most part the cashiers ID they cannot legally refuse a return or to address your problem (if they do refuse you can file a complaint with the ACCC will see to addressing it), this of course excludes anything that could have a health issue (like underwear) or a shelf life (meat, fresh food, rotten foods will get a visit from the Health Dept not the ACCC). That's why you always keep the receipt (this may be different in the US, I don't know if you have an ACCC equivilent)

If a store believes your receipt is not in earnest they can check it against their own records. Cash registers print two receipts, one gets given to you and the other is internal, for tax and record keeping, in Australia this is required by law. Each time they deal with a product the store should produce another receipt, more records for both you and the business, the receipt system is more or less a mutual arse covering system.

Over here the ACCC's bias sides with the consumer hence they have the nick name "consumer watchdog", no legit business wants to risk being dragged through the mud by the ACCC so they keep good records. This being said if you defraud the ACCC you will be going away (or fined a great deal) they protect both sides.

We don't really have an active MPIAA over here (or at least not until recently), Fortunately the ACCC is not directly tied to politics, there is a layer of abstraction and businesses will fight to keep the ACCC free of the lobbyist interest's as businesses are protected by the ACCC as well (against monopolies, scams ect...). Right now, the ACCC v MPIAA in australia the MPIAA wouldn't risk it, not yet whilst they still have no real power.

Guess in this way Australian broadband is better handled than US, the ACCC (fair trade commission for Australia) requires ISPs to advertise their plans correctly, if you get an "unlimited" plan, it absolutely HAS TO BE unlimited, in all senses of the word (no shaping, no capping, no extra charges).

Me? I prefer a nice limited access account, with more DL than I could use in a month, no locked ports and with the option of increasing the cap for that month (going over cap just shapes you, no extra charges).

If you are going to claim that Product X contains a certain amount of substance Y, then isn't it up to you to ensure that it is so? The latest spin from GSK claims that the lack of vitamin C is limited to Australasia. That it was because their testing methods were not sensitive enough to track the rate of decay of vitamin C. I call bullshit. GSK are a PHARMACEUTICAL company. Shouldn't they be tracking the *actual* amount of Vitamin C.

And further, as pointed out by a scientist, "If they're properly sealed ... the vitamin C should be fairly stable. I'm not convinced by that argument at all. Anyhow, there's use-by dates on those things. If that is really the reason, and I seriously doubt that it is, then there's something wrong with the use-by date." This is a company that manufactures drugs for fsck's sake! Surely ensuring that at least the minimal stated amount of vitamin C is present, up to the 'use by' date is a no-brainer?

It's also quite interesting that as soon as the New Zealand situation came to light, GSK voluntarily admitted to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission that's its claims about vitamin C content in Ribena may have been misleading. Was it altruism or spin-control? You be the judge.

Ribena adverts in New Zealand & Australia claim:

A. Blackcurrants contain four times more vitamin C than oranges.

B. Ribena is made from blackcurrants.

Technically, both statements are true. This from Ribena New Zealand's website

2. Manufacturer will be required to discontinue offering region free DVD players. Simple as that.

Which is interesting as, here in Australia, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (an independent government authority for fair competition & trade) ruled that DVD region encoding was anti-competitive a few years back. Since then, all DVD players sold in Australia must be either region free or be sold with instructions on how to unlock them.

They even went up against SONY about mod-chipping PS2's, saying it was an Australian's right to purchase games overseas and play them on systems here.

It's always interesting to find a government agency going up against it's own government in the courts over shit like this...

For more info:
ACCC comments re: region coding

ACCC vs SONY on PS2 modchips

2. Manufacturer will be required to discontinue offering region free DVD players. Simple as that.

Which is interesting as, here in Australia, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (an independent government authority for fair competition & trade) ruled that DVD region encoding was anti-competitive a few years back. Since then, all DVD players sold in Australia must be either region free or be sold with instructions on how to unlock them.

They even went up against SONY about mod-chipping PS2's, saying it was an Australian's right to purchase games overseas and play them on systems here.

It's always interesting to find a government agency going up against it's own government in the courts over shit like this...

For more info:
ACCC comments re: region coding

ACCC vs SONY on PS2 modchips

2. Manufacturer will be required to discontinue offering region free DVD players. Simple as that.

Which is interesting as, here in Australia, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (an independent government authority for fair competition & trade) ruled that DVD region encoding was anti-competitive a few years back. Since then, all DVD players sold in Australia must be either region free or be sold with instructions on how to unlock them.

They even went up against SONY about mod-chipping PS2's, saying it was an Australian's right to purchase games overseas and play them on systems here.

It's always interesting to find a government agency going up against it's own government in the courts over shit like this...

For more info:
ACCC comments re: region coding

ACCC vs SONY on PS2 modchips

IANAL but restrictive trade practices like this are generally illegal in Australia. It will be interesting to see if eBay tries it on here.

"A significant body of evidence alleged instances of predatory pricing, where it was said that the major chains were prepared to lose money indefinitely in certain stores to wipe out the competition. The evidence was consistent and widespread...
The Committee believes that the evidence clearly reveals a need to address the issue of predatory pricing, with a recommendation that the ACCC be given wider powers to bring representative actions, and to seek damages on behalf of third parties under Part IV of the Trade Practices Act."

It's Interesting to note that Region encoding's higest success rate is in region 1. In Australia, which is Region 4 (can't speak for regions 3 and 2 from personal experiences, 'cause I don't have any) it is ridiculously simple to get away from regional encoding, because DVD player makers arew not going to have 4 seperate models, so the regional lock is just a software thing, and most Sales Assistants will unlock it for you.

Region encoding is just to divide the market, and the only market that is divided off effectivly is the US. I remember being part of a mailing list that got excited when the first season of Buffy was released in the US on DVD, 2 years after we got them. But I guess the syndication aspect needs it's profit's preserved. I believe that the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) are investigating the practice and may (or may not, depends on insdury lobbying I guess) bring charges. here is an older article about the practice

Just thought I would add this, for all who care to know

That's all well and good, but you know as well as I do that the ACCC couldn't shut down a loud party in a park.

The 'ACCC', for those not ofay with the name, is the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Officially, they're the "Australian government organisation responsible for ensuring compliance with the Trade Practices Act". Practically, they're an utterly toothless tiger that, well, pretty much just lays around and does nothing really.

Under the former head, Professor Fels, the ACCC took a pretty proactive role, and bounced around banging heads (where deserved) with gusto. Nowadays, it's toothless.

Right now in Australia, for example, we're being utterly rorted by the oil companies. They've somehow managed to set up a situation where a bunch of issues (some real, some just 'excuses') are whereby the price of petrol (gas?) at the pump is skyrocketing, and the oil companies are actually turning a couple of million dollars a day, per company, extra profit. This isn't passing on of costs from higher worldwide oil prices, this is actual rorting. The whole country is screaming out for the government and the ACCC to act by way of investigation and regulation as appropriate. The ACCC is just lying there "oh, er, this really isn't something we can involve ourselves in". FFS, this is the whole reason that the ACCC exists!!!

So yeah, end rant, back on topic... the ACCC has the power to act in a situation over misuse of the Linux name as you describe, but they will not ever actually get off their arses and do something!

This won't work and your government knows that.

I take your points, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. We have a Competition and Consumer Commission, which while not perfect, will be all over the split Telstra, not to mention an increasing number of smaller ISPs and telcos who will scream blue murder if any such thing takes place. A large number of people in the local industry have been chasing this result for years.

It wouldn't be beyond this government to try a sly act like you suggest, but Australia is a different environment.

okay, this is my last post.

i can't convice you that oil companies are collaborating because it is only in their best interest and there is nothing to stop them. oh well. guess i'll just give up....

all hail the oil industry, a model of efficiency proficiency, and incorruptability that will never be topped in the history of the world...

pysche.

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/ 596718/fromItemId/2332

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/jan-june00/ oil_2-17.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.382 2.RFS:

http://economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story _id=1602123

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI D=/20050804/EDIT/508040321/1003

oh, and those links work.
unlike this one...
http://articles.roshd.ir/articles_folder/mohandesi Science/mechanic/HowstuffWorksHowGasPricesWork.htm

and they're legit, whats roshd.ir? (i can't read arabic.)

and, this final link...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2908133.stm

you wanted evidence?

well, i don't think you'll be convinced. so i can't change your mind, you can't change mind. and we both wasted time typing meaningless shit on some nerd website. good debate, but not a big fuckin' deal.

In Australia, the ACCC* has ruled that it is perfectly legal to import those cheaper CDs and sell them for whatever you want to sell them for. Similarly, they have ruled that cracking the DVD regioning system is the consumer's right. Nice bunch of people they are, standing up the the corporates.

I just can't wait for the iTMS to open in Australia... I'll even go out and buy an iPod then.

* Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

eBay are only being ordered to enforce those WHO ARE registered for the GST to include it in the final sale price. If you are not registered for the GST (or if you're selling a personal item), these changes do not apply to you.

Despite being technically accurate owing to a couple of where applicables, their announcement was bound to cause confusion--ABC News Online also got it wrong in their initial report. Failure to foresee this confusion is one thing, but particularly annoying is that they sent out a clarification e-mail just a few days later in which they could have made clear the distinction between small individual sellers and businesses registered for the GST. Instead, the clarification was simply to correct the date that the policy would come into effect.

Anyway, I'm all for the GST policy, but I wonder if the ACCC (or whoever has the power) would also be interested in cracking down on eBay's policy against surcharges for credit card payments. Merchant service providers used to force businesses to agree not to pass on the real cost of credit cards to their customers in the form of a surcharge, but this was disallowed in Australia a few years ago. It seems eBay is an exception to this rule and can force all sellers to hide the fact that some forms of payment (e.g. PayPal) cost more to accept. This suits eBay as they try to steer everyone toward PayPal, but prevents sellers and buyers from properly factoring in the cost-efficiency of different payment methods when choosing which one to use for their transaction.

That's why I love the Australian system... we have the ACCC :)

ACCC website: http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/ 288585/fromItemId/340639

Has some nice info on MIPI (including phone number) in case anyone wants to give them a call :)

What's fair about that? Why the hell should I have to pay a 3% "Visa Tax" for everything I buy if I pay cash? Why should I be forced by a couple of large organizations (Visa, Mastercard, etc) to buy their services bundled with every purchase I make, regardless of whether I use them? Cash discounts should be the norm, and frankly I think the agreement banning passing that cost on should be considered an illegal abuse of a monopoly position.

Under the Act the consumer is entitled to expect to enjoy quiet possession of the goods and to own the goods outright, subject to lawful restrictions made known to the consumer before purchase.
As a consumer, goods that you purchase must:
* be of merchantable quality--goods have to meet a basic level of quality and performance given the price and description of the goods
* be fit for the purpose--goods must do the job you made clear to the supplier you wanted them to do or that are implied from the circumstances in which you purchased the goods
* match the description or sample given to you before purchase, whether through a catalogue, labelling, packaging, on a website or in person.

Remedy or appropriate action

If you believe that one of these conditions or warranties has not been met, you have a choice of possible actions that may be available depending on the circumstances. If you find you have a problem with goods or services, you should stop using the goods and approach the seller or the service provider as soon as possible to explain the fault or problem. You can also explain your preferred remedy to the situation or problem, taking into account that the Act is not designed to protect consumers who are careless or unreasonable in their demands.

You may want to ask the service provider to repeat the service, or pay for the service to be repeated. You may want to ask that the goods be repaired or replaced or pursue a refund. Sellers are not required to provide you with a refund if you have simply changed your mind or you find a similar or the same item more cheaply elsewhere.

"Deals with all piracy matters regarding the Music Industry. Part of ARIA (Australian Recording Industry Association)."

I really wish it was required that they put the price I have to pay when I get to the counter on the price tag (I know CompUSA is notorious for this, not sure about Best Buy).

Are you serious? Here in AU, a price tag is an offer to sell, and is legally binding. If the price tag does not have "after rebate" or any other condition written on it, then that's the price you pay.

The ACCC jumps on misleading and deceptive advertising quite enthusiastically.

Take Australia, where Telstra is the monopoly supplier. They were charter bound to provide Telecommunications to outback [rural and remote] farming communities. Now that Telstra is being privatised, part of the legal restraints is a continuation of the same services. The government and the opinion forming people [voters at large] find it easier to think of this long standing monopoly as being reponsible for this service provision.

I see a lot of talk here on slashdot on the burden of providing 911 [000 in Oz, 999 in UK] access on VOIP. How would these startups feel about having to provide physical remote farm access 10000 KM away from the nearest city?

Part of the sweetener for carrying this loss making enterprise is a bit of fat on the other more lucrative sections.

2) When we put in fibre at a previous work, part of the road had to be torn up to lay it.

This inconvenienced motorists and the public. Sub-letting/dividing existing monopoly resource makes sense in this context. Fair access to this resource is a separate battlefield, along the same lines as this argument

Corporations don't care about the consumer. They never have, and they likely never will. Corporations care about the consumer's money. As long as they can provide the bare minimum required to keep the money flowing into their coffers, that's all they'll do.

wtf? For a start, there are one million connections to broadband internet in Australia. Not "one million people have access", "one million households are already connected". Here are the details.

You might live in the sticks, but everyone I know has broadband. I'm getting 1.5Mb/256Kb ADSL for $A60 (~$US41) per month. Maybe not Sweden quality, but it's good stuff, and it has rapidly been getting better and cheaper.

These pioneers exist on the forefront of legal boundaries. A few years ago there was debate about whether foreign countries selling goods over the internet were bound by laws at the point of purchase or the location of the vendor.

VOIP have the same problem of uncertain legal comeback. What happens if you're making a call to/through China, and Beijing wants to have a listen? A major international dispute could erupt, and these companies don't want to be caught in the middle. These laws haven't even solidied in any one country, let alone across borders

It's not that they want to be Big Brother, it's just if Uncle Sam comes asking, they've let you know that they could hand over the information.

If a Vonage conversation trapped a paedophile who was grooming children, that's a pretty darn good argument for handing over the evidence. Maybe [the tapping] not legal in some countries, but what about others?

People who know how to construct tin foil hats should use encryption, plain and simple.

ACCC online complaint form here!

The good is that we have the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).

If SCO calls you, give them the finger and then report them to the ACCC. The Perth company, CyberKnights, lodged a complaint earlier on this month.

If SCO keeps going with trying to get UNIX licenses in Australia they should be prepared to face the ACCC.

I don't know about the law where you live, but in Australia, we can return goods for one of three reasons: the product is defective, doesn't match a sample shown before purchase, or doesn't suit the purpose for which it was reasonably purchased. It could certainly be argued that you purchased a CD reasonably thinking you could extract an exact, digital copy of the audio using your PC; this would be especially true if you mentioned to the sales person that this is what you wanted to do. See http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/ 3863 for more information.

No big deal, here, so far. I'm sure anyone with common sense feels the same way about SCO's ramblings, and as such there's nothing "special" about my statement.

However, I, for one, welcome any invoice(s) SCO might send me (after deobfuscating my email address, of course). Threats of legal action, if they deem it necessary, are fine, not that they'd do that, now, would they?

I expect exactly as much response from me posting this email address here as I managed to get from them when I asked them what the story was with licensing in AU -- in the context of the Australian Trade Practices Act; absolutely none. Even if SCO were technically clued enough to browse Slashdot, they haven't the balls to actually, you know, try their claims on here in Australia. For a start, I'm sure they know how our competition watchdog feels about misrepresentation -- or, indeed, "accidental" misrepresentation...

Come on, SCO, I'd love to be able to fax a copy of any invoice to the ACCC. They'd love to hear from me, too, I'm sure.