Slashdot Mirror

Yeah, this basically means that they're now working like every other retail business in existence.

Well not really. It means that they're working like every shady retail business in existence. In most countries this is illegal to do. It doesn't matter if it's pennies or thousands of dollars difference. Hiking the price before a sale, at least here in Canada falls afoul of federal consumer protection laws and provincial consumer protection laws in every province and territory. If you live in Canada, you should file a complaint. You can do so at this link here. Then click the "complaint form" section or you can call this number: 1-800-348-5358 and file a complaint directly.

The government does investigate this stuff, they do levy fines over it. One of the big problems is, some people don't notice it or believe it's simply the market forces at work. A few years ago, there was an entire chain of gas stations in Quebec for exactly this. And there's currently an investigation into one of the big food chains here in Canada over sale manipulation.

Yeah, this basically means that they're now working like every other retail business in existence.

Well not really. It means that they're working like every shady retail business in existence. In most countries this is illegal to do. It doesn't matter if it's pennies or thousands of dollars difference. Hiking the price before a sale, at least here in Canada falls afoul of federal consumer protection laws and provincial consumer protection laws in every province and territory. If you live in Canada, you should file a complaint. You can do so at this link here. Then click the "complaint form" section or you can call this number: 1-800-348-5358 and file a complaint directly.

The government does investigate this stuff, they do levy fines over it. One of the big problems is, some people don't notice it or believe it's simply the market forces at work. A few years ago, there was an entire chain of gas stations in Quebec for exactly this. And there's currently an investigation into one of the big food chains here in Canada over sale manipulation.

They could just read the relevant sections of the Competition Act. The criteria used to determine an ordinary price are clearly stated there.

That law is pretty clear, thanks. I think it is a bit overreaching but it is what it is.

They could just read the relevant sections of the Competition Act. The criteria used to determine an ordinary price are clearly stated there.

Difference is an Android developer doesn't have to pay Google 30% if they don't want to. They can always release their Android app via a different store, or offer a direct download from their website. Heck, they can set up their own store if they want (as Amazon has done). They have to pay 30% only if they want to sell it in Google's store. This makes it exactly like the brick and mortar analogue, where the retail store takes a cut of the price where your product is sold.

But with Apple, the only way to distribute your app to users is via their App Store, where you have to pay the Apple tax (be it 30% or 15%). In any other industry, this would be an illegal market restriction. What if you could buy gas for your Ford car only from Mobil gas stations? Not for any technical reason, but because Ford said they needed to do it to insure the quality of the gasoline you put into your Ford vehicle?

But it's Apple, so people's eyes glaze over and their brain shuts down. Even Apple's argument that it "needs" to do it for security doesn't fly. They're responsible for securing their hardware and OS. If people want their apps secured, there should be multiple companies competing to provide that service. And the people can choose which of these protection services they prefer to use. Exactly like Google does - you can use their Play store and whatever screening/protection they provide, or you can use someone else's store, or you can choose to use a store which doesn't purport to offer any protection at all. In an ideal world, Google would have their own iOS store, and Apple would have an Android store, and other companies would have their own stores for both platforms. And whichever company provided the screening and protection services customers want most would end up gaining a larger share of the market. (Apps would also be interchangeable between stores too, like it doesn't matter if you buy your TV from Best Buy or Target, but that's another argument.)

You're right, there's no perfect amount but there's an amount that would not shock the majority.

Which is?

As stated, something that is up to businesses to figure out/re-evaluate based on market conditions. It's not a fixed point.

Many industries do have limits though and do just fine by their shareholders - retail is limited by MSRP

Nope, the S in MSRP stands for suggested.

It does mean suggested! Consumer protection laws, in my jurisdiction at least, deal with this in their "Price Maintenance" section. http://www.competitionbureau.g... Note they can include "dealer may sell for less" but not more.

housing by rent controls & property valuations

Rent controls are about the amount that the rent can rise for a tenant, there is nothing to stop you setting whatever price you want for a rental or selling your house for whatever price you want. It is up to the buyer whether they will pay.

Rent rise is a limit. It also limits the ability of tenants to rent their rented apartment out for more than they are paying. Housing market is definitely one that does not have restrictions and look how much disruption it has on our economy as it boom/busts.

stock markets by all sorts of regulations, and so on.

The stock markets have lots of regulations but what regulation exactly are you thinking is akin to this scenario? I don't think there is one.

It doesn't, it was merely pointing out that there are limits on all sorts of behaviours that would allow for greater profits in other industries, all in the interest of protecting individuals from hardship/the industries themselves from imploding.

I can't speak to the canadian experience because I don't know the details.

Fair comment, as is my comment that in some situations competition isn't the solution.

The US situation is not readily apparent. You have to have specific knowledge of what is going on at various locations and collect those enmass to form patterns to grasp the climate of the competition environment.

I'm sure that the telecoms on both sides of the border use that argument - and deluge regulatory authorities with detailed information whenever this (competitiveness) issue arises. Niether of us is likely to possess the resources to do that, either for the U.S. or Canada.

To say "just look at canada" without providing the information to actually gauge their competition environment is not useful to me. You would either have to provide me with detailed information especially from competitors to the big three on a case by case basis or I would have to find that information myself.

I don't have the time for that personally and I doubt you're going to provide it.

Can we agree that since niether uf us is going to do the research ourselves we can least rely on regulatory bodies as the "least worst" source of information? That being (hopefully) the case, the following documents are likely to be relevant. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/arch... http://www.competitionbureau.g... Apart from these documents there is a raft of information/reportage/comment/analysis expressing concern about the Canadian competitive environement in this (telecomms/ISP) sector, from the Prime Minister on down . I doubt that the Competition Bureau or the CRTC would be spending large (by Canadian standards) chunks of cash on the sector if they believed either that the competitive situation was giving Canadians value for money or that the currently inequitable situation would resolve itself without external intervention. Well established oligopolies are very hard to shift and, as I mentioned before, the Big 3 telecomms providers here have been very successful at routing outsiders, even when those outsiders have significant support http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/0... from the (competition friendly) federal government.

Youtube has the most eyeballs by far, and many "influencers" use it to discover new acts. This makes Google's policy an "Abuse of Dominance".
http://www.competitionbureau.g...

It deals with "abuse of dominance" to exclude competition in section 79. If I were creative commons lawyers filing a complaint under this law would be a start.

http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/01165.html

[...] — seemingly almost criminally — [...]

If not misinterpreting in Canada it is criminal offence. To quote competitionbureau :

The false or misleading representations and deceptive marketing practices provisions of the Competition Act contain a general prohibition against all materially false or misleading representations. They also prohibit making performance representations which are not based on adequate and proper tests, misleading warranties and guarantees, false or misleading ordinary selling price representations, untrue, misleading or unauthorized use of tests and testimonials, bait and switch selling, double ticketing and the sale of a product above its advertised price. Further, the promotional contest provisions prohibit contests that do not disclose required information.

[...]

The Competition Act provides criminal and civil regimes to address false or misleading representations. Under both regimes, the Act prohibits the making, or the permitting of the making, of a representation to the public, in any form whatever, that is false or misleading in a material respect.

Actually, Canadian users should file a complaint about Rogers misleading advertising with the Competition Bureau (not advising purchasers of their high speed service in their advertising that they will lower the speed of P2P apps). I have, and so have others. It really is a question or priorities and complaint volume though, and at present the number of complaints has been very few.

For anyone interested, the Competition Act and there are numerous sections dealing with misleading advertising. By not advising they public they are actually reducing the speed of P2P apps, they are knowingly making a material misrepresentation to the public (Parts VI and VII.1).

You can file complaints with the Canadian Competition Bureau about Rogers, here.

I grilled my local independent bookseller on this. She blamed the publishers, which are all in the U.S.

Complain about it here: http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/

Those darn oil companies. In summer, they screw you by serving you hot gasoline. In winter, they screw you by reducing the energy content of the gasoline. Someone should do something about it!

Seriously, what would be accomplished by accounting for expansion? If they install the sensors, then they would adjust their prices to compensate for temperature. Does it really matter that the volume is inexact, as long as all gas stations consistently use the same inexact method of measuring the volume?

Odd thing about the Canadian gas market -- the prices posted at gas stations are almost always identical when driving around town. The government claims that it's simply the result of an efficient market, but I notice that prices don't converge like that in the US. I know, US prices are per gallon, and Canadian prices are per litre, but still... in the US, it's common to see two gas stations at an intersection with wildly different prices, and that never happens in Canada.

Sale above advertised price - The Competition Act prohibits the sale or rent of a product at a price higher than its advertised price. The provision does not apply if the advertised price was a mistake and the error was immediately corrected.

Double ticketing - The Competition Act prohibits the supply of a product at a price that exceeds the lowest of two or more prices. In other words, where two or more prices are clearly shown on a product, it must be supplied at the lower price.

Sale above advertised price - The Competition Act prohibits the sale or rent of a product at a price higher than its advertised price. The provision does not apply if the advertised price was a mistake and the error was immediately corrected.

Double ticketing - The Competition Act prohibits the supply of a product at a price that exceeds the lowest of two or more prices. In other words, where two or more prices are clearly shown on a product, it must be supplied at the lower price.

Selling bellow or at cost is considered anti-competitive. A small company could not do this and survive, so predatory pricing or pricing based on market position need to be considered.

http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/internet/index. cfm?itemID=1256&lg=e

Actually, it's funny you should say that, because, depending on where you live, there may be laws which may make it illegal for companies to refuse to deal. In the case of US law, I found this reference on Refusal to Deal. And here's the Canadian version.

The fundamental goal of these laws it to prevent anti-competative actions by a company or group of individuals. In this particular example (assuming it was a US company), this may apply if the 'cake' manufacturer refused to deal with grocery store A but did deal with grocery store B in order to restrict competition in some fashion.

This is an issue of market definition, and I assure you that in the anti-trust investigations that the DOJ will be doing, such similar products are definitely considered for inclusion in the same anti-trust market. A quick link from the Canadian anti-trust people (I couldn't find a good quick US equivalent, but the guidelines are VERY similar): http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/internet/index. cfm?itemID=1714&lg=e. Look for the part about the hypothetical monopolist test.

The key point here is that such concentration in one mode of the transportation network is not sufficient for such a merger to have anti-competitive effects. As long as there are at least two firms offering service in similar modes into one network (e.g. VOIP, cellular, and landlines all being "phones"), any exercises of market power would be squashed by competition. I mean, you might not like the sound quality of VOIP or your local cellular coverage right now, but you would enjoy it a lot more if landline access fees went up dramatically, just as you would if the prices for VOIP or cellular fell dramatically.