Regulatory Probe of LCD Market Widens

narramissic writes "Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Sharp Corp., Taiwan's AU Optronics Corp., and a U.S. subsidiary of Taiwan's Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp. on Tuesday said they have been contacted by investigators who are looking into possible anticompetitive behavior in the flat-panel display market. This follows Monday's announcement by LG.Philips LCD Co. that it had been subpoenaed by regulators in the U.S., South Korea and Japan." From the article: "The probe centers on TFT (thin-film transistor) LCDs, according to Samsung. They are used in a wide range of electronics products including flat-panel televisions and computer monitors, laptop computers, cell phones and digital music players. The three companies being investigated are among the largest manufacturers of such displays. The investigation comes on the heels of anticompetition probes in the DRAM (dynamic RAM) and SRAM (static RAM) markets. The DRAM investigation focused on price-fixing, which is when vendors cooperate to set prices artificially."

Comments

Because the LCD plants cost billions

[bestinshow]

And yet LCD prices continue to collapse year-on-year whilst getting bigger, brighter and more contrastful (suck on that word, grammar nazis).

So what's bad for the consumer here? Companies still in business making a profit, or killing off all the companies until the one remaining LCD maker can charge the earth for them?

Yes, there is a fine line to tread between organised price fixing to pwn the consumer, and a free market where competition kills off choice, but things aren't black and white, good or bad.

Exactly

[brunes69]

I mean, I am all for the consumer, and very anti-price fixing.

But shouldn't these guys be investing their time and resources into industries where price fixing is a REAL PROBLEM that affects the consumer?

I mean, LCD prices plummet month-over-month. An LCD today costs less than half what it cost only 2 years ago for the same size and even higher quality. I would like to see another industry (besides the CPU industry) match that kind of price drop.

What about stuff like high speed access? How come the cost of my high speed goes nowhere but UP, even though all the significant marginal costs (like laying cable + fibre, back-end infrastructure) were done YEARS ago? Why do I still have a bandwidth cap of 60 GB / month download when 100 GB of bandwidth costs essentially nothing nowadays (I can get a 10 TB web hosting plan for $5 a month) ?

The answer, of course, is there is no real competition, or reason for the major ISPs to reduce their prices.

The same can be said of lots of other industries as well. LCDs should be the LEAST of these guys worries.

Re:Exactly

[bestinshow]

But shouldn't these guys be investing their time and resources into industries where price fixing is a REAL PROBLEM that affects the consumer?

But LCD panels are made in Asia. Not America.

You wouldn't want to investigate a company that contributes to your political party now would you?

It wouldn't surprise me

[simm1701]

There seems a fair basis for these claims.

The PC LCD market has been notorious have having a "sweet spot" (the biggest screen you can buy before the prices jumps stupidly)

Right now its 1440*900 19" wide screens - for about 130GBP last time I looked - yet 20" 1680*1080 displays start around 350GBP and go through the roof from there (1500 for the rather nice dell/apple 30" widescreen displays)

Also LCD TVs have not even remotely kept pace with PC screen prices - they still seem to be at prices PC screens were 1-2 years ago for equivalent sizes.

The top end of hardware is usually more expsive - CPUs/GPUs/RAM - the top 1-2 models are never on the same price/performace curve as the rest of the product line, but LCDs really do seem to be extracting the urine.

I'd love to see a little leveling in the fields - especially since I really to want one of the 30" displays - preferably for about half the current price!

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

This never seizes to amaze me. A non US company is much more likely to be charged for anticompetitive business practices than a US company.

What about Microsoft?
Why is the US letting this exceptionally bullish company continue their path of destruction?

I disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I'd rather have to pay a little more and have a choice of manufacturers, than pay less and get stuck with only one.

You're in the very small minority. It has been proven time and time again, the American consumer wants the cheapest working shit that they can buy - and then throw it out when it fails.

Walmart's success, airline service, customer (no)service across all industries, etc... are some examples of this attitude - people voted with their money and this is what we have.

The exception to this rule is for status items - cars and homes come to mind.

Re:I disagree.

[c_forq]

I don't think that is quite right: close, but not perfect. Americans want every product to have a range, and to get what you pay for. They want tools that get the job done, and if the job is their specialty then they want tools that are real nice. For a mechanic a $25 set of wrenches won't cut it, just like for a professional photographer a $200 LCD won't cut it. If you've ever gone shopping for a new range with someone that values their kitchen you know the cheapest option isn't the one you will be buying. Most people want the items they care about to as nice as they can afford, and the things they don't value as much to be as cheap as possible while the object/service still functions.

Econ 101

[mumblestheclown]

"even though all the significant marginal costs (like laying cable + fibre, back-end infrastructure"

Econ 101:

• You are referring to fixed costs, not marginal costs
• The whole point of fixed costs is that you risk a lot at the beginning to hopefully get a stream of rewards later.

The "there is no real competiton" excuse is whining amongst those who weren't clever enough to make the big investments earlier or can't make them now because of market forces. yes, this is tough for consumers, but that's the market - it goes to those who get in early. You only have a case to whine if your provider has a monopoly by law.

Re:Econ 101

[drinkypoo]

You only have a case to whine if your provider has a monopoly by law.

Uh, they do. The cable company has exclusive rights to lay underground cable along certain routes. The phone company generally has exclusive rights to their phone poles, which are provided by an arrangement with the city/county. You can't just go put up a bunch of phone poles and offer DSL.

On top of that, the FCC isn't exactly making it easy for people who want to provide wireless internet access to get spectrum. Granted, there's a fixed amount available, but the idea behind the FCC is that they are supposed to portion out the spectrum in the public interest. That means that if someone is ready and willing to provide the public a service that they want, they should get the spectrum. Instead the FuCC plays games with auctions and bullshit and helps media conglomerates extend their control.

Re:Econ 101

[planetmn]

The "there is no real competiton" excuse is whining amongst those who weren't clever enough to make the big investments earlier or can't make them now because of market forces.

You forgot one group: Those that weren't allowed to make the big investments earlier because of monopoly rights granted to the utility companies and other legislative barriers put up by the utility companies who were subsidized in order to make those big investments.

-dave

Re:Econ 101

[drinkypoo]

Putting aside your juvenile ranting for a moment, you *do* realize that spectrum auctions are just about the best way to serve the public good? The reason is that because they are basically 'winners curse' type auctions - if you win, you probably overpaid. I'd sure as hell rather have some given piece of spectrum controlled by some company who is propping up my standard of living because it overpaid than for some amateurs to muck around

you are 100% incorrect. the only thing having the prices auctioned up into the stratosphere accomplishes is keeping the smaller providers from participating. it pretty much automatically ensures that one of the titans will get it, and we can see how responsive they are to our needs now.

And I'm not talking about amateurs, I'm talking about commercial providers.

PolySci 101

[Kadin2048]

You only have a case to whine if your provider has a monopoly by law.

The real problem starts to occur when companies -- any companies, really -- start to interfere in the political process and win concessions for themselves. Large companies have taken to buying influence in politics and using it as a way to protect themselves from competition. This adversely affects and distorts the market, which needs to have barriers to entry that are as low as possible in order to produce the best outcome for consumers, and operate in a regulatory framework that isn't being manipulated by actors in the market themselves.

Laissez faire on the part of the government with regard to companies would be fine, if the companies were doing the same to the political process. But when companies are habitually attempting to influence politics (on the local, state, and national levels, to a point where it's considered endemic and normal), then there is a valid reason for people wanting to interfere with the companies. You can't judge a company simply on the basis that it's acting according to the law, when it has helped shape the laws itself.

I think this all comes back to a key problem in the U.S. right now: we have forgotten the place of the corporation as an entity. It is not a person, and has no place in the political realm. It has no inherent rights in the same way a natural citizen does; all of its rights are granted, given to it by the citizens because they feel it will be beneficial to do so. It is the duty of corporations to continually justify their existence to the citizenry, because it is to them that they owe it.