Slashdot Mirror
Aussie Reserve Bank Eyeing eBay's PayPal Policy
Bulldust writes "Regular readers will recollect the recent story that eBay is forcing Australian users over to PayPal or COD as the only forms of payment in June 2008: eBay Australia Makes PayPal Mandatory. It now appears that the Australian Reserve Bank will consider throwing its weight behind users, should the eBay policy be deemed to breach trade practice and competition laws."
No, Ebay and PayPal like to paint themselves as being in a position where they benefit from the regulations they find convenient, and they're exempt from the ones they find inconvenient.
PayPal regularly says they're not a bank and not subject to the rules on banking, and EBay routinely says "we're just a facilitator".
They seem to actually conduct their business as if they are exempt from such forms of regulation. This could be the first time someone has corrected them and pointed out that they aren't the ones that choose which regulations apply.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Why do so many people/companies insist on squeezing every last dime possible out of people. What's wrong with being content with a reasonable profit? I own my own business, have all sorts of toys, and pay my bills. I do so just fine by charging reasonable rates for what I provide. No nickel-and-diming required.
I really despise greedy people. You can't take it with you.
Ummmm
Or, is any regulation or the Right And True Free Actions of Companies communist nowadays? Reining in companies does not communism make.
Basically, EBay has said "We, through a subsidiary, get a cut of all sales
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
nothing to see really. its just your classic instance of internet suicide. goes something like this:
...
1. new website offers cool technology
2. people browse over, see it, like it, use it
3. it becomes a "defacto" standard and charges more money
4. because there is perceived to be a market, and people are frustrated with the charges from the original an alternative website is launched
5. as alternative website gains more custom it becomes a more viable alternative, more people hear about it, more people leave original site
6. the tipping point when the hassle of changing to the alternative is less then the annoyance of the charges charged by current website begins to slid in favor of the alternative
7. the original collapses like a flan in a cupboard and people move en masse to the alternative
8. realizing what an ass hat it has been the original makes desperate offers and price cuts to regain favor, hoping it has not pissed off its clientèle too much.
9. the alternative service decides that now it is the "defacto" standard, it can raise prices..
hell we've all seen it again, and again.
any bets on what the alternative will be?
in australia we have a legal principle: If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, eats like a duck, weighs roughly the same as a duck and most australians who've seen it all consider it to be a duck, its most likely duck and probably laws about ducks apply, even if said duck says its a fucking goose.
I hear that in Britain, if it weighs roughly the same as a duck, it's most likely a witch.
In March ebay very quietly started requiring paypal as a payment option for certain categories for items listed on ebay.com. Computers, for one. I discovered this when I tried listed some Unix system admin books I no longer need, as I do not have and do now want a paypal account. I complained to ebay about it, and they sent me their boilerplate propaganda about "makeing ebay a safer place for buyers". In June, paypal will be required for all new ebay sellers, and for all currrent sellers with under 100 feedback, in the US.
What they refuse to acknowledge is that paypal offers no protection to sellers. Stolen credit cards and reversed-charges are still a potential for any transaction done via paypal. Until ebay gives me as a seller the option to wait 35 business days to ship an items paid for via paypal, there is no seller protection.
They forgot nothing at all. They actually submitted notice to the ACCC specifically asking for permission to be excluded from regulations that would stop this sort of thing, as it's "more secure" for the end user, and thus ultimately in the end users benefit.
They have not yet got, and likely will not get said permission, making their decision to broadcast their intentions publicly somewhat strange...
Rudd is still having his "honeymoon period" in government. This has been extended by the ineptness of the Opposition and some toadying on behalf of the media. He has said a lot about what his government will do and has not made a complete fool of himself overseas. The budget comes out next month and it will be the first real test of policies and practice.
The major worrying factor is that he will have to make deals with a number of people in after June when the new Senate sits. Most have dubious track records. Steve Fielding (Family First) is the biggest worry. We have already seen ISP filtering being declared an essential service for all Australians. The morons have also caved into pressure from Fielding to arrange for an Internet filter to be installed in Parliament House so members can no longer visit reproductive health sites and a whole bunch of other sites that are essential for staffer research.
He may also have to try to do deals with the Greens. They have shown little aptitude for deal-making or legislative creativity so we may even see a double-dissolution of Parliament within a year. They generally vote with the ALP on social and economic issues however so the threat may be small. Headline-grabbing environmental issues will be the sticking point.
Finally there is the Independent Nick Xenophon who ran on a popular anti-poker machine campaign. Already Rudd has made noises about limiting their spread which is a bit late. I for one see benefits in limiting these discretionary taxation devices.
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance