how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Reviews:
 ·PHONE POWER
2 edits | reply to oliphant
Re: It's illegal Oliphant,
There are two holes in your argument.
A) quote:
where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition
The effect is not to lessen competition or create a monopoly. The actual existance of an alternative fosters competition, which is why you are seeing the difference in prices.
B) There are location specific factors which drive pricing disparity. Surely you don't believe that the price consumers pay for gasoline must be identical regardless of where you live? Those in New York pay more for the same gallon of Chevron gasoline than do those folks who live in Alaska, or Alabama. The same can be said for telephone service, auto/home/life insurances, meat, dairy, clothing, cars housing, and a host of other products and services.
Fact of the matter is:
Regional price differences do exist. Granted your example is an extreme case (likely brought about by the competition between Cablevision and Verizon) but anyone who lives in a single geographic serving area of Verizon is treated the same way. Frankly, there's nothing I see in your quoted paragraph that prevents a company from treating people in different serving areas differently. If you want the benefit of the competition between Cablevision and Verizon, move into an area served by both.
said by oliphant:They should offer it for $45 everywhere unless they can show why their costs justify it to be $179 in the non-competitive markets. If it is genuinely cheaper to deliver the products, they can certainly charge different prices, but it is illegal to drop the price only to compete...especially when it is this transparent. Sorry, but you are simply wrong here. Free market economies may tend towards a cost plus pricing schema. But they are certainly not mandated. Market based pricing is the norm in our economy.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | | |
|
 oliphantI Have 8 BoobiesPremium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
4 edits | Of course it's to lessen or injure competition which is why they're doing it where they see competition and not everywhere. It's also not about treatment and the paragraph plainly says they can not charge differently to injure competitors.
And there are no location specific factors I can think of that would justify a 3x price difference between 30/5 markets at $180 and 30/5 markets at $50. And just as it was wrong from Comcast to do this, it's wrong for Verizon to do it and certainly there are no location specific factors causing them to up speeds for the same price.
What location specific factors would justify 3X the price everywhere except where it just so happens Verizon is seeing harsher competition? What location specific factors justify the increases speeds where they're facing hyper-competition? There aren't any.
The law is very simple to understand. Verizon can't charge different prices for the same product to different people unless the cost to delivery it justifies it which it certainly doesn't.
Verizon should be offering this everywhere as the law compels them to do.
In your gasoline example this would be like in one state them charging $3 and in the next state them charging $9 and it just so happens they're facing competition in the $3 state they don't face in the $9 state. If it were $3.10 in the next state then yeah, you could say it costs more to transport it, but in no event is a 300% difference justified.
It wouldn't be for gasoline and it's not for HSI. We aren't talking about a few dollars difference with Verizon or Comcast...we're seeing in both Comcast and Verizon where they've engaged in predatory pricing DRASTIC differences between their "new" price and the price they charged everyone else.
And don't get me wrong...I'm not Fiberguy just looking to telco bash. I just think that if Verizon can offer it in these hypercompetitive markets, they should be offering it everywhere, like in my neighborhood where they're getting ready to deploy. But here 30/5 is $180 while in CV markets it's closer to 1/3 that. IMO that is predatory pricing and wrong.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, fascism, communism, Nazism.... | |
| You keep harping on the 3x difference. For all you know they are currently serious gouging on that price. They were the first to offer those speeds and they set the bar. Would you feel better if it was 2x difference or 1.5x difference. I'm sure the price around the country will come down also as cable companies ratchet up speeds or as they see no one is subscribing to those speeds at that price. But if as you say this is so illegal I'm sure there would be some fines or legal actions being taken over the years and years of cable & telephone companies doing this. I have yet to see any such actions taken. | |
Cod
join:2000-07-05
Kernersville, NC Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to oliphant
said by oliphant:And don't get me wrong...I'm not Fiberguy just looking to telco bash. I just think that if Verizon can offer it in these hypercompetitive markets, they should be offering it everywhere, like in my neighborhood where they're getting ready to deploy. But here 30/5 is $180 while in CV markets it's closer to 1/3 that. IMO that is predatory pricing and wrong. Absolutely, no one is thinking you are telco bashing, just trying to argue your point. I disagree, but its been a well debated topic.
Don't you think that if you were correct, someone, somewhere would have tried to take one of these companies to court? If laws were violated I find it hard to believe that no one cares or notices in these specific markets that you claim laws are being broken. | |
oliphantI Have 8 BoobiesPremium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | reply to liquidnw
said by liquidnw:You keep harping on the 3x difference. For all you know they are currently serious gouging on that price. They were the first to offer those speeds and they set the bar. Would you feel better if it was 2x difference or 1.5x difference. I'm sure the price around the country will come down also as cable companies ratchet up speeds or as they see no one is subscribing to those speeds at that price. But if as you say this is so illegal I'm sure there would be some fines or legal actions being taken over the years and years of cable & telephone companies doing this. I have yet to see any such actions taken. It would at least be someone arguable at 1.5X the difference. Of course I can say it's illegal all day long...until a blood sucking lawyer or the gov't goes after them, they, Comcast, Cox and others will continue this practice of price discrimination.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, fascism, communism, Nazism.... | |
| reply to oliphant
said by oliphant:Of course it's to lessen or injure competition which is why they're doing it where they see competition and not everywhere. It's also not about treatment and the paragraph plainly says they can not charge differently to injure competitors. And there are no location specific factors I can think of that would justify a 3x price difference between 30/5 markets at $180 and 30/5 markets at $50. And just as it was wrong from Comcast to do this, it's wrong for Verizon to do it and certainly there are no location specific factors causing them to up speeds for the same price. What location specific factors would justify 3X the price everywhere except where it just so happens Verizon is seeing harsher competition? What location specific factors justify the increases speeds where they're facing hyper-competition? There aren't any. The law is very simple to understand. Verizon can't charge different prices for the same product to different people unless the cost to delivery it justifies it which it certainly doesn't. Verizon should be offering this everywhere as the law compels them to do. In your gasoline example this would be like in one state them charging $3 and in the next state them charging $9 and it just so happens they're facing competition in the $3 state they don't face in the $9 state. If it were $3.10 in the next state then yeah, you could say it costs more to transport it, but in no event is a 300% difference justified. It wouldn't be for gasoline and it's not for HSI. We aren't talking about a few dollars difference with Verizon or Comcast...we're seeing in both Comcast and Verizon where they've engaged in predatory pricing DRASTIC differences between their "new" price and the price they charged everyone else. And don't get me wrong...I'm not Fiberguy just looking to telco bash. I just think that if Verizon can offer it in these hypercompetitive markets, they should be offering it everywhere, like in my neighborhood where they're getting ready to deploy. But here 30/5 is $180 while in CV markets it's closer to 1/3 that. IMO that is predatory pricing and wrong. Only you can make them by informing others about this. They offer what most are willing to pay and there's nothing me or you can do about it individually.
CC wants to charge me 57.00 a month for 6.0/384 plus 100.00 installation fee
Tell me how's that fair just for internet service cause i have no cable tv service.
FYI, it cost only 29.95 to install cable so I'm being gouched. That's why I stick with DSL its slower but its a lot cheaper too. The only way you can make them lower price is competition. | |
oliphantI Have 8 BoobiesPremium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | reply to Cod
They did and do...not in this case with Verizon, but there have been news items about it previously, including a muni (Braintree »'Discounted' Competition )
As for these specific markets, it would take someone like me suing outside the market or the State of California taking action for getting the higher prices. In those local markets, they're benefitting and have nothing to sue over.
Who will complain would be the competitors and we'll see what happens. If Verizon sees increased sales because of this you can bet competitors will complain. If they don't, they won't.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, fascism, communism, Nazism.... | |
Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
| reply to oliphant
There are two things at work here.
1) As a consumer, one might be angry because Verizon is charging rates that are wildly different based on where one lives. Consumer A doesn't live in a low price area, therefore his price is too high. Consumer A cries foul!
2) By extension, Cablevision must be angry because Verizon is charging predatory rates in Cablevision's operating region. The price is too low.
Two prong rebuttal:
One:
I fully agree with you that Verizon markets/supports/advertises/maintains different pricing for substantially the same produce in verious locations across the US.
And I agree that the price differentials (likely) bear no resemlance to the cost of the services being provided.
But Consumer A doesn't have the standing to bring a predatory pricing claim against Verizon. Only Cablevision would.
That being said, I disagree with your contention that the reason said by oliphant:is to lessen or injure competition which is why they're doing it where they see competition and not everywhere.
I believe that your rationale is backwards because the rate everywhere would have to be low, not high, for predatory pricing to be proven. If there is predatory pricing it is only in those markets where Verizon is competing against Cablevision.
A high price, by definition, CANNOT quote:
substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them
and therefore cannot be predatory. It's just not possible. A high price is NEVER a barrier to entry, in fact, it is an INVITATION to entry.
Two:
You forgot to quote TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 13 Section B: quote:
(b) Burden of rebutting prima-facie case of discrimination
Upon proof being made, at any hearing on a complaint under this section, that there has been discrimination in price or services or facilities furnished, the burden of rebutting the prima-facie case thus made by showing justification shall be upon the person charged with a violation of this section, and unless justification shall be affirmatively shown, the Commission is authorized to issue an order terminating the discrimination: Provided, however, That nothing herein contained shall prevent a seller rebutting the prima-facie case thus made by showing that his lower price or the furnishing of services or facilities to any purchaser or purchasers was made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor, or the services or facilities furnished by a competitor.
emphasis added
Is Verizon reacting to Cablevision, or is Cablevision reacting to Verizon? In actuality, it really doesn't matter. The existence of Verizon's lower price in Cablevision's territory is due to market realities, hence no predatory pricing. Besides, if Cablevision believed in your version, Cablevision's legion of lawyers would have already brought suit against Verizon for predatory pricing. Since that hasn't (yet) happened, Cablevision either believes the pricing not predatory, or is still assembling its proof.
But know this: If Verizon is guilty of predatory pricing, the statute would dicate that Verizon would have to RAISE its price in the low cost markets, not lower its price in the high priced markets!
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | |
oliphantI Have 8 BoobiesPremium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | No one said a high price was the issue...it was the lower price that was predatory. In either case it doesn't matter. For services, the anti-trust statute I quoted doesn't apply.
»It's illegal
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, fascism, communism, Nazism.... | |
| reply to oliphant
said by oliphant:said by liquidnw:What location specific factors would justify 3X the price everywhere except where it just so happens Verizon is seeing harsher competition? What location specific factors justify the increases speeds where they're facing hyper-competition? There aren't any. They can justify the 3x price difference on quality. They can argue that the nodes in the more expensive geographic region have a one to one subscription ratio, and in the cheaper region the nodes are over subscribed. Hence, the price difference. | |
|
