 stray
join:2000-01-16
Warren, NJ | Re: It's illegal Robinson-Patman act probably does not apply in this case.
»www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/patman.htm
By contrast, courts have concluded that the Act does not apply to intangible products such as cellular telephone service and cellular telephone activation service; the printing of comic books; newspaper advertising; real estate leases; long distance voice telecommunications services; and cable television service. When a transaction involves both the sale of goods and the sale of services, the Act applies "only if the 'dominant nature' of the transaction is a sale of goods." | |
|
  oliphantI Have 8 BoobiesPremium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | Re: It's illegal Great find! | |
|
| | said by stray:Robinson-Patman act probably does not apply in this case. » www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/patman.htmBy contrast, courts have concluded that the Act does not apply to intangible products such as cellular telephone service and cellular telephone activation service; the printing of comic books; newspaper advertising; real estate leases; long distance voice telecommunications services; and cable television service. When a transaction involves both the sale of goods and the sale of services, the Act applies "only if the 'dominant nature' of the transaction is a sale of goods." So there you go its not illegal  | |
|
 | | | Re: It's illegal Might be a law, we the people should try to get changed.
That or try to get Spitzer on the federal level, but I am sure he has those plans himself. | |
|
| | | | Re: It's illegal Why would spitzer care the lower pricing are going to his constiuents . | |
|
| | | | | Re: It's illegal He represents a lot more than just those few. Much of his territory is still fighting to get DSL from Verizon, many are served by a different Telco | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | I don't think you would want to change this law to mandate pricing across the board. This would/could ultimately make it more expensive for services in smaller areas if the priced to deliver a service in a larger metro was higher.
I personally don't think it's a bad thing the way it is now.
Like Oliphant, I disagree with dropping prices in a region and taking a loss simply to compete in that area to drive out the competition.
I would rather see these issues taken up on a case by case basis, or simply look at it by limiting the amount of loss someone can take on a product offering or the length of time - something on that level. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: It's illegal I actually agree with you.
But the fear of this might give the big monopoly the incentive to stay on the up and up.
It is a fine line between regulation guiding a business down a beneficial path vs unneeded obstruction.
I just want the big Corps to see that the voter is beginning to get upset, and choose a better path before it is chosen for them. | |
|
|
|
