Guys you do realise that there is no point to having a regulator unless they find something to regulate? That is at the heart of deciding to look into anything which draws media attention. If a regulator is not looking at something which the media thinks is important the question arises in other areas of government, why not? This applies to health and safety you name it, so it is hardly surprising that so many regulatory bodies think this must be looked at.
One of the posters asked about Sony, is Sony in the news not just the gaming news but MSM news about its practices? No, but if it was you can bet your console that these regularity bodies would find a sudden urgent need to investigate Sony if it was. There was a lawsuit last year but it hardly made a splash in MSM so the CMA are ignoring it. This is a real problem in my eyes, government departments focusing time and resources on the media's latest "big" story, rather than taking a look at the industry as a whole (part of the CMA's and doubtless any other such bodies remit) and from that beginning investigations.
As to the fact the UK is still unsure, I would not read too much into that, there always has to be one of these bodies that swings round last. After all the CMA followed the crowd to start their investigation and may well now follow the crowd to agree it with some "concessions" and what not.
And people are heavily influenced by the media they consume, so unless they look at the media on both sides of the fence, rarely do people get the full picture.
Guys you do realise that there is no point to having a regulator unless they find something to regulate? That is at the heart of deciding to look into anything which draws media attention. If a regulator is not looking at something which the media thinks is important the question arises in other areas of government, why not? This applies to health and safety you name it, so it is hardly surprising that so many regulatory bodies think this must be looked at.
One of the posters asked about Sony, is Sony in the news not just the gaming news but MSM news about its practices? No, but if it was you can bet your console that these regularity bodies would find a sudden urgent need to investigate Sony if it was. There was a lawsuit last year but it hardly made a splash in MSM so the CMA are ignoring it. This is a real problem in my eyes, government departments focusing time and resources on the media's latest "big" story, rather than taking a look at the industry as a whole (part of the CMA's and doubtless any other such bodies remit) and from that beginning investigations.
As to the fact the UK is still unsure, I would not read too much into that, there always has to be one of these bodies that swings round last. After all the CMA followed the crowd to start their investigation and may well now follow the crowd to agree it with some "concessions" and what not.
Once you have a regulator in place, it will quickly find reasons to regulate. There haven't been many cases in public administration where such body would go "there we are, we have solved what we were initially created for, let's pack it up and go home". Once an institution is set up, staffed, has its own appropriations in the national budget, etc. the more usual approach is for this particular hammer to keep finding nails :-) There is a lot of momentum in all large organisations - especially the public ones and their extra dose of legal, budgetary and institutional momentum.
But keeping levity aside for a while, there are two things to keep in mind here:
They often have very limited staff and budget. For example, look at the Irish data protection team, who oversees most of the digital giants operating in Europe, with a staff of perhaps 2-3 dozen. If you complain that some of these bodies only look at the big stories, it's often for this reason. Limited resources - they have to prioritise. Their attention will inevitably go to the biggest or to the politically most sensitive or to those that may create industry-wide case law that will solve a hundred other cases with one decision or court case.
Without knowing too much about CMA's statutes, in many cases these specialised bodies have very narrowly-defined responsibilities. This is normal practice: you can't have regulators design policy, for example - unless such dual function is part of their statutes or constitution. I'm sure the British MPs would not look kindly on the head of the CMA for deciding to look into the competition policy of the whole industry. That's what the Parliament and the Government are for. Again, this is just for illustration, I don't know the specifics of the CMA's establishment and statutes. It's just to explain that there are in such cases very good political, legal and constitutional reasons for not assigning powers to entities that are not supposed to have it and with a very indirect public oversight. If the CMA's mandate is to solely investigate and prosecute competition anomalies, they can't do anything else.
I realise that entities like the CMA are often dumped into a single bag of 'government bodies', but there are often important distinctions among them that might explain why some of them do X, but don't do Y.
Guys you do realise that there is no point to having a regulator unless they find something to regulate? That is at the heart of deciding to look into anything which draws media attention. If a regulator is not looking at something which the media thinks is important the question arises in other areas of government, why not? This applies to health and safety you name it, so it is hardly surprising that so many regulatory bodies think this must be looked at.
One of the posters asked about Sony, is Sony in the news not just the gaming news but MSM news about its practices? No, but if it was you can bet your console that these regularity bodies would find a sudden urgent need to investigate Sony if it was. There was a lawsuit last year but it hardly made a splash in MSM so the CMA are ignoring it. This is a real problem in my eyes, government departments focusing time and resources on the media's latest "big" story, rather than taking a look at the industry as a whole (part of the CMA's and doubtless any other such bodies remit) and from that beginning investigations.
As to the fact the UK is still unsure, I would not read too much into that, there always has to be one of these bodies that swings round last. After all the CMA followed the crowd to start their investigation and may well now follow the crowd to agree it with some "concessions" and what not.
Once you have a regulator in place, it will quickly find reasons to regulate. There haven't been many cases in public administration where such body would go "there we are, we have solved what we were initially created for, let's pack it up and go home". Once an institution is set up, staffed, has its own appropriations in the national budget, etc. the more usual approach is for this particular hammer to keep finding nails :-) There is a lot of momentum in all large organisations - especially the public ones and their extra dose of legal, budgetary and institutional momentum.
But keeping levity aside for a while, there are two things to keep in mind here:
They often have very limited staff and budget. For example, look at the Irish data protection team, who oversees most of the digital giants operating in Europe, with a staff of perhaps 2-3 dozen. If you complain that some of these bodies only look at the big stories, it's often for this reason. Limited resources - they have to prioritise. Their attention will inevitably go to the biggest or to the politically most sensitive or to those that may create industry-wide case law that will solve a hundred other cases with one decision or court case.
Without knowing too much about CMA's statutes, in many cases these specialised bodies have very narrowly-defined responsibilities. This is normal practice: you can't have regulators design policy, for example - unless such dual function is part of their statutes or constitution. I'm sure the British MPs would not look kindly on the head of the CMA for deciding to look into the competition policy of the whole industry. That's what the Parliament and the Government are for. Again, this is just for illustration, I don't know the specifics of the CMA's establishment and statutes. It's just to explain that there are in such cases very good political, legal and constitutional reasons for not assigning powers to entities that are not supposed to have it and with a very indirect public oversight. If the CMA's mandate is to solely investigate and prosecute competition anomalies, they can't do anything else.
I realise that entities like the CMA are often dumped into a single bag of 'government bodies', but there are often important distinctions among them that might explain why some of them do X, but don't do Y.
I mostly agree, but I am not saying they only go for the big media cases, just that the ones in the media always get attention. If Ten Cents started appearing regularly in MSM articles the CMA would suddenly need to mount an investigation, regulators get led by the nose.
Here is just some of the CMA's remit, competition in as it effects consumer choice IS its remit:
"In situations where competition could be unfair or consumer choice may be affected, the CMA is responsible for:
Oversight of the UK internal market.
Bringing criminal proceedings against individuals who commit cartels offences."
So to me if Ten Cents buys anything UK they should look at TC, likewise for the cartel Sony has been operating.
The CMA investigation was a joke in which they cited false and
inaccurate data in their decision making process. If this was just an
investigation, no one would care. It is their vast overreach, by banning
Microsoft and ABK from even discussing making any sort of mutual
investments (even outside the UK), without their express permission.
Sony has a long as storied history of anticompetitive practices, so the if what you say is true (that regulatory bodies look at history), then they would be considering Sony's involvement and their practices. We quickly forget, but Sony is the company that planted rootkits on users computers, without their knowledge, just by inserting music CD/DVDs into the drive. This is also the Sony crushed an arguably more consumer friend HD-DVD for BluRay which they own the patents and licensing for. This is the same Sony who is known for paying studios not to publish their games on Xbox for PC or console.
At this point, it's suspect whether the CMA could regulate their own bowel
movements let alone companies engaged in a global economy.
Comments
And people are heavily influenced by the media they consume, so unless they look at the media on both sides of the fence, rarely do people get the full picture.
But keeping levity aside for a while, there are two things to keep in mind here:
- They often have very limited staff and budget. For example, look at the Irish data protection team, who oversees most of the digital giants operating in Europe, with a staff of perhaps 2-3 dozen. If you complain that some of these bodies only look at the big stories, it's often for this reason. Limited resources - they have to prioritise. Their attention will inevitably go to the biggest or to the politically most sensitive or to those that may create industry-wide case law that will solve a hundred other cases with one decision or court case.
- Without knowing too much about CMA's statutes, in many cases these specialised bodies have very narrowly-defined responsibilities. This is normal practice: you can't have regulators design policy, for example - unless such dual function is part of their statutes or constitution. I'm sure the British MPs would not look kindly on the head of the CMA for deciding to look into the competition policy of the whole industry. That's what the Parliament and the Government are for. Again, this is just for illustration, I don't know the specifics of the CMA's establishment and statutes. It's just to explain that there are in such cases very good political, legal and constitutional reasons for not assigning powers to entities that are not supposed to have it and with a very indirect public oversight. If the CMA's mandate is to solely investigate and prosecute competition anomalies, they can't do anything else.
I realise that entities like the CMA are often dumped into a single bag of 'government bodies', but there are often important distinctions among them that might explain why some of them do X, but don't do Y.Here is just some of the CMA's remit, competition in as it effects consumer choice IS its remit:
"In situations where competition could be unfair or consumer choice may be affected, the CMA is responsible for:
Oversight of the UK internal market.
Bringing criminal proceedings against individuals who commit cartels offences."
So to me if Ten Cents buys anything UK they should look at TC, likewise for the cartel Sony has been operating.