Sponsor's Message

The vast majority people seem to just accept these price-gouging activities as a part of life and, while they may occasionally be moved to bitch about it, they usually just sigh and hand over their cash.

Fortunately, in most cases the free market economy ensures that we get the best possible pricing value for the goods and services we buy, but this can't always be relied on due to the effects of oligopolies and informal cartels.

Today I've decided to take a look at some of these rip-offs and rorts, and to invite readers to submit their own observations and opinions by way of the forums.

First up would have to be the outrageous price of inkjet printer ink.

Although it could be argued that this is simply a clever business model that has been used before by the manufacturers or razor blades and numerous other items, such a simple explanation might not be strictly true.

After all, when you buy a razor blade, you get to keep on using it until you feel it is too blunt to be effective. Users of Epson inkjet printers however don't get to make such a decision.

A small chip embedded in each ink cartridge decides when there is no more ink left. Recent reports indicate that the chip's estimation of the remaining ink level can be wildly inaccurate and that many supposedly empty cartridges actually have as much as a third of their ink remaining.

When you consider that the ink in these cartridges costs more than gold on a weight for weight basis, Epson stands to boost their profits significantly by including this "feature".

Of course the chip also effectively prevents third-party suppliers from refilling the Epson cartridge with their own ink at a lower price than the genuine stuff -- further disadvantaging the customer.

Surely, once you've handed over your cash for the printer and the ink cartridges, you have a right to do whatever you want with those items -- including refilling with third-party ink?

The second biggest rip-off has to be the way that Telecom charges a massive per-MB rate for over-cap local Jetstream traffic.

How on earth can they justify charging the same amount per MB for traffic that may come from just down the road, as they do for traffic that has come from the other side of the globe through that expensive Southern Cross undersea cable?

If JetStream Starter traffic can be split into local and international units for the purposes of billing, why can't the same be done with Jetstream-proper?

Clearly there's no technical or other reason to prevent this -- which means only one thing -- Telecom is making a killing on this local traffic and since, through their ownership of the vast majority of the nation's copper, they *own* the DSL marketplace so there's no need to change anything.

So these are two obvious instances where consumers are being abused in the name of profit -- now you tell me, and other Aardvark readers, about the ones you're aware of.

If any Aardvark readers want to share an opinion on today's column or add something, you're invited to chip in and have your say in The Aardvark Forums or, if you prefer, you can contact me directly.

Contacting Aardvark
I'm always happy to hear from readers, whether they're delivering brickbats, bouquets or news tip-offs. If you'd like to contact me directly, please this form. If you're happy for me to republish your comments then please be sure and select For Publication.

Other media organisations seeking more information or republication rights are also invited to contact me.

Just add a couple of lines of JavaScript to your pages and you can get a free summary of Aardvark's daily commentary -- automatically updated each and every week-day.

Aardvark also makes a summary of this daily column available via XML using the RSS format. More details can be found here.

Contact me if you decide to use either of these feeds and have any problems.

Linking Policy
Want to link to this site? Check out Aardvark's Linking Policy.

Did you tell someone else about Aardvark today? If not then do it now!