Cost of converting reg from a-clamp to DIN

David Walker wrote:

> ... which is why? It is against consumer interests, the sort of behaviour
> which they are supposed to prevent. Makes the OFT and Competition
> Commission even more pointless than I thought.

Basically the law here is the Competition Act 1998 which introduced
two prohibitions. Chapter 1 prohibition covers agreements that have
the effect of distorting competition in the UK, Chapter 2 prohibition
covers conduct which amounts to an abuse of a dominant position in
the UK.

Chapter 1 does not apply unless the agreement has an appreciable
effect on competition in the UK, this is taken as the parties
involved having a market share of 25% or greater. As Apeks do
not have such a market share then this prohibition does not
apply.

Abuse of Chapter 2 can only be upheld if the firm is dominant
in the market, a firm is dominant if it can behave to an
appreciable extent independently of its competitors and ultimately
of its consumers. If its market share is less than 40% it is
unlikely to be considered dominant.

Refusal to supply even if the company was dominant may be found
not in breach of Chapter 2 if justification can be found, e.g if
there are significant safety issues involved. And this is the
reason Apeks give to not supply.

So, it may be against consumer interests but unless the law is
changed there is nothing the OFT can do. And I doubt the law
will be relaxed, if anything governments will introduce yet more
laws to prevent you from doing what you want.

- Keith

"Keith S." <false@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bo7rif$19sii1$1@ID-169434.news.uni-berlin.de...
> David Walker wrote:
>
> > ... which is why? It is against consumer interests, the sort of
behaviour
> > which they are supposed to prevent. Makes the OFT and Competition
> > Commission even more pointless than I thought.
>
> Basically the law here is the Competition Act 1998 which introduced
> two prohibitions. Chapter 1 prohibition covers agreements that have
> the effect of distorting competition in the UK, Chapter 2 prohibition
> covers conduct which amounts to an abuse of a dominant position in
> the UK.
>
> Chapter 1 does not apply unless the agreement has an appreciable
> effect on competition in the UK, this is taken as the parties
> involved having a market share of 25% or greater. As Apeks do
> not have such a market share then this prohibition does not
> apply.
>
> Abuse of Chapter 2 can only be upheld if the firm is dominant
> in the market, a firm is dominant if it can behave to an
> appreciable extent independently of its competitors and ultimately
> of its consumers. If its market share is less than 40% it is
> unlikely to be considered dominant.
>
> Refusal to supply even if the company was dominant may be found
> not in breach of Chapter 2 if justification can be found, e.g if
> there are significant safety issues involved. And this is the
> reason Apeks give to not supply.
>
> So, it may be against consumer interests but unless the law is
> changed there is nothing the OFT can do. And I doubt the law
> will be relaxed, if anything governments will introduce yet more
> laws to prevent you from doing what you want.
>
> - Keith
>

Very insightful... b'stards!

So really the only way to ensure that your regulator is serviced properly is
to pay for afore mentioned and heavily double-quoted "highly trained service
technician" to do it then get it home and strip it down again to make sure
he hasn't ballsed it up...

Tops...

CAS
--
PADI AOW? Get Rescue Training on UKRS Course #1 -
http://divesite.calumscott.me.uk/ukrs/rescue_diver_2004
Temperature @ Stoney? Find it or share it @
http://stoneytemps.calumscott.me.uk/

"David Walker" <wbsdavenews@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bo5du7$aig$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk>...
> > Can I manually change my Mares Abyss regulator from an A-clamp to a
> > DIN, or do I need to get ripped off by taking my regs to a dive shop
> > instead?
>
> Not sure about Mares, but from what I understood with my Oceanic reg was I
> took it in, and thay'd do it for me. As it happens the dive shop I went to
> said he'd fit it for free, so that wasn't an issue, but the cost of the part
> itself was the £51.50, which is just stupid money really. You can buy Apeks
> DS4 first stages for less than £20 more!
> If you could get the part, it would be easy to convert yourself, but whether
> they are allowed to sell it to you i'm not sure - it may be like some (or
> all?) reg service kits where only authorised repair people can buy it and
> they aren't allowed to sell it on.
>
> David

My oceanic was done by Deep Dive Luton for £35 parts and labour incl.
Matt

"Dave Appleby" wrote

> > They're a great bottom timer and depth
> > guage, but, personally, I think their operation as a notrox computer
pretty
> > much stinks.

> Typo or Freudian slip Lee?

Hmmm, darned if I know. I'll check with my keepers.

"CAS" wrote

> So really the only way to ensure that your regulator is serviced properly
is
> to pay for afore mentioned and heavily double-quoted "highly trained
service
> technician" to do it then get it home and strip it down again to make sure
> he hasn't ballsed it up...

I would think this one would be fairly easy to get around, particularly in a
club system. Somebody take the training and provide the service at cost.
Remove the safety issue and you remove the reason you can't get parts. It's
a win/win for everybody. The club gains an asset and a marketing tool. The
trainee gets the knowledge and skills. While the manufacturer may not
initially realize it, it's a win for them too. They got a whole club that
is predisposed to buying their products.

Lee

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:17:44 -0000, "David Walker"
<wbsdavenews@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> That about sums it up. The OFT does not enforce fair trading
>> it enforces the laws on fair trading. If there isn't a specific
>> law there is nothing to enforce.
>
>Useful!
>"Yes, we enforce all the laws on fair trading and consumer protection"...
>"Ah good, so you'll do something about it then?"...
>"Ermmm, no, sorry - there isn't a law for us to enforce, but if there was,
>we would!"

I wonder if they have any jobs going? It sounds like I would have
plenty of time to go diving

Laz

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A foolproof method for sculpting an Elephant:
First, get a huge block of marble. Then, chip away
everything that doesn't look like an Elephant.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Change "nospam" to "ntlworld" to reply.

"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:6Q6qb.10113$9M3.2270@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
> "CAS" wrote
>
> > So really the only way to ensure that your regulator is serviced
properly
> is
> > to pay for afore mentioned and heavily double-quoted "highly trained
> service
> > technician" to do it then get it home and strip it down again to make
sure
> > he hasn't ballsed it up...
>
> I would think this one would be fairly easy to get around, particularly in
a
> club system. Somebody take the training and provide the service at cost.
> Remove the safety issue and you remove the reason you can't get parts.
It's
> a win/win for everybody. The club gains an asset and a marketing tool.
The
> trainee gets the knowledge and skills. While the manufacturer may not
> initially realize it, it's a win for them too. They got a whole club that
> is predisposed to buying their products.
>
if only..
it was that easy
I don't believe that a member of the public can go on a manufactures course
I think they have to be 'sponsored by a dive shop

"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:6Q6qb.10113$9M3.2270@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...

> I would think this one would be fairly easy to get around, particularly in
a
> club system. Somebody take the training and provide the service at cost.
> Remove the safety issue and you remove the reason you can't get parts.
It's
> a win/win for everybody. The club gains an asset and a marketing tool.
The
> trainee gets the knowledge and skills. While the manufacturer may not
> initially realize it, it's a win for them too. They got a whole club that
> is predisposed to buying their products.
>
> Lee

{Thread Yawn}
Lee,

The issue is that clubs; The dive shops here are typically run by people
that were from clubs, as clubs and not businesses and as such you get the
usual bull and politics - lets just take the fantastic idea of selling stuff
at less than you buy it for... nobody wins with an unsustainable business
model. Hence a number of suppliers will and do refuse to sell to "shops"
that do this, as these "shops" cannot forfill the requirements of backup and
support required, nor the requirements for products liability, don't hold
stock etc etc - because they do not have the business model in their
charging policy to support this.

When clubs "market" themselves and "sell products" they cease to be "a
collection of like minded individuals" they have taken the first step
towards being a business, they need to behave and account for themselves in
that way - to present a balance - just so nobody believes I'm having a go at
"clubs" - "shops" need to behave like professional businesses.

What we have _typically_ is the worst of both, with a typical diver attitude
of "cheapest is best" which I've always found odd about life support
equipment. I didn't believe that Americans really had a sense of humour or
understood sarcasm, until I heard the PADI video statement "Divers are a
special group of social people" - a truism, that I'm confident was not
intended as I now interpret and regurgitate it.

/FAB
http://www.e-aquanauts.com
http://www.witteringdivers.co.uk
http://www.vobsterquay.co.uk

Frank Bruce <fbruce@cruelmail.com> writes:

>usual bull and politics - lets just take the fantastic idea of selling stuff
>at less than you buy it for...

I don't think that anyone is advocating that: I'm not asking
manufacturers to sell stuff at less than they buy it.

I think Lee has a good point: why shouldn't a club be able to carry out
equipment servicing of the club's own equipment, provided that the
people doing the work have recieved (and paid for) the same training
as the people in the shops?

Why shouldn't that service be extended to members of the club who own
similar equipment? After all there are no onerous pre-requisites to
be trained in regulator maintenance - dive shops can take people off
the street, so why shouldn't, for example, a time-served mechanical
engineering apprentice with a degree in engineering and 20 years
experience be considered suitable with the right training?

>When clubs "market" themselves and "sell products" they cease to be "a
>collection of like minded individuals" they have taken the first step
>towards being a business, they need to behave and account for themselves in
>that way

Clubs are are already in competition with shops. Without members the
clubs will die, and what we are seeing is recent years is a growing
number of people who have their diving organised for them by a dive
shop rather than by a club. Unless the clubs are able to market
themselves they will not recruit and maintain members, and yes you're
right in order to do this properly there are many aspects of running a
modern dive club which do require the club to behave as a business.

>What we have _typically_ is the worst of both, with a typical diver attitude
>of "cheapest is best" which I've always found odd about life support
>equipment.

Me too. This for once has nothing to do with 'cheapest is best' and
everything to do with 'best quality is best'. Who has the higher
motivation to ensure that the servicing work on a piece of life
support equipment has been done to the highest possible standard: a
minimum wage employee with minimal experience and training who may not
even have met the user of the equipment, or the user himself?

Regards,

Pete

--
__________________________________________________ __________________
Pete Young pete@antipope.org Remove dot. to reply
"Just another crouton, floating on the bouillabaisse of life"

"Pete Young" <pete@antipope.dot.org> wrote in message
news:bob1sc$7qb$1@visp.bt.co.uk...

> I think Lee has a good point: why shouldn't a club be able to carry out
> equipment servicing of the club's own equipment, provided that the
> people doing the work have recieved (and paid for) the same training
> as the people in the shops?
>
> Why shouldn't that service be extended to members of the club who own
> similar equipment? After all there are no onerous pre-requisites to
> be trained in regulator maintenance - dive shops can take people off
> the street, so why shouldn't, for example, a time-served mechanical
> engineering apprentice with a degree in engineering and 20 years
> experience be considered suitable with the right training?

I can see no reason and I am aware that a couple of clubs local to me have
service/spares only accounts with manufacturers.

Their own purchasing decisions may be influenced by their ability to
maintain their own equipment.

I would hope that the individual(s) or club has all the correct tools,
processes and insurance(s) to cover themselves in the event of...... as a
business would/should, but as I finnished "Divers are a group of _special_
social people", the very same people have used drain cleaner to clean BCDs
and car grease to lube regs.....this weekend I opened a "just been serviced"
ebay bargin to find it full of 3in1 or similar.

Maybe the manufacturers are unwilling to accept this aspect/ allow to act as
agent / or believe that they can deal adequately / or have the
infrastructure too deal / with those time-served mechanical engineering
apprentice(s) with a degree in engineering and 20 years experience

Don't get me wrong - conversly I've seen some really vfery very dodgy
servicing from "professionals" but there is recourse for that.

/FAB