Electric cars?

[rcw1]

Oils ain't oils

Sol
rcw1

 

[sptrawler]

No offence, but you have reached the same conclusion that most of th vehicle manufacturers have got to... 'shyt, I've got an EV but nowhere to charge it'.

Offence taken, I didn't buy the car for the charging options, I chose the car for personal needs and physical constraints and decided on a car to suit as I've said previously.
The charging constraints aren't an issue for me, or I wouldn't have bought the car, I am retired and I don't actually need a car, it is just an indulgence. So inferring I wasn't aware of the charging constraints is 100% wrong.

Also as I said, the ACCC in the past has made a point of making companies open up access to installed infrastructure, to reduce duplication and wastage. I was just posing the question, why they haven't done it with the Tesla network.
But VC did say the destination chargers have been opened to general access, so obviously talks have taken place.
You don't buy a mobile phone, just because the train you travel on daily has a suitable charging socket, well at least I wouldn't.
By the way the charging infrastructure for Tesla and every other E.V is shyt in W.A.

 

[JohnDe]

Offence taken, I didn't buy the car for the charging options, I chose the car for personal needs and physical constraints and decided on a car to suit as I've said previously.
The charging constraints aren't an issue for me, or I wouldn't have bought the car, I am retired and I don't actually need a car, it is just an indulgence. So inferring I wasn't aware of the charging constraints is 100% wrong.

Also as I said, the ACCC in the past has made a point of making companies open up access to installed infrastructure, to reduce duplication and wastage. I was just posing the question, why they haven't done it with the Tesla network.
But VC did say the destination chargers have been opened to general access, so obviously talks have taken place.
You don't buy a mobile phone, just because the train you travel on daily has a suitable charging socket, well at least I wouldn't.
By the way the charging infrastructure for Tesla and every other E.V is shyt in W.A.

"There are a couple of Tesla destination chargers near us, so I will give them a go and see if they work with the Hyundai."​

​

A question I have wanted to ask for a long, long time, but haven't because I hoped it would be self resolving before it affected me.​

Is why hasn't the ACCC demanded Tesla open up access to all E.V's, when Tesla has open access to taxpayer funded charging infrastructure?"​

If it wasn't for Tesla there would not be an EV industry that we see now, instead we would have lost of Toyota Prius's, Nissan Leaf's and Chevrolet Volts.

Tesla built a charging system by adding the cost to the vehicle price. If any other vehicle manufacturers wanted to be a part of that they could have had business discussions wiht Tesla, they did not. Instead they chose to think that EVs were decades away from becoming mainstream and decided to concentrate on hybrid. All of a sudden, a few years back, EV sales went ballistic and now owners of alternative EVs have found out that charging infrastructure for the brand they chose isn't so good.

Why should Tesla be held to account for the mistakes of other manufacturers?

Why should the buyers of Tesla, that paid a extra for a premium charging network, lose priority if their network because other manufacturers did not prepare for the future and sell their vehicles at a discount with no infrastructure?

 

[sptrawler]

"There are a couple of Tesla destination chargers near us, so I will give them a go and see if they work with the Hyundai."​

​

A question I have wanted to ask for a long, long time, but haven't because I hoped it would be self resolving before it affected me.​

Is why hasn't the ACCC demanded Tesla open up access to all E.V's, when Tesla has open access to taxpayer funded charging infrastructure?"​

If it wasn't for Tesla there would not be an EV industry that we see now, instead we would have lost of Toyota Prius's, Nissan Leaf's and Chevrolet Volts.

Tesla built a charging system by adding the cost to the vehicle price. If any other vehicle manufacturers wanted to be a part of that they could have had business discussions wiht Tesla, they did not. Instead they chose to think that EVs were decades away from becoming mainstream and decided to concentrate on hybrid. All of a sudden, a few years back, EV sales went ballistic and now owners of alternative EVs have found out that charging infrastructure for the brand they chose isn't so good.

Why should Tesla be held to account for the mistakes of other manufacturers?

Why should the buyers of Tesla, that paid a extra for a premium charging network, lose priority if their network because other manufacturers did not prepare for the future and sell their vehicles at a discount with no infrastructure?

Why should Singapore telecom have been given access to the Telstra network, why should Fortescue metals have been given access to some of Rio's and BHP's infrastructure, it is the way it is in Australia giving access to Tesla's infrastructure allows a more rapid uptake of E.V's.
That's what the ACCC looks at, the same reason Tesla changed from its proprietary plug to the CCs EU standard, so that it allowed more charging options for Tesla's.
It isn't about what is right or wrong, it seldom is, it is about what brings about the most efficient outcome that the ACCC looks at.
Like I said it will be interesting to see if the ACCC acts on it, maybe they wont, but it is an interesting side issue on the E.V front as it is all a bit boring ATM.
No doubt there will be a Tesla owners price and a general public price to use Teslas infrastructure, but it may never happen anyway, I'm just guessing it will happen.

Same as the ex Australia Post CEO, is now applying to the ACCC, so that TOLL can get access to Australia Post infrastructure when they are in direct competition with Australia Post.

Postie Holgate pushes the envelope​

Former Aussie Post boss Christine Holgate’s Toll Global Express has lobbed a 12-page submission to the competition watchdog.

Christine Holgate is taking on her previous employer, attempting to force Australia Post to allow Global Express to take advantage of its rural and region infrastructure and services.

 

[Smurf1976]

Why should the buyers of Tesla, that paid a extra for a premium charging network, lose priority if their network because other manufacturers did not prepare for the future and sell their vehicles at a discount with no infrastructure?

The real issue is that the infrastructure is, over the long term, separate to the car.

Mobile phones versus mobile phone networks are separate businesses. They used to be more common but carrier-branded phones aren't the mainstream these days and even where they still exist, they're manufactured by someone else and just branded.

No car manufacturer's building their own roads so far as I'm aware.

Airlines, airports and aircraft manufacture are all separate businesses and any major airport is used by more than one airline. Even the bus service to the airport isn't run by the airlines anymore but is a separate business.

ICE cars aren't tied to any particular brand of fuel.

Plenty of trains running on tracks owned by someone else.

And so on.

I totally agree that Tesla has invested in charging facilities and ought be compensated and so on but ultimately the concept of allowing open access has been forced on every other comparable industry unless they'd already done it themselves.

Even some (all?) of the bank-owned brokers don't actually insist that you use their bank for the cash account. Encourage it certainly but they don't force it.

 

[JohnDe]

Why should Singapore telecom have been given access to the Telstra network, why should Fortescue metals have been given access to some of Rio's and BHP's infrastructure, it is the way it is in Australia giving access to Tesla's infrastructure allows a more rapid uptake of E.V's.
That's what the ACCC looks at, the same reason Tesla changed from its proprietary plug to the CCs EU standard, so that it allowed more charging options for Tesla's.
It isn't about what is right or wrong, it seldom is, it is about what brings about the most efficient outcome that the ACCC looks at.
Like I said it will be interesting to see if the ACCC acts on it, maybe they wont, but it is an interesting side issue on the E.V front as it is all a bit boring ATM.
No doubt there will be a Tesla owners price and a general public price to use Teslas infrastructure, but it may never happen anyway, I'm just guessing it will happen.

Same as the ex Australia Post CEO, is now applying to the ACCC, so that TOLL can get access to Australia Post infrastructure when they are in direct competition with Australia Post.

Postie Holgate pushes the envelope​

Former Aussie Post boss Christine Holgate’s Toll Global Express has lobbed a 12-page submission to the competition watchdog.

Christine Holgate is taking on her previous employer, attempting to force Australia Post to allow Global Express to take advantage of its rural and region infrastructure and services.

I have no idea on how your examples have anything to do with a private company's infrastructure.

Singtel telecom and telstra​

​

Fortescue metals given access to Rio's and BHP infrastructure​

There is no concern over Tesla creating any sort of monopoly. Tesla have an open source philosophy - All Our Patent Are Belong To You

Part of the sale of Tesla vehicles included the construction of Superchargers, funded by a cost added to the vehicle sale.

Will your next demand be that Qantas open The Qantas Club to all other airlines?

 

[Value Collector]

Agree as such but it's still a silly situation and in other comparable situations the ACCC or government itself has indeed forced the issue.

Electricity itself is the most obvious example. Communications networks another. Gas another. Forced competition has brought plenty of problems but it has been forced nonetheless.

That said, I'm certainly not advocating whacking Tesla over the head on this. Rather what's needed is a universal standard and a business model that recovers costs from users, not from selling cars.

I get what you are saying with things that are impractical to replicate, like train lines, gas pipelines, electricity transmission lines, phone cables etc etc.

But this is not what teslas charging stations are like, think of it more like a gym member ship, imagine one gym company paying to install gyms all over Australia, and then being forced to open its doors to the customers of another company because that company refuses to install any gyms them selves.

———————
The way I see it playing out is that when say Mercedes commit to building out a charging network, they could do a deal with Tesla where if they commit to helping fill in the gaps in teslas network then they can use Teslas and tesla can use theirs.

But, if an auto maker refuses to have a charging network at all, their customers have to rely on third party networks getting built.

 

[JohnDe]

The real issue is that the infrastructure is, over the long term, separate to the car.

Mobile phones versus mobile phone networks are separate businesses. They used to be more common but carrier-branded phones aren't the mainstream these days and even where they still exist, they're manufactured by someone else and just branded.

No car manufacturer's building their own roads so far as I'm aware.

Airlines, airports and aircraft manufacture are all separate businesses and any major airport is used by more than one airline. Even the bus service to the airport isn't run by the airlines anymore but is a separate business.

ICE cars aren't tied to any particular brand of fuel.

Plenty of trains running on tracks owned by someone else.

And so on.

I totally agree that Tesla has invested in charging facilities and ought be compensated and so on but ultimately the concept of allowing open access has been forced on every other comparable industry unless they'd already done it themselves.

Even some (all?) of the bank-owned brokers don't actually insist that you use their bank for the cash account. Encourage it certainly but they don't force it.

What is the "long term" 5, 10, 20 years?

If a consumer pays extra for a service, should that consumer receive fair value for the added cost?

Is Tesla the dominant electric car brand in Australia? Yes, because the electric-only brand is more established than most of its mainstream rivals, having begun selling its cars in earnest at the end of 2014.

Consumers have a choice - buy a cheaper EV with public and random charging infrastructure, or pay a premium for Tesla with a dedicated charging infrastructure and software to match.

Manufacturers have a choice - sell a product with minimal planning of charging infrastructure, or create a planning group with other manufacturers and governments and build charging infrastructure.

As with all early industry, things change when it becomes mainstream. The first petrol vehicle owners did not have the luxury of pulling into a petrol station for fuel, they had to plan their trips and look for locations to purchase fuel, such as chemists & general stores. Competition and initiative created fuel stations, not governments & angry consumers that chose with different criteria in mind.

 

[Value Collector]

OK so we are going to get Tesla building their own charging network and Hyundai building theirs and Toyota building another one all for their own vehicles only.

What a pile of cr@p that is going to turn into.

No, I don’t think those other companies are going to build their own network, people buying cars from those companies with have to rely on third parties like Ampol and other independent for profit charging station companies building a net work.

Teslas Network will operate along side the other companies, atleast until such time that Tesla decides to open it up to other brands because they feel it’s profitable to do so, and won’t swamp the network.

————————
As I said in another post, if Hyundai did build out a decent network I could see a scenario where Tesla would be willing to do a mutual deal where we use theirs and they use ours.

That would work out well for customers of both Hyundai and Tesla, but why would either Hyundai or Tesla want their networks swamped by brands that refuse to contribute to the system?

 

[Smurf1976]

why would either Hyundai or Tesla want their networks swamped by brands that refuse to contribute to the system?

I'm not really for or against, within reason, but I can think of plenty of examples where some company has tried to "lock in" customers via consumables, accessories or other services. Ultimately every single one has either failed outright or been overturned by law.

Microsoft and web browsers

Printers and proprietary paper and ink

Record companies trying to stop downloads and streaming

All non-standard media formats of which there's a very long list over the years between audio, video and computer.

Ultimately they all either failed commercially, were worked around technically or were overturned by legislation.

Looking at the specific case of Tesla, the crunch will come when Tesla ceases to dominate the EV market as it almost certainly will. Not because it fails but simply because every other manufacturer between them will almost certainly gain a significant market share at some point - odds are we won't see a situation where practically every car on the road is a Tesla.

At that point any third party with a charger on their land will want one that serves all their potential customers no matter what car they have. If you're running a motel, or worse still if you're the local council and it's on public land, then it's not in your interest to have a proprietary system that doesn't suit the majority. If 90% of EV's are Tesla then having a Tesla-only charger works. If 20% are Tesla then you'd be crazy to not change to a generic charger that suits the other 80% as well. That's just business.

I've no hate for Tesla, somewhat the opposite they deserve a lot more credit than certain other car manufacturers I can think of, but I'm just looking ahead. In any situation where there's a proprietary system competing against a generic one, the generic wins in the end.

 

[Smurf1976]

What is the "long term" 5, 10, 20 years?

At whatever time EV's are the mainstream new car purchase.

Once that happens, the idea of brand-specific charging becomes rather odd.

 

[qldfrog]

I'm not really for or against, within reason, but I can think of plenty of examples where some company has tried to "lock in" customers via consumables, accessories or other services. Ultimately every single one has either failed outright or been overturned by law.

Microsoft and web browsers

Printers and proprietary paper and ink

Record companies trying to stop downloads and streaming

All non-standard media formats of which there's a very long list over the years between audio, video and computer.

Ultimately they all either failed commercially, were worked around technically or were overturned by legislation.

Looking at the specific case of Tesla, the crunch will come when Tesla ceases to dominate the EV market as it almost certainly will. Not because it fails but simply because every other manufacturer between them will almost certainly gain a significant market share at some point - odds are we won't see a situation where practically every car on the road is a Tesla.

At that point any third party with a charger on their land will want one that serves all their potential customers no matter what car they have. If you're running a motel, or worse still if you're the local council and it's on public land, then it's not in your interest to have a proprietary system that doesn't suit the majority. If 90% of EV's are Tesla then having a Tesla-only charger works. If 20% are Tesla then you'd be crazy to not change to a generic charger that suits the other 80% as well. That's just business.

I've no hate for Tesla, somewhat the opposite they deserve a lot more credit than certain other car manufacturers I can think of, but I'm just looking ahead. In any situation where there's a proprietary system competing against a generic one, the generic wins in the end.

Unless Tesla wants to be the Apple of the car industry.
imho they want
Superb branding and image, always proprietary, leverage their specific tech and apply law after dragging their feet and gaining time..specific charger,even forming behavioural learnings to lock custumer base.
Once you start talking Tesla feel in a car test ,they win .
After they will have..have their own chargers..we are one,tribe aspect,put a $ premium...selective tribe..
Most of the Apple current offers are not leading edge at all but it does not matter anymore: captive audience.
In my opinion, Tesla run .. successfully the same marketing..and succeeded as far as i can see

 

[Value Collector]

I'm not really for or against, within reason, but I can think of plenty of examples where some company has tried to "lock in" customers via consumables, accessories or other services. Ultimately every single one has either failed outright or been overturned by law.

Microsoft and web browsers

Printers and proprietary paper and ink

Record companies trying to stop downloads and streaming

All non-standard media formats of which there's a very long list over the years between audio, video and computer.

Ultimately they all either failed commercially, were worked around technically or were overturned by legislation.

Looking at the specific case of Tesla, the crunch will come when Tesla ceases to dominate the EV market as it almost certainly will. Not because it fails but simply because every other manufacturer between them will almost certainly gain a significant market share at some point - odds are we won't see a situation where practically every car on the road is a Tesla.

At that point any third party with a charger on their land will want one that serves all their potential customers no matter what car they have. If you're running a motel, or worse still if you're the local council and it's on public land, then it's not in your interest to have a proprietary system that doesn't suit the majority. If 90% of EV's are Tesla then having a Tesla-only charger works. If 20% are Tesla then you'd be crazy to not change to a generic charger that suits the other 80% as well. That's just business.

I've no hate for Tesla, somewhat the opposite they deserve a lot more credit than certain other car manufacturers I can think of, but I'm just looking ahead. In any situation where there's a proprietary system competing against a generic one, the generic wins in the end.

The big hole if your “locking in costumers via consumables” theory, is that is not what Tesla is doing at all.

Tesla are not locking in Tesla owners to charging at their super chargers only.

Tesla owners can charge where ever they want, they aren’t locked in, Tesla is locking out other brands. (At the moment)

If the Non Tesla ev market continues to grow, third party charging stations should grow too, just like third party petrol stations did.

In the mean time if tesla opened it’s doors to the other brands it would kill demand for the third party networks, and swamp the exisiting tesla chargers.

It’s inconvenient in the short term for folks that buy other brands, but we need them to squirm for a while to generate enough demand to boost the third party chargers.

 

[sptrawler]

I get what you are saying with things that are impractical to replicate, like train lines, gas pipelines, electricity transmission lines, phone cables etc etc.

But this is not what teslas charging stations are like, think of it more like a gym member ship, imagine one gym company paying to install gyms all over Australia, and then being forced to open its doors to the customers of another company because that company refuses to install any gyms them selves.

———————
The way I see it playing out is that when say Mercedes commit to building out a charging network, they could do a deal with Tesla where if they commit to helping fill in the gaps in teslas network then they can use Teslas and tesla can use theirs.

But, if an auto maker refuses to have a charging network at all, their customers have to rely on third party networks getting built.

Using your gym example, the similarity is very good, if a member of another gym was prepared to pay to use the oppositions gym eg join, there would be a case of discrimination and restrictive trade practice if he wasnt allowed to do so.
Im surprised that you cant see that, I may be barking up the wrong tree, but as I said in the begining it makes for an interesting debate.
Like Ive said Im surprised the ACCC hasnt got onto it yet, maybe early days and it isnt a major issue yet, I might drop them an email.Lol

 

[JohnDe]

Some lucky South Aussies will get the opportunity to buy a discounted EV from a electricity supplier -

iO Energy is selling discounted EVs for more than $10,000 less than the cheapest competitor​

If you’ve been thinking about swapping your petrol car for an electric vehicle, an energy retailer is offering discounted models.

An energy retailer is offering South Australians discounted electric cars to its customers.
In what iO Energy claims is the best electric vehicle deal in Australia, a BYD e6 hatchback with a Wallbox Pulsar Plus charger can be bought for $33,000 plus shipping and handling.

The BYD e6 has a range of up to 400km.

iO says the cars were originally purchased and imported by an interstate company that then changed its business plans before using or registering them.

It then agreed to sell some of its fleet to iO customers.


The BYD e6 hatchback. Picture: Supplied

iO says the cheapest EV in Australia is the MG ZS EV Excite with a starting price of $44,990 for the vehicle alone.

“Compared to other EVs that take months or years to import and deliver, there is little to no wait time for these cars. They are already in Australia and can be delivered to you before your next option is in country,” iO’s chief operating officer Luke Morton said.

Drivers who charge the 80 kWh battery on iO Energy’s residential electricity rate of $0.09/kWh will pay $7.20 for a full charge.

Buyers will also be eligible for a range of state government incentives including an upfront subsidy of $3000 and a three-year registration exemption valued at $2055.

They could also earn an extra $120 a year by charging at times that support the stability of the South Australian electricity grid.

 

[Value Collector]

Using your gym example, the similarity is very good, if a member of another gym was prepared to pay to use the oppositions gym eg join, there would be a case of discrimination and restrictive trade practice if he wasnt allowed to do so.
Im surprised that you cant see that, I may be barking up the wrong tree, but as I said in the begining it makes for an interesting debate.
Like Ive said Im surprised the ACCC hasnt got onto it yet, maybe early days and it isnt a major issue yet, I might drop them an email.Lol

You have sign up and join a gym, In the case of Tesla, that sign up is when you buy the car, so there is no discrimination, anyone can buy a Tesla and join our club, but offcourse if you join another club then you are stuck with that clubs services or relying on the third party public service.

It’s like I can’t go into the Qantas lounge if I am flying virgin, we can all use the food court at the airport (public chargers) but if you want the upgraded experience of the Qantas lounge (Tesla chargers) you need to have a valid Qantas membership and be flying Qantas that day.

Imagine if the government told Qantas is had to start accepting Virgin customers into the Qantas lounge, the response would be “tell virgin to build their own lounge” or “tell the virgin customers to use the public facilities in the food court”

Private Clubs exist, eg only Costco members can shop at Costco, air port lounges, gyms, road side assistance, sports clubs, social clubs it’s not a new thing.

 

[sptrawler]

You have sign up and join a gym, In the case of Tesla, that sign up is when you buy the car, so there is no discrimination, anyone can buy a Tesla and join our club, but offcourse if you join another club then you are stuck with that clubs services or relying on the third party public service.

It’s like I can’t go into the Qantas lounge if I am flying virgin, we can all use the food court at the airport (public chargers) but if you want the upgraded experience of the Qantas lounge (Tesla chargers) you need to have a valid Qantas membership and be flying Qantas that day.

Imagine if the government told Qantas is had to start accepting Virgin customers into the Qantas lounge.

Private Clubs exist, eg only Costco members can shop at Costco, it’s not a new thing.

That is exactly the reason that the ACCC would take exception IMO, what is fair and reasonable, if the Tesla was still a proprietary plug that could only use the Tesla network that would probably work, but because it can avail itself of all networks it would make the argument flawed IMO.
Like I said they could charge a higher price for non Tesla owners, but the requirement to purchase the vehicle, wouldn't be seen as fair and reasonable and in the public interest. Again only my thoughts.
With the Qantas club, not being a member, doesn't leave a person stranded or stop a person catching a Qantas plane or a Virgin plane, not being a Tesla member could leave a person stranded and in difficulty. .
I don't think the argument that you have to buy a certain car to use what will be eventually critical infrastructure, would hold water, should only Qantas shareholders be allowed to fly on Qantas planes? You don't have to buy shares in the Gym company or purchase a part of the gym building, to join and use the Gym and its facilities.
It is a bit like from memory a lot of shareholder reward programmes were closed, whereby if you owned shares in say Telstra you could get cheaper phone rates, or banks gave shareholders better interest rates, that used to happen.
Anyway like I said, interesting topic.

 

[SirRumpole]

You have sign up and join a gym, In the case of Tesla, that sign up is when you buy the car, so there is no discrimination, anyone can buy a Tesla and join our club, but offcourse if you join another club then you are stuck with that clubs services or relying on the third party public service.

It’s like I can’t go into the Qantas lounge if I am flying virgin, we can all use the food court at the airport (public chargers) but if you want the upgraded experience of the Qantas lounge (Tesla chargers) you need to have a valid Qantas membership and be flying Qantas that day.

Imagine if the government told Qantas is had to start accepting Virgin customers into the Qantas lounge, the response would be “tell virgin to build their own lounge” or “tell the virgin customers to use the public facilities in the food court”

Private Clubs exist, eg only Costco members can shop at Costco, air port lounges, gyms, road side assistance, sports clubs, social clubs it’s not a new thing.

Regardless of the legalities it doesn't seem good business to exclude a section of the market from buying goods that you are selling.

Tesla is one company, many others are making ev's and Tesla being on the expensive side is likely to be a minority in the EV fleet, so there will be a lot of charging stations popping up, would you be happy if they didn't allow Teslas in ?

 

[Value Collector]

That is exactly the reason that the ACCC would take exception IMO, what is fair and reasonable, if the Tesla was still a proprietary plug that could only use the Tesla network that would probably work, but because it can avail itself of all networks it would make the argument flawed IMO.
Like I said they could charge a higher price for non Tesla owners, but the requirement to purchase the vehicle, wouldn't be seen as fair and reasonable and in the public interest. Again only my thoughts.
With the Qantas club, not being a member, doesn't leave a person stranded or stop a person catching a Qantas plane or a Virgin plane, not being a Tesla member could leave a person stranded and in difficulty. .
I don't think the argument that you have to buy a certain car to use what will be eventually critical infrastructure, would hold water, should only Qantas shareholders be allowed to fly on Qantas planes? You don't have to buy shares or purchase a part of the gym building, to join and use the Gym.
Anyway like I said, interesting topic.

Why is Costco allowed to have petrol stations that only members can use?

I have a charger in my garage, do I have to open that up to the public?

If Woolworths decided to install chargers that were only available to Woolworths customers would that be wrong?

What about hotels that offer charging for guests, do they need to make them public?

——————————
It seems to me to be completely fair that Teslas chargers are not open to the public, because there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone developing a public network.

Tesla is in the business of selling cars, They only got into the charging business to remove one of the major road blocks people had stopping them buying Tesla vehicles which was the “how do I drive cross country” question.

So from the very start Teslas charging network has been a bit for profit service to their customers.

It’s not like a railway line that is hard to replicate, anyone can invest and build out more charging locations, they just don’t want to.

 

[JohnDe]

That is exactly the reason that the ACCC would take exception IMO, what is fair and reasonable, if the Tesla was still a proprietary plug that could only use the Tesla network that would probably work, but because it can avail itself of all networks it would make the argument flawed IMO.
Like I said they could charge a higher price for non Tesla owners, but the requirement to purchase the vehicle, wouldn't be seen as fair and reasonable and in the public interest. Again only my thoughts.
With the Qantas club, not being a member, doesn't leave a person stranded or stop a person catching a Qantas plane or a Virgin plane, not being a Tesla member could leave a person stranded and in difficulty. .
I don't think the argument that you have to buy a certain car to use what will be eventually critical infrastructure, would hold water, should only Qantas shareholders be allowed to fly on Qantas planes? You don't have to buy shares in the Gym company or purchase a part of the gym building, to join and use the Gym and its facilities.
Anyway like I said, interesting topic.

The ACCC will spend approximately 20 minutes assess the Tesla charging network, and then move on to more pressing issues.

Any person with an EV that becomes 'stranded' due to running out of charge, is the same as a person that runs out of petrol.



Interesting thought process of the ACCC - ACCC says it’s OK for big utilities to exploit market power