When it comes to testing gaming machines for compliance, monopolies have a habit of getting in the way, as David Snook finds out...
Testing machines for compliance with national standards is carried out by a host of different independent companies and some that are government-owned, but some questions are now being asked of the validity of monopolies.
In the European Community, for example, the existence of government monopolies for machine testing is increasingly controversial. It is often pointed out that under EC law, free competition is a fundamental right that is being flouted by governments keen to ensure either total control over testing or monopolisation of the lucrative income stream from testing.
At a recent press seminar in Germany, the head of the PTB government monopoly testing house, faced some hostile questioning from trade journalists blaming the slow progress of machines on to the German market on the fact that there is only one permitted testing house.
And within the European Community there are a number of other examples of monopolies, in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia and France. Yet Italy recognises as many as six testing organisations for gaming machines. In North America there are four examples of state monopolies on machine testing, in Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ontario in Canada.
Not all of those European countries have state-owned companies controlling machine testing; some only recognise one independently-owned organisation, but in any event, the wider testing industry views the monopolies as flouting the concept of EC principles.
The failure to accept testing results conducted on the same machines in other countries by internationally reputed organisations remains a sore spot with some of the world’s best-known names in testing.
Some of the biggest names in the testing business are among the disaffected and frustrated parties in this situation. “As a test lab accredited in one EC country, your results should be recognised in another EC country. That is surely fundamental to the EC principles,” said a key executive with one international testing house.
He added: “That does not happen in many cases. In most countries laws were enacted a long time ago to create these testing entities and the processes under which they operate. For a number of reasons, these regulations have not been modified following the accession of the respective countries to EC membership. In one or two cases - Bulgaria is a good example - the law did not have to be modified at all.”
The downside of monopolies is the loss of revenue to the state because they are not getting testing done at all in some cases because the process has become too slow. “If you have a single organisation which is the sole gate-keeper for certification then the revenue stream is slow. If you have more than one entity granting certification there is more revenue because you are increasing the width of the pipeline.”
In a monopoly there is no pressure to ensure that the job is done properly, said another representative of a European-based testing house. “If you have multiple organisations then you will be forced to recognise that those other labs may do it more efficiently or even that the former monopoly has not carried out the work correctly.”
It is an EU principle that goods and services should flow freely throughout the member states. This does not appear to be happening. Even when some of the major names in testing have been to the governments with monopolies to ask them why, they have not been given valid reasons for it.