An end to ‘bill shock’ as EU mobile roaming charges are slashed(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
An end to ‘bill shock’ as EU mobile roaming charges are slashed
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/apr/30/end-bill-shock-eu-mobile-roaming-charges-slashed-phone
81 comments
Are PAG deals still popular in Italy? pretty much every contract but the absolute cheapest one in most EU countries I've seen comes with unlimited SMS, even the lowest ones usually come with like 2000...
That usually doesn't include SMS sent to foreign phones which seems to be the problem here.
There are plans to fix this next year, i.e. starting from mid-2017 you are going to pay home tariff [1] (i.e. 30 cents per SMS to France) wherever you are in EU.
[1] http://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/2015/10/27/news/parlamen...
[1] http://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/2015/10/27/news/parlamen...
Actually, that shouldn’t be possible.
The EU limited cross-national SMS to 10ct per SMS, and 10ct per minute of phone calls, too.
The EU limited cross-national SMS to 10ct per SMS, and 10ct per minute of phone calls, too.
Are you sure? I have never heard that nor could I find anything in the roaming regulation. I just checked a few (German) mobile providers and all charge more than you suggest.
I know ALDI Talk changed theirs down with the justification that "the EU roaming regulations also apply to calling from your home country to another country".
Telekom still charges up to a euro per minute and the price list was updated last week: http://www.telekom.de/dlp/agb/pdf/43777.pdf I know why I'm not a customer there...
Wow, that’s impressive. There’s another good reason not to use T-Mobile.
Aldi Talk costs only 0,12€ to US, Canada, Mexico, and only 0,11€ to EU (same as nationally).
Aldi Talk costs only 0,12€ to US, Canada, Mexico, and only 0,11€ to EU (same as nationally).
My Austrian provider charges 80ct per minute to call other EU countries. (SMS are cheaper because the rate for SMS is independent of the destination country).
Calling other countries is not roaming.
Yes, but that's the issue that the original post in this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11601100) discussed (calling other countries from your home countries is more expensive than calling other countries while roaming).
Why communicate through SMS rather than over the internet?
Have you seen the prices for data roaming?
(Especially since apps tend to send data automatically and also because you're one surprise sync or app store update away from financial catastrophe.)
(Especially since apps tend to send data automatically and also because you're one surprise sync or app store update away from financial catastrophe.)
Data roaming prices got better with this change, but are still somewhat high.
Two of the 4 major US carriers are able to offer free (but somewhat slow) data roaming in Europe, and the other two sell relatively cheap packages for data roaming. How can US carriers offer cheaper roaming in Europe than European carriers themselves?
Two of the 4 major US carriers are able to offer free (but somewhat slow) data roaming in Europe, and the other two sell relatively cheap packages for data roaming. How can US carriers offer cheaper roaming in Europe than European carriers themselves?
Some European networks offer this too, but it is not required by regulation.
It sounds like in this case it wouldn't be data roaming, it'd be local data for the parent in Italy. If it was roaming then both SMS and data would now be regulated.
Data roaming is usually cheap if you pay up front. When I travel I pay a €5 fee for unlimited data for 24hrs. It doesn't allow tethering or film streaming but everything else is covered. I can even use it for Skype calls.
[deleted]
Using the internet eliminates the need to roam (versus simply getting a local SIM with data at the airport). The POTS is dead.
I wouldn't call it "an end", €0.05 extra per MB of data is still very very expensive. It seems like a low number, but people forget it's per MB. Going out, claiming an end to "bill stock", could mean that people will forget that maybe the kids shouldn't be watching Netflix during the holiday, unless they're on WIFI. You still need to disable mobile data when traveling around the EU, because it's not going to be as cheap as using it at home, far from it.
Quite - but you selected a bit of an edge case @ netflix.
This will go along way in preventing people getting slaughtered because Windows decided to quietly do a 300mb update. 15 Euro...big deal. Hell there are country/carrier combinations where that will cost you ~10k EUR (admittedly non-EU...don't know what the highest EU combo is).
Most people just want to check their mails and browse facebook without having to re-mortgage their house.
This will go along way in preventing people getting slaughtered because Windows decided to quietly do a 300mb update. 15 Euro...big deal. Hell there are country/carrier combinations where that will cost you ~10k EUR (admittedly non-EU...don't know what the highest EU combo is).
Most people just want to check their mails and browse facebook without having to re-mortgage their house.
Netflix on holiday is a number one use case for me.
I don't want to sound smug or anything, but why go abroad to watch Netflix?
...because after {an exciting day of seeing all the wonderful attractions that there are to see in $COUNTRY, an exhausting day full of business meetings that you don't really want to go to but come with the territory of working for $MEGACORP}, maybe you just want a quiet evening with a movie to relax?
Well I had a 7 hour stop over on a foreign airport today (LGW) so its not impossible.
But as I said - edge case and very much something that most people would think through carefully in terms of connectivity. e.g. I knew today I can push maybe 250mb before my 3G bombed out. So I browsed instead of netflixed.
But as I said - edge case and very much something that most people would think through carefully in terms of connectivity. e.g. I knew today I can push maybe 250mb before my 3G bombed out. So I browsed instead of netflixed.
Ah yes, airport stopovers are a good point. Maybe also business travel to "boring" places.
Kids, mainly.
Why? Kids
[deleted]
Right now, yes. But these surcharges will be banned entirely from June 2017.
At least they have to automatically switch off your data connection once you hit 50 € until you reenable.
The extra €0.05 per MB is a one year transition period. In 2017, the surcharge will go away completely.
I'm on three in the UK and I pay 18 quid a month for unlimited data pretty much everywhere in the EU, on a rolling contract that I can cancel at any time. I assumed that other EU countries would have similar offers since they are sharing each others networks, is that not the case?
Eyewatering bill shock will continue.
100 pages @ 2.3Mb [1] costs over €10.
[1] http://www.wired.com/2016/04/average-webpage-now-size-origin...
100 pages @ 2.3Mb [1] costs over €10.
[1] http://www.wired.com/2016/04/average-webpage-now-size-origin...
It's a bad title, the end part comes next year, now there's only a transitional period.
€10 for 200MB is at least bearable.
€0.05 per pageload would be a better way of phrasing it.
Plus €35.00 per movie streamed.
Plus €35.00 per movie streamed.
Soooo since hn has a strong libertarian streak, what's the downside?
Certainly forcing the standization of chargers seemed to make life easier across the world.
Certainly forcing the standization of chargers seemed to make life easier across the world.
The companies may have to raise prices on normal services to make up for it.
I haven't seen the profits they're making so I don't know if they're going to have to, but they may.
People often overestimate corporate profits. They hear some company made two billion dollars in profits and start going "ohmygersh what rapacious capitalists", until you notice that they made two billion in profit on fifty-two billion in revenue while employing fifty thousand people. Making two cents of profit on 52 cents of transaction probably doesn't sound quite as bad, and then when you realize that if their costs were merely 4% higher it would have wiped out all their profit (and put the 50,000 employees at risk), and you probably come to a better understanding of the situation. So, what kind of cost increase for the companies is this going to be? I don't know.
Also, I don't mean that "a better understanding of the situation" means that you'll always feel sorry for the big companies, or something; I just mean you'll get a more realistic view of the situation in general, which is good regardless of your goals.
I made the numbers up, but the orders of magnitude are reasonable. There are some very large companies that make more than ~5% profit, but it's actually not a large list; 5% is not that uncommon.
I haven't seen the profits they're making so I don't know if they're going to have to, but they may.
People often overestimate corporate profits. They hear some company made two billion dollars in profits and start going "ohmygersh what rapacious capitalists", until you notice that they made two billion in profit on fifty-two billion in revenue while employing fifty thousand people. Making two cents of profit on 52 cents of transaction probably doesn't sound quite as bad, and then when you realize that if their costs were merely 4% higher it would have wiped out all their profit (and put the 50,000 employees at risk), and you probably come to a better understanding of the situation. So, what kind of cost increase for the companies is this going to be? I don't know.
Also, I don't mean that "a better understanding of the situation" means that you'll always feel sorry for the big companies, or something; I just mean you'll get a more realistic view of the situation in general, which is good regardless of your goals.
I made the numbers up, but the orders of magnitude are reasonable. There are some very large companies that make more than ~5% profit, but it's actually not a large list; 5% is not that uncommon.
Oh, you can be assured that the profit margins for roaming are 99%+, and if they aren't, it's because of unrelated wastage.
Because ever since the internet was invented, it has obviously become very, very, very cheap to send data all over the world. And this is what we're talking about: your SMS needs to go from the provider in country A to provider in country B. How does it do that? Via a standardized protocol over the internet. How much does that cost? Nothing, all the network components have an internet uplink anyway.
The only thing left to explain high roaming prices is market failure, hence the need to intervene by the EU. Only we had the market failure pour its money into the EU, so it's very far off from the regulatory intervention that should have been made.
Because ever since the internet was invented, it has obviously become very, very, very cheap to send data all over the world. And this is what we're talking about: your SMS needs to go from the provider in country A to provider in country B. How does it do that? Via a standardized protocol over the internet. How much does that cost? Nothing, all the network components have an internet uplink anyway.
The only thing left to explain high roaming prices is market failure, hence the need to intervene by the EU. Only we had the market failure pour its money into the EU, so it's very far off from the regulatory intervention that should have been made.
The point is not margin on roaming, it's overall corporate profit margin.
If roaming is cheaper, something else is now more expensive, given that the company's profit margin isn't high to start with.
Roaming fees are probably more progressive anyway and subsidizing plans for less mobile people, aka income limited people.
If roaming is cheaper, something else is now more expensive, given that the company's profit margin isn't high to start with.
Roaming fees are probably more progressive anyway and subsidizing plans for less mobile people, aka income limited people.
There's no reason to believe the telecoms can't make up for it with volume. Like, people might actually start using the roaming services a lot more.
There's no reason to think the telecoms were too dumb to think of that independently, and try it, if it were true.
I think there might be a rule forcing telecom companies to do dumb things.
AT&T had a problem where they could not create a bill for some government networking services. It was build in that they had a fixed window which kept expiring. This went on for years while they fought to keep the contract...
I don't recall all the details but read up on FTS-2000 it was a mess.
AT&T had a problem where they could not create a bill for some government networking services. It was build in that they had a fixed window which kept expiring. This went on for years while they fought to keep the contract...
I don't recall all the details but read up on FTS-2000 it was a mess.
At least one has
>http://www.three.co.uk/Discover/Phones/Feel_At_Home
>Use your phone abroad at no extra cost in
>Australia
>Austria
>Denmark
>Finland
>France
>Hong Kong
>Indonesia
>Israel
>Italy
>Lanzarote - Spain
>Macau
>New Zealand
>Norway
>Republic of Ireland
>Spain
>Sri Lanka
>Sweden
>Switzerland
> and United States
>http://www.three.co.uk/Discover/Phones/Feel_At_Home
>Use your phone abroad at no extra cost in
>Australia
>Austria
>Denmark
>Finland
>France
>Hong Kong
>Indonesia
>Israel
>Italy
>Lanzarote - Spain
>Macau
>New Zealand
>Norway
>Republic of Ireland
>Spain
>Sri Lanka
>Sweden
>Switzerland
> and United States
Sometimes such regulations are good, sometimes they're not. If some company makes a bad decision then it hurts that company and gives advantage to other companies. If regulator makes a bad decision, there is no escape from it and there are completely no consequences for him.
Often it's even hard to tell if something is going to turn out to be a good decision or bad. So even ignoring potential corruption or incompetence and assuming best intentions, it's still seems better to me not to depend on a single entity.
> Certainly forcing the standization of chargers
Nobody forced anybody. There was no EU regulation that all phones must use such and such charger. Companies were simply optimizing for profit and that decision aligned with it.
Often it's even hard to tell if something is going to turn out to be a good decision or bad. So even ignoring potential corruption or incompetence and assuming best intentions, it's still seems better to me not to depend on a single entity.
> Certainly forcing the standization of chargers
Nobody forced anybody. There was no EU regulation that all phones must use such and such charger. Companies were simply optimizing for profit and that decision aligned with it.
Whilst compliance with the European Initiative [1] is voluntary, I find it hard to believe that without the EU proposing the Initiative (presumably with an implied threat of a non-voluntary initiative), that phone manufacturers would all have magically chosen to optimise profit by employing standard micro USB.
I vividly recall the days of smartphones with custom variants of usb cables.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply
I vividly recall the days of smartphones with custom variants of usb cables.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply
Sorry, I wasn't awary of this Initiative. I still would say that it is in best manufacturers interest and they would switch, just like now they are switching to USB-C, but maybe I am wrong after all.
It was the wild west of cables.
Samsung / LG etc were the worst with cables you couldn't even use with different models.
Nokia + Sony were the best as theirs worked for all their respective phones + later nokia switched to USB micro. The standards change made everything so much better!
Samsung / LG etc were the worst with cables you couldn't even use with different models.
Nokia + Sony were the best as theirs worked for all their respective phones + later nokia switched to USB micro. The standards change made everything so much better!
> Nobody forced anybody. There was no EU regulation that all phones must use such and such charger.
There was no EU regulation because the manufacturers fell in line when the EU threatened them with much stricter rules than what they "asked" them to adopt.
There was no EU regulation because the manufacturers fell in line when the EU threatened them with much stricter rules than what they "asked" them to adopt.
Great news. I've switched between 4 different SIM cards in the last week to get decent data costs in the various countries.
Seems rather unnecessary.
Seems rather unnecessary.
Aw, they switched from fixed maximum tariffs, to maximum surcharges. This means that now it'll actually be more expensive to use my phone abroad. Currently, the maximum tariffs are lower than the rates charged at home, for me.
I wonder how this will cover "unlimited" data plans. e.g. The German SIM I've got switches to a throttled speed after the data bundle is exhausted. (Pretty damn slow, but somewhat usable - and weirdly FB voice calls seemed fine).
From mid-2017 those unlimited plans need to carry over while roaming without surcharge. They can however switch off the connection after you reached a (yet to be defined) limit to stop perpetual roamers, i.e. those buying SIM cards from countries other than their residence.
>(yet to be defined) limit to stop perpetual roamers, i.e. those buying SIM cards from countries other than their residence.
I'm tempted to say they should allow perpetual roamers.
That throttled plan I mentioned is sufficiently slow that nobody sane will actually use it long term. Only tourists will use it (google maps & lost) and people utterly desperate for communication. Now if you think about Norway etc introducing broadband internet as a human right then I think we can throw people a bone and give free 384kbps free (thats roughly what it felt like - baring the freakish FB voice working).
384kbps is really at a point where one can say fk it the community will take the financial hit for the greater good. If everyone is guaranteed the ability to send whatsapp/telegram/fb messengers to loved ones & friends that'll save us all a good amount of grief.
For context: It still connects at HSDPA/LTE speeds @ physical link but the throughput is 384kbps - picking that number because I used to be on 384 DSL as a reference point...not because I measured it.
I'm tempted to say they should allow perpetual roamers.
That throttled plan I mentioned is sufficiently slow that nobody sane will actually use it long term. Only tourists will use it (google maps & lost) and people utterly desperate for communication. Now if you think about Norway etc introducing broadband internet as a human right then I think we can throw people a bone and give free 384kbps free (thats roughly what it felt like - baring the freakish FB voice working).
384kbps is really at a point where one can say fk it the community will take the financial hit for the greater good. If everyone is guaranteed the ability to send whatsapp/telegram/fb messengers to loved ones & friends that'll save us all a good amount of grief.
For context: It still connects at HSDPA/LTE speeds @ physical link but the throughput is 384kbps - picking that number because I used to be on 384 DSL as a reference point...not because I measured it.
For international travel I use a Project Fi SIM card that provides data roaming at 256kbps. While web sites load slightly slower, I'm otherwise perfectly happy with 256kbps roaming.
Why are perpetual roamers bad? The guest sim operators pays the host for all services rendered. So they do not lose anything.
Actually operators work in a big clearinghouse model where I live - so at the end of the month there are barely any charges exchanged.
Actually operators work in a big clearinghouse model where I live - so at the end of the month there are barely any charges exchanged.
One potential issue is that data prices in the EU differ quite a lot between countries. For example, I have an Austrian drei.at prepaid card where I pay around 10 EUR per month for 10 GB of data (I have to recharge the card at least once a year so that it doesn't expire). In some other European countries the price for one GB of data is more like 10 EUR instead of 1 EUR.
So one of the use-cases for perpetual roaming is to buy "cheap" SIM cards from another country and to then use them in your (more expensive) home country, which would lead to an asymmetric roaming behavior between the two providers (so one of those providers would have to pay the other one).
So one of the use-cases for perpetual roaming is to buy "cheap" SIM cards from another country and to then use them in your (more expensive) home country, which would lead to an asymmetric roaming behavior between the two providers (so one of those providers would have to pay the other one).
These are retail prices. The wholesale ... are lower.
My example was about retail prices: You're correct that due to clearinghouse there are hardly any charges exchanged - as in most cases the outgoing roaming volume of a provider is comparable to the incoming roaming volume.
But if you have two countries where retail prices differ a lot, this can lead to people from both countries to buy SIM cards from the cheaper country, causing an asymmetry in the roaming volume: Now suddenly one provider has lots of outgoing roaming, but much less incoming roaming - which means that this provider is going to have to pay the wholesale prices for the difference in roaming volume.
But if you have two countries where retail prices differ a lot, this can lead to people from both countries to buy SIM cards from the cheaper country, causing an asymmetry in the roaming volume: Now suddenly one provider has lots of outgoing roaming, but much less incoming roaming - which means that this provider is going to have to pay the wholesale prices for the difference in roaming volume.
So if I have free data available with my monthly plan say 1gb, and I travel to another eu country do I still use my free mb + .05eu per MB or my providers rate for over my data allowance + the .05 ?
amen - but is there any hope for the rest of the world?
I'd love to throw out my santa sack of international sim cards. Maybe I should stop whingeing and just buy some telco shares. Can't beat 'em-
I'd love to throw out my santa sack of international sim cards. Maybe I should stop whingeing and just buy some telco shares. Can't beat 'em-
I said it a thousand times. Joe average, who doesn't work remote and saves money for his two week holidays in Italy, will pay for the creme de ka creme hipsters jetting around Europe pretending they are in Silicon Valey.
This is one of the few areas of customer-protection where I disagree with the EU.
If mobile carriers are colluding to set unreasonable roaming charges then prosecute that as a cartel. But the EU has no business establishing actual call and data charges.
As a result of their intervention they indirectly increase domestic mobile rates for all the people who aren't roaming. The mobile firms can just increase domestic rates to compensate for lower roaming revenues.
If mobile carriers are colluding to set unreasonable roaming charges then prosecute that as a cartel. But the EU has no business establishing actual call and data charges.
As a result of their intervention they indirectly increase domestic mobile rates for all the people who aren't roaming. The mobile firms can just increase domestic rates to compensate for lower roaming revenues.
>they indirectly increase domestic mobile rates for all the people who aren't roaming.
Many of the carriers are pan-European anyway, with local branding. So the concept of a "domestic rate" is already an anachronism.
Roaming users were being gouged because they could be. Now they won't be gouged any more, and that's entirely a good thing.
Many of the carriers are pan-European anyway, with local branding. So the concept of a "domestic rate" is already an anachronism.
Roaming users were being gouged because they could be. Now they won't be gouged any more, and that's entirely a good thing.
> As a result of their intervention they indirectly increase domestic mobile rates for all the people who aren't roaming.
You assume that operators are already working in the margins, which is far from the case.
EDIT: Also, this will encourage phone networks to seek internationally partnerships to share costs, which is in line with the whole "transnational project" part of the European Union actively striving it strives for an actual European Union.
You assume that operators are already working in the margins, which is far from the case.
EDIT: Also, this will encourage phone networks to seek internationally partnerships to share costs, which is in line with the whole "transnational project" part of the European Union actively striving it strives for an actual European Union.
I believe the legitimacy is actually stronger here, since it's (also) based on the non-discrimination and single-market principles.
The EU has always been working to make borders in EU irrelevant for people's freedom. Considering the importance of smartphones these days, being effectively cut off from facebook may be one of the most directly felt downsides with leaving your country.
The EU has always been working to make borders in EU irrelevant for people's freedom. Considering the importance of smartphones these days, being effectively cut off from facebook may be one of the most directly felt downsides with leaving your country.
If the mobile carriers could somehow build their own private wireless spectrum then I'd have no problem with them charging whatever they liked. As it is, their whole existence is based around exploiting a public resource. It seems fair that they're required to prioritize benefit to the public.
As someone who lives and travels in the EU and has had more than enough of this bill shock, I'm all for this regulation - it was clear that the arbitrary border charges were being used (in the smaller EU states) as a way to gouge customers.
If the mobile providers continue to gouge customers by just transferring the costs to domestic billing, then that is something that the EU should also address, and as a subject of EU regulations in this regard, I'm all for it.
If the mobile providers continue to gouge customers by just transferring the costs to domestic billing, then that is something that the EU should also address, and as a subject of EU regulations in this regard, I'm all for it.
> If the mobile providers continue to gouge customers by just transferring the costs to domestic billing, then that is something that the EU should also address
I doubt that'll be necessary, "local" prices are something users can and do check when comparing offers. The roaming issue comes from roaming info usually being small footnotes, most consumers not thinking about the subject (and not considering they'd need it) and needs changing, most people didn't really need data roaming a few years ago, things are markedly different with the "always connected" smartphones.
Basically, roaming prices were a place where MSPs could safely gouge a small fraction of consumers (and make them feel bad for it) without much risk of building up a big protest movement. Most of them apparently didn't see or refused to act on the winds changing, and thus the EU hammer coming down on the practice.
I doubt that'll be necessary, "local" prices are something users can and do check when comparing offers. The roaming issue comes from roaming info usually being small footnotes, most consumers not thinking about the subject (and not considering they'd need it) and needs changing, most people didn't really need data roaming a few years ago, things are markedly different with the "always connected" smartphones.
Basically, roaming prices were a place where MSPs could safely gouge a small fraction of consumers (and make them feel bad for it) without much risk of building up a big protest movement. Most of them apparently didn't see or refused to act on the winds changing, and thus the EU hammer coming down on the practice.
> The roaming issue comes from roaming info usually being small footnotes, most consumers not thinking about the subject (and not considering they'd need it )
Then the EU should set standards for roaming advertising and contracts, not dictate the price.
I can't think of any other domain of business where a Western national or supra-national government set privte-sector prices because customers can't be trusted to read T&Cs.
Car rental contracts often have horrific small-print penalties for crossing intra-European state boundaries, but I don't see the EU intervening there.
Then the EU should set standards for roaming advertising and contracts, not dictate the price.
I can't think of any other domain of business where a Western national or supra-national government set privte-sector prices because customers can't be trusted to read T&Cs.
Car rental contracts often have horrific small-print penalties for crossing intra-European state boundaries, but I don't see the EU intervening there.
>I can't think of any other domain of business where a Western national or supra-national government set privte-sector prices because customers can't be trusted to read T&Cs.
Example: California, fixing prices of electricity within the state. (not a good example, but one you should probably be aware of as it supports your argument while also giving you a clue that its not just the naughty euro-socialists doing these sorts of things..)
Anyway the EU are not setting prices because customers don't read T&C's. They're setting prices because their citizens get royally screwed by price gouging, whether they read the T&C or not, and its a serious economic issue in a region where cross-border travel is significantly higher than in any other part of the world.
Its one thing to assume that the EU is exerting some sort of fascist power over the free market and ruining it. Its another thing entirely when the EU actually does its job and protects the subjects of its member states from predatory business practices... but I guess this is an economics argument about the free market and capitalism, which I fear is not one you and I are about to form consensus. I'm quite happy for the telecom's to be getting their comeuppance in this market - the gouging is really, really heinous. For those of us who have to live here and work within the EU framework, this is exactly the sort of thing the EU is good for...
Example: California, fixing prices of electricity within the state. (not a good example, but one you should probably be aware of as it supports your argument while also giving you a clue that its not just the naughty euro-socialists doing these sorts of things..)
Anyway the EU are not setting prices because customers don't read T&C's. They're setting prices because their citizens get royally screwed by price gouging, whether they read the T&C or not, and its a serious economic issue in a region where cross-border travel is significantly higher than in any other part of the world.
Its one thing to assume that the EU is exerting some sort of fascist power over the free market and ruining it. Its another thing entirely when the EU actually does its job and protects the subjects of its member states from predatory business practices... but I guess this is an economics argument about the free market and capitalism, which I fear is not one you and I are about to form consensus. I'm quite happy for the telecom's to be getting their comeuppance in this market - the gouging is really, really heinous. For those of us who have to live here and work within the EU framework, this is exactly the sort of thing the EU is good for...
At least in the UK, they could and did. My rate was doubled from 2p per minute to 4p per minute, to "harmonize" with the roaming legislation. My domestic rate increased to 15p per minute.
Other friends who are on pay-as-you-go report similar changes.
Other friends who are on pay-as-you-go report similar changes.
Since mobile operators use public resources they could do as they are told or find out when their licences need renewal that they could face very unpleasant regulators.
Don't want government intervention - don't use public resources.
Don't want government intervention - don't use public resources.
This means that most of the time if you have someone visiting you there is a huge asymmetry in prices when corresponding, the only problem is: I don't know how they're ever going to address this.