Slashdot Mirror


EU Announces Deal To End All Wireless Roaming Charges (venturebeat.com)

The European Union took a big step toward creating a Digital Single Market today with the announcement of a deal that would end roaming charges for mobile consumers across the continent. From a report on VentureBeat: The plan had originally been announced two years ago when the European Commission unveiled an ambitious plan to create a DSM that would unify the continent's fractured rules around digital content, ecommerce, and mobile communications. However, the plan to end roaming charges across boarders ran into stiff opposition from telecom carriers worried about profits and consumers who were concerned about limits it imposed on data usage. As a result, the proposal appeared dead at one point last year. But negotiators said today they had reached an agreement on technical issues like sharing carrier costs across networks and a gradual phase-out of caps on data usage.

113 comments

  1. Just one more thing by andrewa · · Score: 4, Informative

    that we Brits will miss out on...

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re: Just one more thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communism.

      I love it

    2. Re: Just one more thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your grand children won't. But they won't know any different so will just keep on.

    3. Re: Just one more thing by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      Missing out on "boarders"? I thought Brexit was because the brits feel they've taken on too many already...

    4. Re:Just one more thing by mmell · · Score: 1
      As has been noted elsewhere, this goes part and parcel with the "Brexit" decision UK citizens voted for.

      On the upside, the British Pound should shortly regain the strength and robustness which membership in the European Union was costing it. The downside is that the rest of Europe will want a slice of your pie, so to speak; no longer being in the EU will let them apply international, rather than purely financial pressures to achieve this.

      In short - the players have changed but the song remains the same. We in the US have Trump (nee: Drumpf) to deal with, you guys have Brexit. Welcome to the global hangover!

    5. Re:Just one more thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do the Swiss deal with that? If they want to travel, they must leave their own country... And when I last passed through Switzerland they had obscene roaing charges (~ a Euro per 50 KB!) which are hopefully reciprocated...

    6. Re:Just one more thing by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Our negotiating position is extremely weak.

      We need the EU far more than they need us. 45% of our exports, 14% of theirs. We are in the position of having to do deals with people like Trump, and under a very tight timetable.

      But the biggest problem we have is that we want the EU to give us something. The EU just wants to discourage is from doing something that will hurt us both, but we actually want them to change their usual rules and give us access to the common market under preferential terms.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Just one more thing by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The BREXIT will not lead to a stronger pound. Why should it?

      And as the situation looks right now, there will be no BREXIT anyway.

      The downside is that the rest of Europe will want a slice of your pie
      Erm ... in what delusional world do you live?
      UK has absolutely nothing the rest of the EU wants or needs. We like the Wiskey, yes. And what exactly is the BREXIT changing in that regard? Whiskey will become cheaper! Good for me. And we like Cheddar. And frankly: that was it.

      The US has not much to offer to the EU either, except for iPhones/Macs and Intel processors only bikers are interested in your "hardware". And the iPhones/Macs are not even "made in the US"!!!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re: Just one more thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly haven't been paying attention, the first parliamentary vote sailed through just the other day with a huge majority - article 50 will most certainly be triggered very soon.

    9. Re: Just one more thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swiss mobile plans are quite OK. Like this one which includes unlimited roaming (calls) in the EU and 1GB/month data in the EU (unlimited within Switzerland) for 89 CHF/month (about $90 US):
      https://shop.salt.ch/en/plans/plus/

    10. Re:Just one more thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about renewing EFTA membership? UK is going backwards, but it doesn't need to kill itself in the process either.

    11. Re:Just one more thing by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you'll actually be missing out... most providers here in Germany, for instance, have offered free EU roaming (calls, messaging and data) in their all-net-flatrate packages for close to a year now. I have a cheap MVNO prepaid SIM in my phone right now, and that's pretty much 20€/month for 2 gigs of data and unlimited everything else in either all of Europe or the EU (I'd have to check the fine print to discern which)...

      I had assumed it was this way for most of Europe...?

    12. Re:Just one more thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brexit means Brexit, remember? The EFTA Convention includes objectives that are incompatible with the xenophobic goals of Brexit, in Article 2:
      "(c) to progressively liberalise the free movement of persons;
      "(d) the progressive liberalisation of trade in services and of investment; ...
      "(f) to open the public procurement markets of the Member States;"

      Convincing Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway to cede control within EFTA to the much-larger United Kingdom could also prove to be a challenge, especially as Switzerland also had a stupid referendum to limit the "free movement of persons" instead of "progressively liberalise" it. This could very well mean that Switzerland must not agree to new EFTA members.

    13. Re:Just one more thing by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      We also have approximately 7,000 nuclear warheads that we could put on a 45-minute "rush delivery" if the EU gets too uppity. Trump's trigger finger is really itchy. I only wish I was joking! I am NOT an advocate of "peace (or trade) via superior firepower" but Trump has repeatedly hinted he really wants to set us up the bomb.

    14. Re:Just one more thing by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Well, the very reason why the carriers are offering these plans are due to the aggressive restrictions the EU has been putting on roaming charges. They have made the prices fall a lot in the last few years (from more than one euro per MB to currently six cents per megabyte), and they have been promising to completely abolish roaming charges for a while as well. The carriers have simply read the writing on the wall.

      --
      entropy happens
    15. Re:Just one more thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember 40 years ago when UK was one of the founding EFTA members....

    16. Re:Just one more thing by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you live, but North America has the highest mobile rates. So over here, we are already paying for it, but instead that money is going into the pockets of owners and controllers instead of being returned as service to the people who paid for it.

  2. It had to happen some day with more HTTPS use by SciFurz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Since HTTPS can't be cached and more and more multimedia is being used on weebsites (not to mention the increased size of pictures on some sites), the amount of data usage is getting higher every year. The cost of that would be too much if limits are kept the same as they are now.

    --
    Write and/or read. https://scifurz.wordpress.com/
    1. Re:It had to happen some day with more HTTPS use by NotInHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      HTTPS can be cached. Usually CDNs do precisely this. For caching content on the local disk, its unchanged as well. And in corporate networks, its possible to have MITM'ing proxies, adding certificates to the trust store. Everything still possible.

    2. Re:It had to happen some day with more HTTPS use by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Since HTTPS can't be cached and more and more multimedia is being used on weebsites

      Websites? Oh man are you out of touch with what consumes data on mobile phones.

      Social networks, youtube, people sending videos back and forth, streaming media, ... Websites / HTTPS are the least of people's worries on their mobile plans.

    3. Re:It had to happen some day with more HTTPS use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Youtube is a website.

      You aren't the apps guy, are you?

    4. Re:It had to happen some day with more HTTPS use by tepples · · Score: 1

      And in corporate networks, its possible to have MITM'ing proxies, adding certificates to the trust store.

      How long before home and mobile ISPs require this of their subscribers in order to avoid a "direct connection surcharge"?

    5. Re:It had to happen some day with more HTTPS use by slew · · Score: 1

      Youtube is a website.

      You aren't the apps guy, are you?

      Except that on mobile everything is an "app". Even Youtube (available for free in Google Play and iTunes stores)...

    6. Re:It had to happen some day with more HTTPS use by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      It makes sense for mobile ISPs with truly unlimited data (that doesn't get cut after some traffic quota is reached). BTS's are very sparsely located in many areas, and many people have to share channels. So videos are not really the thing you should enjoy via a mobile connection. T-Mobile USA is I think doing some throttling on video content that isn't encoded in low resolutions AFAIK.

      But for wired internet, there is not a big problem. Yes, videos generate vast amounts of traffic, and it will get more the bigger the resolution is, but the same time network hardware will get cheaper. Maybe ISPs will still require it because they want to inject ads or sell the data though.

    7. Re:It had to happen some day with more HTTPS use by SciFurz · · Score: 1

      And what protocols are used for those things?

      --
      Write and/or read. https://scifurz.wordpress.com/
    8. Re:It had to happen some day with more HTTPS use by tepples · · Score: 1

      [A caching proxy at the ISP level] makes sense for mobile ISPs [...] But for wired internet, there is not a big [bandwidth] problem.

      Except perhaps in remote areas, particularly in less-developed parts of the world such as sub-Saharan Africa. If an entire village has only (say) 1.5 Mbps to the Internet, it has to make the best use of that.

    9. Re:It had to happen some day with more HTTPS use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google and the people writing the standards are trying to get rid of MITM.

  3. This, A million times this is what the U.S. needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Common Carrier all fiber, cable, cellular networks, everyone runs over the common carrier, no more fragmentation, no more limitations as all companies pay the same rate to run over the same equipment....

    Of course this would end the gold-pressed-latinum mining that the Big 2 are doing right now.

  4. Profits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > stiff opposition from telecom
    > carriers worried about profits

    Yes

    > and consumers who were
    > concerned about limits it imposed
    > on data usage

    No.
    Propaganda lie.

  5. That's incredible! by H3lldr0p · · Score: 2

    Now I have to wonder when the Greatest Nation on Earth is going to do the same.

    Oh. I forgot myself for a moment. It's profit over people. All the people, all the time.

    1. Re:That's incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Now I have to wonder when the Greatest Nation on Earth is going to do the same.

      Oh. I forgot myself for a moment. It's profit over people. All the people, all the time.

      in USA there are no roaming fees for moving across different states

    2. Re:That's incredible! by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Now I have to wonder when the Greatest Nation on Earth is going to do the same.

      Oh. I forgot myself for a moment. It's profit over people. All the people, all the time.

      in USA there are no roaming fees for moving across different states

      Wait until the coming revolution comrade!

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:That's incredible! by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      It's about freedom of interference from government. That freedom of interference doesn't just go away to give you discounts on your cell phone bill.

      It amazes me how deeply people want government to be controlling everything (and yes, I aware people think subsidies should entitle the government to take over a business - just wait until that logic is applied to people on social security or welfare.)

      But fortunately, if this is something you think is well within governmental roles, you got a lot of places in the European Union to move to.

    4. Re:That's incredible! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Not yet...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:That's incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There was collusion in the market. The actors were given ample time to correct themselves. They didn't.

      Perhaps this is not the Invisible Hand Fixes All hill to die on.

    6. Re:That's incredible! by sabri · · Score: 1

      It's about freedom of interference from government.

      This. Exactly this. Governments have no business dictating pricing to private companies.

      Ask Venezuela how well their pricing controls worked. Oh wait, nobody wants to do business with them anymore.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    7. Re: That's incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So there is no government in the US? You live in an anarchy?

    8. Re:That's incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "This. Exactly this. Governments have no business dictating pricing to private companies."

      I think that governments DO need to step in when there is:
      A-No competition.
      B-Corporations have lobbied for or bought laws enforcing or helping to enforce monopolies (see A above).
      C-Extreme price gouging is going on (see A and B above).
      D-Data caps are instituted as a punitive measure against people dropping overly expensive (see A,B, and C above) commercial infested cable TV in favor of video streaming services.
      E-There is collusion and/or price fixing going on (see C above).
      F-Companies or groups of companies are trying to create artificial shortages to drive up prices (see C,D, and E above).

    9. Re:That's incredible! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You are right, but then every other country in the world has the highest roaming fees with the USA and visversa.

    10. Re:That's incredible! by quenda · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now I have to wonder when the Greatest Nation on Earth is going to do the same.

      What you talkin' bout? We never had roaming charges anywhere within the continent. Though it does help that the whole continent is one country.

    11. Re: That's incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the government is just here to enforce the monopoly of mobile operator?

    12. Re: That's incredible! by sabri · · Score: 1

      So the government is just here to enforce the monopoly of mobile operator?

      You misread my point. The government should not be involved at all. If the government would keep their dirty hands out of the mobile communications market, there would be a lot more competition.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    13. Re:That's incredible! by sabri · · Score: 1

      I think that governments DO need to step in when there is:

      A: Disagree. Let a competitor start up.
      B: Which means that the government did mess with the market, so my original point still applies
      C: In very limited situations: yes, I agree with you
      D: Disagree. Companies set their own pricing. You don't like it, you go to a competitor.
      E: See C indeed.
      F: Go ahead, sue OPEC.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    14. Re:That's incredible! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Stupid hoser.

      Sorry, eh.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    15. Re:That's incredible! by slew · · Score: 1

      Now I have to wonder when the Greatest Nation on Earth is going to do the same.

      Oh. I forgot myself for a moment. It's profit over people. All the people, all the time.

      in USA there are no roaming fees for moving across different states

      Europe just made another step towards The United States of Europe...
      What's next? A civil war to prevent Brexit? ;^)

    16. Re:That's incredible! by slew · · Score: 1

      Now I have to wonder when the Greatest Nation on Earth is going to do the same.

      What you talkin' bout? We never had roaming charges anywhere within the continent. Though it does help that the whole continent is one country.

      No roaming charges in Alaska and Hawaii... But most plans have a Mexico and Canada roaming charge (although there are some plans which don't)...

    17. Re:That's incredible! by a_mari_usque_ad_mare · · Score: 1

      Undoing bad mod.

      --
      The map is not the territory.
    18. Re: That's incredible! by tepples · · Score: 1

      If the government would keep their dirty hands out of the mobile communications market

      Then nobody would be able to get a signal through as the carriers step on each other's spectrum.

    19. Re: That's incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, since January 20 the government was replaced by a twitter bot.

    20. Re:That's incredible! by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      A civil war to prevent Brexit?

      A war with a nuclear power? EU commission's building should be quickly vaporized.

    21. Re:That's incredible! by quenda · · Score: 1

      No worries mate. She'll be right.

    22. Re:That's incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It amazes me how Americans are willing to surrender their money and private data to corporations, think nothing of being victims to monopolistic behaviour but for some reason become terrified when governments do what they are supposed to do and represent the interests of the people.

    23. Re: That's incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, the market has been broken due to fragmentation. There is never going to be a competitive reason to eliminate whole sale pricing, and with high while sale prices, the roaming fees on consumers follows.

      Yes, government should in normal cases stay out, but in this case, it is justified.

      There where only two ways of adressing the problem, 1. completely break national split of mobile phone market, and by consequence disband national regulators and spectrum management, or 2. regulate whole sale prices.

    24. Re: That's incredible! by Corbets · · Score: 1

      Whoosh.

    25. Re:That's incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's next? A civil war to prevent Brexit? ;^)

      Unlikely. As much as people like to whine about it Brexit is not really that bad for EU.
      It shows the remaining countries that EU is completely voluntary and that the rest of the countries are there because it benefits them.
      That disproves the European alt-rights narrative about EU being some undemocratic organization that has been forced on to benefit everyone else.
      That coupled with Trump going the way of closing borders and pissing everyone but Russia off means that there will be a lot more focus on the European market.

    26. Re:That's incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name one country that has shown that the mobile network market can work unregulated.

      There never was any true capitalism in the same sense that there never was any true communism.

    27. Re:That's incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here is how monopolies work:

      A company large enough to have a monopoly in a large market can easily run a part of their business at a deficit and pay for it with the rest of their operations.
      When a competitor shows up the monopoly will starve that competitor by subsidizing themselves in the part of the market where the competitor shows up and selling for a price that you can't reach without running you operation at a loss.

      The free market theory doesn't solve this issue. It assumes that there is ongoing competition and doesn't handle the end-state where a company has won over the competitors and established a monopoly.

    28. Re:That's incredible! by admin7087 · · Score: 1

      Well, since the EU is obviously also a nuclear power, it all stays within the family.

    29. Re:That's incredible! by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Now I have to wonder when the Greatest Nation on Earth is going to do the same.

      What? I don't think there are roaming charges inside China; or are you talking about another greatest nation? ;-)

    30. Re:That's incredible! by earnil · · Score: 0

      Here's how monopoly really works: A company large enough lobbies the government to introduce regulation that would make it impossible for a competitor to enter the market without starting substantial cost (government auctioned frequencies in this particular case) or over which regulatory body it can take control of through bribes and kickbacks.

      This has been the ONLY way how monopolies were and are sustained over longer periods of time. Just try to find historical example of monopoly that was able to sustain itself based only on market principles. Even in case of natural monopolies, there are always substitutes. Just look at Microsoft which at one point had very significant market power, which it tried to keep very hard exactly by attempting to blackmail consumers and sue competition into oblivion. How did that work out for them?

      Free market theory doesn't actually care about your issue. Competition is not a goal, it's a tool to deliver best product for lowest price. If the company is willing to sell products to the consumers bellow its production price, it's already a win for consumer. No need for competition there! Moreover it's never sustainable over longer periods. Every time company tries that, consumer profits and company does not succeed to kill the competition in long run.

    31. Re:That's incredible! by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      EU contains two nuclear powers: UK and France, but since defense remains in the hands of member states, EU itself does not have access to UK and France weapons.

    32. Re:That's incredible! by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Do you think France would just sit idly by if the UK decided to nuke Brussels?

      --
      entropy happens
    33. Re:That's incredible! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If Le Pen wins that's unlikely. They'd chuck another one on just to make sure.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    34. Re:That's incredible! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I thought we were talking about Bestest Korea.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    35. Re:That's incredible! by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      some reason become terrified when governments do what they are supposed to do and represent the interests of the people.

      Because once government has that power, it has that power. For those scared of Obama, this was a real fear. For those scared of Trump, this is a real fear.
      And usually, government breaks things even more, then get tasked with coming up for a solution for stuff they broke.

    36. Re: That's incredible! by sabri · · Score: 1

      Then nobody would be able to get a signal through as the carriers step on each other's spectrum.

      I call bullshit. I haven't seen a lot of ISPs stepping on each other's BGP announcements either.

      Spectrum can be assigned by an independent organization, and that does not have to be a government.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    37. Re:That's incredible! by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      You got the right word: "if".

      Nuclear weapons are there so that nobody wants them to be involved. This is why a war about brexit will not happen.

    38. Re:That's incredible! by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Well, even without nukes at the table a Brexit war sounds rather fanciful. But what do I know. If anything 2016 proved that the world now is much less predictable than it used to be.

      --
      entropy happens
    39. Re:That's incredible! by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      Well, you consider war between European countries unlikely precisely because of nuclear weapons. They are the the strategical game changer that ended centuries of war between European nations.

  6. Boarders? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...end roaming charges across boarders..."
    You shouldn't roam across boarders...they get angry when stepped on.
    **borders** #EnglishFail

  7. Roundabout way to achieve what's needed by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Roundabout, but effective. The problem is vertical integration. The carrier owns the towers, and sells the handsets. As a result, if you want a specific plan, you're stuck with the limited phones that carrier supports and the tower network that carrier uses. You want these things to be separate. Companies which own towers compete with each other. Companies which sell with service compete with each other. And companies which sell handsets compete with each other.

    I'm usually critical of the EU's (over)regulation. But this is one thing they're doing right - maximizing competition so the free market can decide who is best and who deserves to go bankrupt.

    1. Re:Roundabout way to achieve what's needed by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Informative
      Actually, in the UK:

      Cell towers are mostly owned by independents, who provide a service to all carriers from the same tower
      You can buy handsets on Ebay or from Carphone whorehouse and use them on any network you like by changing the SIM card.
      The carriers are the same bunch of scum in all European countries anyway.

      The European regulator may be better than the UK one, but that is mostly because:

      1) The UK regulator is so useless, even a dead shrimp would be more effective.
      2) The fact that there even is a regulator is evidence that the legal system doesn't work.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    2. Re:Roundabout way to achieve what's needed by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      As a result, if you want a specific plan, you're stuck with the limited phones that carrier supports and the tower network that carrier uses.

      Tell me again how that affects the fact that when I connect to one Vodafone tower I pay 20eur for 2GB of data, and when I connect to the next one 4km away most likely on the same cable I pay 100eur for the same 2GB.

    3. Re:Roundabout way to achieve what's needed by quenda · · Score: 1

      Actually, in the UK:

      Cell towers are mostly owned by independents, who provide a service to all carriers from the same tower ... use them on any network you like by changing the SIM card.

      Cool. And you have number portability, so it sounds like the regulator is not completely useless.

    4. Re:Roundabout way to achieve what's needed by houghi · · Score: 1

      Living in Belgium. Prices are not the lowest, but are clearly falling. I just got a doubling of my data, calls and SMS at no extra charge.
      International rates are dropping as well as roaming costs that already have a maximum price for international sending.

      Those are now such that I have had a prepaid where national SMS would be more expensive than international sending with the same provider.

      Not all is perfect as Proximus is still too big, but it is slowly going in the right direction. Some things they did right:
      1) By law there need to be 3 mobile operators.
      2) Phones are unlocked. All of them.
      3) Number portability exists and works
      4) New contracts are for a year and after that you are able to quit after a month, each month. They are working to make those periods even shorter.

      The bad thing they did was to allow coupling of sales. In the past it was not possible to link a sale of a phone to the sale of a contract. It was the companies that where forcing that. So you know that was not in advantage of the customer. And no, the prices you will gave as an example that it works are not correct.

      I can co into a supermarket and buy a phone. I go to another supermarket and buy a pre-paid card. I then can ask online to transfer my old number to my new number without an issue. I do this about every two years, shopping around.

      So yes, I do think that lowering the roaming prices by law is a good thing. It is not as if these companies are in a despair and going broke next week.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:Roundabout way to achieve what's needed by earnil · · Score: 0

      Except this will not have any impact on competition whatsoever. It's just price fixing which is the stupidest form of regulation possible.

      What will happen is that mobile carriers will cash back that money on their local customers by effectively separating and charging the service (you will have plans without roaming that will have lesser monthly payments and plans with roaming with higher monthly payments or something to that tune)

      Also, it's damaging carriers that already have friendly roaming plans because it's destroying their competitive advantage by making it mandatory for everyone. So it will be the loss for everyone, consumers will be forced to make choices they would otherwise wouldn't do, carriers will have to change their strategies and for what? That some Brussels' bureaucrats can pat their backs how they're helping to create unified Europe.

      Besides that, since it's only relevant to roaming not international calls and it contains provisions for carriers to charge premiums if the SIM is used in roaming mode for longer periods it will contribute nothing to potential cross boarder competition.

  8. Re:This, A million times this is what the U.S. nee by khallow · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Common Carrier all fiber, cable, cellular networks, everyone runs over the common carrier, no more fragmentation, no more limitations as all companies pay the same rate to run over the same equipment....

    And no more incentive to maintain, improve, or differentiate that infrastructure. It's like arguing that we should consolidate the food production industry so we can have a consistent, efficiently manufactured Soylent food product everywhere in the EU to fulfill your nutritional needs. One size fits all tends to be pretty ugly. I hear they're coming out with Soylent Green in a few months. Yum!

  9. No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator by mutantSushi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Issue here is with no limits, there is no reason you ever need to have plan with your (actual, functional) local provider. If costs in Denmark are high, because workers operating infrastructure need higher salary to live on, or Danish government happens to tax wireless more, you can sign up for plan in Romania whose costs are based on Romanian labor costs and tax structure, yet continue to actually use Danish infrastructure all the same. If taken far enough, Romanian carriers will have to raise their prices to account for their share of Danish infrastructure costs, but that means all Romanians would then be paying those costs (while still on lower Romanian salaries) while Danish tax and government budget is being undermined.

    Normal people don't need "unlimited free international roaming", and it's easy enough to just get a local SIM card if you are travelling alot or for extended time, so there just is no broad basis for instituting this change which has broader repurcussions. If there were mass popular demand for it, carriers would already offer at least limited versions of it (potentially most popular in small countries or regions where travel to nearby countries is routine). This just smells of ideological neoliberalism.

    1. Re:No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well...they do. Telia (and other operators using their network) offers what they call "Roam Like Home North" and "Roam Like Home Europe". Both services allow you to use your current subscription abroad, meaning if you have unlimited voice, you will have the same while roaming. The limitations are that data is capped to 10GB while roaming. "North" is limited to scandinavian and baltic countries, while "Europe" is limited to EU countries.

      They don't cost insane either. You can have free voice and messages, 8gb data and north roaming for about 22USD/month and the european one (data is also increased to 15gb) for about 29USD/month.

      Other networks are starting to offer similar services as well.

    2. Re:No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you cross borders a lot it's a pain to have to change SIMs, especially since you can't keep your phone number (assuming you don't use a VOIP/web system, which won't work on a 2G signal). If most phones supported 2-3 SIM cards it would be less of an issue.

    3. Re:No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I decided to check other networks. I thought Telia was leading the way, but it seems not. Telenor is offering for same price and even more data. 3 is offering it in 47 countries (EU, USA and parts of Asia included).

    4. Re:No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Normal people don't need "unlimited free international roaming", and it's easy enough to just get a local SIM card

      Allow me to explain Europe to you. Within 2 hours in the car I can travel to 4 different countries, going straight through one of them. Within 2 hours in a plane and for the cost of an averagely good meal (35eur) I can fly across half of the continent. On the way to work every day I see cars and trucks with a myriad of license plates from all over. Many people I know have relatives in other countries. Everyone I know country hops from holiday to holiday. I actually know a few people who commute between countries daily for work, and they get to work faster than I do.

      Just how many SIM cards do you expect us "normal" people to buy?

    5. Re:No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator by Kjella · · Score: 1

      If there were mass popular demand for it, carriers would already offer at least limited versions of it

      For most carriers they've earned more by skimming off ordinary people who can't be bothered for two weeks vacation. For those who really call international a lot (immigrants and such) there has been SIM cards and callback services focusing on cheap international calls for a long time. Skype and such has also eaten huge chunks of that market. You're right people don't care much... but I remember when there was a "local rate" and "national rate" here in Norway, only ~5 million people so more like county and state calls for the US. And "day rate" and "night rate" and a ton of other variations I'd rather just forget. For quite some years now it was one price, whole country all hours. Now they most just include a ton of minutes in the subscription price and what 99% care about is the data cap.

      With gigabit fibers everywhere I call bullshit on anyone saying international traffic costs tons more than local trafiic. Look at the Internet, it's one flat rate no matter what machine in the world I connect to so once you hit fiber I'd argue the costs of bouncing it around are trivial. So I say the price ought to be capped to max(local provider's price, your home price) like if you'd pay 3 cents/min at home and locals pay 5 cents/min you can at most be charged 5 cents/min. Same for GBs of data traffic. To flip the problem on its head, how would this be in the US? Do you have to change to ten different providers or pay exorbitant roaming fees if you drive coast to coast? No. I'm sure the costs are different in California and Montana but you pay for poor density through lower coverage.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator by jopsen · · Score: 1

      it's easy enough to just get a local SIM card if you are travelling alot or for extended time

      That means new phone number... which is problematic because phone numbers are often used to verify things using one-time-tokens by sms... Or you know receiving calls from people who have your number...

      Most people won't change sim, instead they'll just pay higher prices and not use data when abroad which is sad.

    7. Re:No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The Romanian service provider would have to pay agreed fees to the network in Denmark. It wouldn't make sense for them to sell you a SIM at price that doesn't cover their costs, and the fees paid to the Danish network will more than cover their costs.

      It's a good thing for consumers. More choice, the ability to buy a foreign SIM (although you would get a Romanian phone number) if the deal is better, and everyone still makes money.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Informative

      A local SIM card is good enough for internet access, especially in a dual SIM phone.

      For the rest it is pointless, I want to be reachable on my ordinary phone number.

      Your idea about Romania etc. is bollocks. We are talking about ROAMING fees. Not about the local fees of the network. Obviously a minute in Denmark has a different price than in Romania.

      If there were mass popular demand for it, carriers would already offer at least limited versions of it (potentially most popular in small countries or regions where travel to nearby countries is routine).
      There is that demand. And that is exactly the reason why the carriers don't have such offers, so they can rip of their "customers".

      This just smells of ideological neoliberalism.
      And you smell like an idiot. You have ever been in Europe? Depending where I am, I can visit in 3 hours 5 or even 6 countries by just traveling in a straight line. Do you have any idea how absurd high roaming fees actually are? Do you even know that you pay the fee when you make a call and also when you receive a call? When I'm not in germany, every single call I receive costs me minimum one Euro, regardless of duration (plus minute based fees). Receiving 10 calls a day on a one month trip and telling everyone: "Sorry, please call my new local phone number, which is ....." is $300 or more bill!!!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      WRONG.

      Excuse the caps but this is terrible misinformation. As usually in EU legislation, such obvious issues have been discussed at length and provisions have been put in place to deal with them. It basically boils down to having to buy your phone subscription in the country you live in:
      http://europa.eu/rapid/press-r...

      Excerpt: "Mobile operators should offer their roaming services at domestic prices to consumers who either normally reside in or have stable links to the Member State of the operator, while those customers are periodically travelling in the EU. If necessary, operators can ask their customers to provide proof of residence or of such stable links to the Member State in question."

      The provisions may turn out to be inadequate, but the related issues are very prominently on the agenda.

    10. Re:No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      It really doesn't cost any more or less to allow a phone to do its thing on your network. The roaming charges that companies charge around the world is akin to extortion.

    11. Re: No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In many EU member states, you need to show proof of residence (e.g. Rental contract) to get a pre-payed SIM.

      So, that argument is really moot.

    12. Re: No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These plans only got introduced AFTER the EC started the regulatory process. They are only available in a few places, or are expensive like hell. E.g. In Germany a roaming contract would be 150â per month two years ago.

    13. Re:No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator by houghi · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Compare it to living in New England and all those states are different countries. There are people who live in one state and work in another. Same in Europe.
      Shopping? Hop over to another country for a few hours.
      I went to school in a different country and came back each day.

      Can you imagine that you say to all the people working in NYC, NY they need a different phone if they live in NJ and change their simcard twice per day?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    14. Re:No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 1

      Normal people don't need "unlimited free international roaming", and it's easy enough to just get a local SIM card if you are travelling alot or for extended time, so there just is no broad basis for instituting this change which has broader repurcussions.

      You underestimate how often people travel in Europe. In some places you can hit four countries on a day out. At one location where I worked, it was so close to a border that inadvertent roaming was an (expensive) problem. Getting a local contract SIM is hard in many countries not your own. You often need to show proof of residence and prepaid can be significantly more expensive.

      In any case, there is the issue of managing SIMs with call forwards/whatever. It is possible, but far from convenient.

    15. Re:No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A stable link is owning property. It is not that expensive in Romania or Bulgaria. Or getting registered to pay some pensioner's electric bill for 30-40 eur a month, is an option.

    16. Re:No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Or getting registered to pay some pensioner's electric bill for 30-40 eur a month

      Sure, you could do that. It's just that in most EU nations the monthly cost of a mobile contract is less than €40, so the deal is not that tempting.

    17. Re: No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to imply that this is the cause of it, but in that case, there should be no incentive to offer it outside of EU. However, 3 offers it in USA and parts of Asia, in addition to EU.

    18. Re:No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator by thenitz · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. On the other hand I looked up who those "Romanian carriers" are.

      You've got Orange, headquartered in France, 7 EU countries. Then Vodafone, HQ in UK, present in 25 EU countries, almost everywhere, Then Telekom from Germany, with 6 networks in the EU. Last one is a local carrier who has just gone over the border in Hungary.

      That means a Romanian traveling to Germany, for example, has a great chance to use the very same company network but pay much more for it.

      Actually it makes sense for carriers to share the same infrastructure for different countries - from core networks to call centers, it makes sense to have them big and build economies of scale. They would probably keep all but the radio access network in one place, if it weren't for regulations like having to provide legal intercept to local law enforcement.

  10. Totally irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the advent of the internets on low earth satellites in 2018, nobody will have a use for the cell network anymore.

  11. Boarders aren't borders. by c10 · · Score: 1

    I'm bored with borders and boarders.

  12. Meanwhile back in the US... by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 2

    ... The mobile phone industry remains anchored in the 90s.

    1. Re:Meanwhile back in the US... by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

      I certainly would recommend checking out Google Fi. (I'm not affiliated with them other than being a customer.)

      The base fee (unlimited US talk and text) is $20/mo., data is $10/GB but you *only* pay for what you use (and for me, taxes & fees work out to under $3/mo.). The data isn't the cheapest, so it might be a horrible plan for you, depending on your use. But it's very nice in that going 1MB over your plan costs you $0.01 -- and going 500MB *under* your plan gives you a $5 deduction on the next bill. My bills tend to be in the $25-$35/mo. range.

      The icing on the cake is that international data is the same price, and international texting is free. Calls are $0.20/minute over cell and generally free over wifi. (This is for the supported 135+ countries.) Plus, you can get additional data-only SIMs for free (same data pool) to slap in old phones.

  13. When was the party? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    We in the US have Trump (nee: Drumpf) to deal with, you guys have Brexit. Welcome to the global hangover!

    If it's a global hangover then when did we have the preceding party? It clearly must have been a really good one because I don't remember it happening at all.

    1. Re:When was the party? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You never had it so good, but you won't really realise until the party is over. It's a bit like when you were young and you had that pretty girlfriend who you preferred to find fault with because teenage angst. Bet you wish you knew then what you know now.

  14. Re:This, A million times this is what the U.S. nee by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

    The two cases are very different. Your dystopic scene is in regards to the content production, whereas the common carrier comment was in reference to the distribution infrastructure.

    For the Internet scenario, I think we all agree that, yes, it is a Bad Idea if all websites/content providers (news sites, *media, etc.) are merged into one government-run conglomerate. However, going back to food, the fact that the government maintains the roads which are used to deliver food has not, personally, been a problem for me.

    Variety and choice tend to be good things -- but whatever we're doing now isn't working perfectly, as not everyone has access to fast internet. Fiber/cable/etc., like transportation networks, are defined as Good by a relatively narrow set of parameters, and I'm pretty sure 99+% of /. agrees on what those are (namely, it should be fast and low latency both ways, with faster/lower always being better). Food, on the other hand, is a very personal thing.

  15. Innovation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they end roaming charges how can the phone companies innovate? They need to find new fees to bill you for then charge you for seeing the charges.

  16. Re:This, A million times this is what the U.S. nee by tepples · · Score: 1

    I hear they're coming out with Soylent Green in a few months.

    No, Soylent Red. Slashdot Green.

  17. Socialist is marching forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah the great and powerful EU. It's funny what socialist states does in the name of the people - limit capitalism.

    In certain northen european countries the phone bill will raise to compensate southern european lowered fees. Another hidden socialist move to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor".

  18. Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This happens just after our idiocracy has voted to leave.

  19. Re:This, A million times this is what the U.S. nee by khallow · · Score: 1

    Your dystopic scene is in regards to the content production, whereas the common carrier comment was in reference to the distribution infrastructure.

    I don't know why you think that's relevant since my scenario covers distribution infrastructure as well.

    However, going back to food, the fact that the government maintains the roads which are used to deliver food has not, personally, been a problem for me.

    It has resulted in governments deliberately hamstringing some transportation infrastructure in favor of other transportation infrastructure. Roads in particular are notoriously impaired via tolls, restricted construction, etc in favor of mass transit.

    Variety and choice tend to be good things -- but whatever we're doing now isn't working perfectly, as not everyone has access to fast internet.

    Not seeing how government will make it more perfect or why it matters that not everyone has access to fast internet.

  20. Roaming is actually cheaper than national calls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's some data from Vodafone (source: http://www.vodafone.co.uk/cs/g...).

    Prices while in the UK: calls = 30p/min, texts = 14p, data = 10p/MB

    Prices while in most of Europe: calls = 4p/min, texts = 1p, data = 4p/MB

    WTF?

  21. Current situations by DrYak · · Score: 1

    If taken far enough, Romanian carriers will have to raise their prices to account for their share of Danish infrastructure costs, but that means all Romanians would then be paying those costs (while still on lower Romanian salaries) while Danish tax and government budget is being undermined.

    The current situation, the prices within country aren't that much high. (a few eurocents difference in the price per minute).
    Maybe a users calling over a Romanian carriers within Romania will end up paying a few euros less than an users over a Danish carrier within Denmark.
    I.e.: there is some variation between countries, but not as much as you would think, and specially not as much when compared to :

    Roaming costs: They are currently outrageously high.
    When abroad (e.g.: the Danish users goes to Romania) the costs of roaming can be 10x the normal price (you could be paying *whole euros* per minute - even when, per your reasoning the cost of Romania's infrastructure is certainly not the 9x price difference).

    The current situation isn't about asking a couple of cent more to make up for the difference in infrastructure that you mention by donating to the roaming country.
    The current situation is about milking the travelling users as if they were gold mines.
    (It probably made sense for the carrier back in a time of less mobility, when probably most of the users roaming abroad would be business chief-whatever-officers type which don't pay much attention to the phone bill that their work is paying)
    (Nowadays it just painful for all people travelling abroad because everybody has a wireless phone, because smartphone are nearly necessary for lots of everyday tasks, specially when abroad and you don't want to lug your laptop around, and modern society comes with even more geographical mobiliy)

    This happens even within the same carrier. E.g.: buy a contract from O2 Germany. And whenever you travel to Czech republic, get charged outrageously, even when connecting to O2 CZ (the same company).

    and it's easy enough to just get a local SIM card if you are travelling alot or for extended time,

    Cue in mental picture of an avarage european user carrying 10 different SIM cards, and using a phone that has 4 SIM slots, with 2 of them always simultaneously on air.

    If there were mass popular demand for it, carriers would already offer at least limited versions of it (potentially most popular in small countries or regions where travel to nearby countries is routine).

    And there are such offer : there are "virtual carrier" (that don't own their own network of antenna, but piggy back on other carriers which they have an arrangement with) who have signed agreement with most big carriers in all European countries (it's not as impossible as it sound. There aren't really that many different carriers in Europes. Most of the time it's the same few international companies going each by different name/brands in each country. - see the above O2 example - Sign just a few of those big internationals, and you have deals in nearly every country).
    By doing this, this virtual carrier are never actually roaming, you've always got at least one local operator with whom your virtual carrier has a deal and you always pay the local price.
    as a random example : xxSIM

    The proposed law is about always forcing this situation on all carrier, no excuse accepted.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]