4 ms·

This is definitely not a good thing. It is a step in the wrong direction that the European Union gains more power to regulate the market in this fashion. The r

This is definitely not a good thing. It is a step in the wrong direction that the European Union gains more power to regulate the market in this fashion. The reason operators are able to charge for roaming as they do, has a lot to do with the fact that the telecommunication business isn't a free business. Currently only a select few in each country who are paying a large licensing fee are allowed to set up the different types of networks (GSM, UMTS etc). What is happening is you grant special benefits to the operators, so they are working in a protected environment. Of course they are going to charge extra if no-one is there to bid lower. What the EU is doing right now is trying to fix a symptom created by an already wacky system that their member states have created themselves.

vidarh 13y ago
> Currently only a select few in each country who are paying a large licensing fee are allowed to set up the different types of networks Just like in pretty much every country in the world. Spectrum is a public resource, and not an infinite one. Every allocation given to a private company deprives society of other potential uses of that spectrum. The EU communications market is already vastly more competitive than e.g. the US market in many areas, _thanks_ to extensive regulation to force unbundling of a lot of network and consumer services. This is about fixing some of the remaining problems, yes. If anything, the regulation of the communications market in the EU is both one of the biggest successes in recent years, and one of the areas where EU decisions are most popular with EU citizens.
- porsager 13y ago
  That is exactly the Point. Spectrum is scarce, and just like land areas are treated(mostly) with property rights, so should radio waves. That it historically has been mistreated doesn't make the solution in the subject any better.
- mason240 13y ago
  >Spectrum is a public resource, and not an infinite one. Every allocation given to a private company deprives society of other potential uses of that spectrum. Then you divide the spectrum into chunks and sell 10 year licences to each one to the highest bidder. Problem solved, regulatory capture averted.
Tomdarkness 13y ago
You can't just allow anyone to setup a mobile phone network. There needs to be some central organisation and control of spectrum allocation because otherwise it is all too easy to tread on peoples toes and interfere with other transmissions either accidentally or intentionally.
- porsager 13y ago
  No there doesn't "need" to be. It might be useful to have a list describing owners of different wavelengths and in what areas, but until there is a dispute, there is no problem. If a dispute arises, it can be taken to court, and the right to ownership can be settled. Such disputes can be settled like any other property right disputes in court.
SEMW 13y ago
> What is happening is you grant special benefits to the operators, so they are working in a protected environment. Of course they are going to charge extra if no-one is there to bid lower. If that is the disease that gives the symptom of roaming charges, then surely the cure is to eliminate the transaction costs of using local providers while you're in another EU country, in order to enable free-market competition between providers in different countries. Which, er, is exactly what this proposal is suggesting... From the article: ""From 2014, customers would be able to keep costs down by selecting another provider for calls, texts and internet data services while travelling, if their own network charges extra for service abroad. They could do this without having to change their phone number or buy a new sim card."
- porsager 13y ago
  No - that proposal just tweaks the protected environment. You, and the proposal only mentions an idea for how to cure the symptom, not the disease. That cure, for the symptom, is a bad thing for at least two reasons. First, the actors in the environment needs to shift focus from improving their service and lowering price, to covering the lost revenue due to new legislation. Second. The ones barred from taking part in this market (those that didn't get a license) are unable to improve customers services through participating in competition with lower prices, innovative new features etc.
  - SEMW 13y ago
    > the actors in the environment needs to shift focus from improving their service and lowering price, to covering the lost revenue due to new legislation. That argument is sufficiently general that it applies to any measure that in some way reduces an actor's revenue, irrespective of whether that revenue loss is due to a greater or lesser free market. 'If the government stops subsidising lemonade stands €10 a day, they'll have to shift focus from improving their service and lowering price, to covering the lost revenue'. In this case, the lost revenue is from having to compete with mobile operators in other countries in a single, common European market (a common market is the original and primary goal of the EU). So yes, they will lose revenue by having to compete in a free[1] market, rather than - as they do at the moment - taking advantage the fact the each country is effectively silo'd off in a separate market (from transaction costs) to avoid that competition. Cry me a river. [1] well, free-er at least - I take your second point that it'll still be a ways from completely free. TLDR: you're ironically using a fully general argument against government intervention to implicitly argue for less competition and a less free market (the status quo).

vidarh 13y ago

> Currently only a select few in each country who are paying a large licensing fee are allowed to set up the different types of networks Just like in pretty much every country in the world. Spectrum is a public resource, and not an infinite one. Every allocation given to a private company deprives society of other potential uses of that spectrum. The EU communications market is already vastly more competitive than e.g. the US market in many areas, _thanks_ to extensive regulation to force unbundling of a lot of network and consumer services. This is about fixing some of the remaining problems, yes. If anything, the regulation of the communications market in the EU is both one of the biggest successes in recent years, and one of the areas where EU decisions are most popular with EU citizens.

porsager 13y ago
That is exactly the Point. Spectrum is scarce, and just like land areas are treated(mostly) with property rights, so should radio waves. That it historically has been mistreated doesn't make the solution in the subject any better.
mason240 13y ago
>Spectrum is a public resource, and not an infinite one. Every allocation given to a private company deprives society of other potential uses of that spectrum. Then you divide the spectrum into chunks and sell 10 year licences to each one to the highest bidder. Problem solved, regulatory capture averted.

Tomdarkness 13y ago

You can't just allow anyone to setup a mobile phone network. There needs to be some central organisation and control of spectrum allocation because otherwise it is all too easy to tread on peoples toes and interfere with other transmissions either accidentally or intentionally.

porsager 13y ago
No there doesn't "need" to be. It might be useful to have a list describing owners of different wavelengths and in what areas, but until there is a dispute, there is no problem. If a dispute arises, it can be taken to court, and the right to ownership can be settled. Such disputes can be settled like any other property right disputes in court.

SEMW 13y ago

> What is happening is you grant special benefits to the operators, so they are working in a protected environment. Of course they are going to charge extra if no-one is there to bid lower. If that is the disease that gives the symptom of roaming charges, then surely the cure is to eliminate the transaction costs of using local providers while you're in another EU country, in order to enable free-market competition between providers in different countries. Which, er, is exactly what this proposal is suggesting... From the article: ""From 2014, customers would be able to keep costs down by selecting another provider for calls, texts and internet data services while travelling, if their own network charges extra for service abroad. They could do this without having to change their phone number or buy a new sim card."

porsager 13y ago
No - that proposal just tweaks the protected environment. You, and the proposal only mentions an idea for how to cure the symptom, not the disease. That cure, for the symptom, is a bad thing for at least two reasons. First, the actors in the environment needs to shift focus from improving their service and lowering price, to covering the lost revenue due to new legislation. Second. The ones barred from taking part in this market (those that didn't get a license) are unable to improve customers services through participating in competition with lower prices, innovative new features etc.
- SEMW 13y ago
  > the actors in the environment needs to shift focus from improving their service and lowering price, to covering the lost revenue due to new legislation. That argument is sufficiently general that it applies to any measure that in some way reduces an actor's revenue, irrespective of whether that revenue loss is due to a greater or lesser free market. 'If the government stops subsidising lemonade stands €10 a day, they'll have to shift focus from improving their service and lowering price, to covering the lost revenue'. In this case, the lost revenue is from having to compete with mobile operators in other countries in a single, common European market (a common market is the original and primary goal of the EU). So yes, they will lose revenue by having to compete in a free[1] market, rather than - as they do at the moment - taking advantage the fact the each country is effectively silo'd off in a separate market (from transaction costs) to avoid that competition. Cry me a river. [1] well, free-er at least - I take your second point that it'll still be a ways from completely free. TLDR: you're ironically using a fully general argument against government intervention to implicitly argue for less competition and a less free market (the status quo).