EU Announces Deal To End All Wireless Roaming Charges (venturebeat.com) 113
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.
Just one more thing (Score:5, Informative)
that we Brits will miss out on...
Re: (Score:2)
Missing out on "boarders"? I thought Brexit was because the brits feel they've taken on too many already...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, 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.
When was the party? (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 ... in what delusional world do you live?
Erm
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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...?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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.
It had to happen some day with more HTTPS use (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It had to happen some day with more HTTPS use (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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"?
Re: (Score:2)
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 b
Re: (Score:2)
[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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [google.com] and iTunes [apple.com] stores)...
Re: (Score:1)
This, A million times this is what the U.S. needs (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.
Re: (Score:2, 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!
Re: (Score:2)
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 pro
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I hear they're coming out with Soylent Green in a few months.
No, Soylent Red [soylentnews.org]. Slashdot Green.
That's incredible! (Score:3)
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.
Re: (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
Re: (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.
in USA there are no roaming fees for moving across different states
Wait until the coming revolution comrade!
Re: (Score:2)
Not yet...
Re: (Score:2)
You are right, but then every other country in the world has the highest roaming fees with the USA and visversa.
Re: (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.
in USA there are no roaming fees for moving across different states
Europe just made another step towards The United States of Europe [wikipedia.org]... ;^)
What's next? A civil war to prevent Brexit?
Re: (Score:2)
A civil war to prevent Brexit?
A war with a nuclear power? EU commission's building should be quickly vaporized.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think France would just sit idly by if the UK decided to nuke Brussels?
Re: (Score:2)
If Le Pen wins that's unlikely. They'd chuck another one on just to make sure.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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 compe
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:That's incredible! (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid hoser.
Sorry, eh.
Re: (Score:2)
No worries mate. She'll be right.
Re: (Score:2)
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)...
Re: That's incredible! (Score:2)
Whoosh.
Re: (Score:2)
Undoing bad mod.
Re: (Score:2)
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? ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Roundabout way to achieve what's needed (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Roundabout way to achieve what's needed (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (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
Re: (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.
Re:No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator (Score:5, 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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 s
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:No Limits Roaming = Lowest Common Denominator (Score:4, 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. ....." is $300 or more bill!!!
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
Re: (Score:2)
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... [europa.eu]
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 h
Current situations (Score:2)
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
Re: (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 ca
Boarders aren't borders. (Score:1)
Meanwhile back in the US... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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 bi