Comments on: Europeans lower roaming charges, by legislation

By: trip

trip — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 07:44:33 +0000

Funny that everybody sees this as a negative thing. I think it’s pretty reasonable, that you don’t get a 400€ phone bill just because you visited Spain and happened to make a few calls. And to be honest, those maximum prices are not in any means cheap, so the carriers won’t be suffering.

By: Galvatron

Galvatron — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:59:00 +0000

damn my e key is sticking again

By: Galvatron

Galvatron — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:57:56 +0000

the Eu is trying to put telcos in check. I.m amadzed they havn’t resorted to Nathionalization of the telcos which woulld be even worse Socalism dosn not work. chamces are uro telcoes will rais rates somwere els an pas that cost on tho the consumer.

I’d say ther arn’t enough carriers ine each other densly poulated countries. you see 1-2 max im nost uropean countries as a result you have cellco duoopoly. wich is almost as bad as a monopoly. What the EU needs to do is intrduce more competition. that an ease up on the legeslation it cost lots of money to run a socialist police state and security is only temporary.

in the UK the legislature spends more time trying to figure out how to becom more of a big brother police state than taking care of it’s economy camera’s everywere in london (even restrooms) not just puting you fingerprints in a dbase but your DNA beofr your arested. yet they are still nt saf from terisom or crime you have more robberys an property theft

while their public sector has grown their private saector has shrunk. an they financials are nosdiving

and iflation is bad as well they are paying about the equivqlant of $12. a gallon for gas

By: Sam Dweck

Sam Dweck — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:48:29 +0000

I knew that some whippersnapper was going to correct me on VAT. Chill. I am WELL aware that there is no such thing as a 400% VAT.

By: Jimmy Grunko

Jimmy Grunko — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:10:16 +0000

Let’s think about this logically… There are two effects whenever price caps are introduced: the product/service becomes more in demand, and the provider has less profit from that activity. So either company profits decrease, which shareholders don’t like, or (more likely) other charges increase to compensate for the loss. Assuming that the company doesn’t just hoard all of its money under its bed, some group in the general public will lose out. Maybe the companies will get a bigger tax break? (Taxpayer subsidy) Maybe local rates will go up by a hair? (General consumer subsidy) Maybe they’ll just pay out less in dividends? (Shareholder subsidy) In any event, someone always pays when prices are shifted around.

Usually there’s also a disincentive for the company to put money into the division whose prices are capped (and cut back on production in that area), but because of the setup of the situation here, I don’t think that’s relevant.
J

By: Nuno da Costa Ferro

Nuno da Costa Ferro — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:56:36 +0000

Actually the highest VAT doesn’t reach 25%, so you should be saying: “All of the above prices, of course, exclude European VAT (Value Added Tax), so add a quarter to them for a more accurate figure.”

But in many countries the VAT is below 19%.