MSE News: Mega merger between Three and O2 blocked amid price rise concerns

redux

You didn't answer my question.

d123

sdduk wrote: »

I can understand UK not wanting it and stopping it going though but whats it got to do with the EU?:mad:
I think the quicker we leave the better off this country will be.

Mainly because it concerned 2 European businesses, and the decision would have ramifications on other EU markets, but don't let a bit of common sense get in the way of your ukipper rant...

redux

Don't forget that UKIP objected to regulators' reductions of the gross over-pricing of roaming tariffs.

System

The EC had its own agenda and was clearly looking to replicate the refusal of the Telenor / Sonera merger in Denmark.

OFCOM is just an inempt organisation. It allows poor UK network coverage and overdominance of BT (it should have split out Openreach and required BT/EE give up some spectrum) as the price of obtaining EE.

redux wrote: »

Don't forget that UKIP objected to regulators' reductions of the gross over-pricing of roaming tariffs.

Ian011

redux wrote: »

Don't forget that UKIP objected to regulators' reductions of the gross over-pricing of roaming tariffs.

They objected on the basis that the cost of calls within the UK would go up in order to subsidise customers who are roaming.

Do not kid yourself that 'abolishing roaming charges' will mean that overall in total, customers will be paying any less.

callum9999

ChiefGrasscutter wrote: »

The rational between the BT/EE merger being allowed was that it did not reduce the number of mobile phone companies in the UK as BT does not have a mobile arm.
A merger between Three and O2 would reduce the number from 4 to 3

As per my comment on the other thread, time will tell whether the UK is large enough to sustain 4 mobile networks as now seemingly demanded by the EU.
If not then one of them will eventually wither and die being left on some minimal maintenance basis.
This sort of thing happened to a division within a company I worked for. Eventually most the staff left to work for the competitors and finally it was closed down and the rest made redundant. Effectively they had "sold" the division to the competitors but got no money for it.

Anyway its just yet another reason to vote leave - the EU interfering in our business.

Time will tell!? How about reality will tell, like the fact we have four profitable main networks...

Your completely baseless claim that Ofcom would have allowed this - despite saying they won't - because "they don't want to upset their boss" is rather pathetic. They aren't Ofcom's boss... They can overrule them, but they aren't in charge of them...

Unless it's a sign of desperation, I have no idea why people grasp at the most pathetic straws to moan about the EU. If anything it damages your case by making your entire argument look stupid by association.

redux

Ian011 wrote: »

They objected on the basis that the cost of calls within the UK would go up in order to subsidise customers who are roaming.

Do not kid yourself that 'abolishing roaming charges' will mean that overall in total, customers will be paying any less.

But that was a false argument.

If it is possible to hypothesise that some tariffs that are high are subsidising others to be low, then the excessive profit margins on roaming, for a while over 90% on some incoming calls, might have been subsidising those who did not travel.

When I first got an Orange contract, roaming in France or Belgium or Netherlands cost within a couple of pence of the same as excess minutes beyond the contract bundle at home. After that roaming and home tariffs went in opposite directions.