EU does something useful - Dan faints

[Chippiewill]

Europe votes to cap data roaming prices, will make it cheaper to tweet from Ibiza

European Union countries already had a data roaming cutoff law in place to prevent bill shock after your next Balearic vacation, but the price of the data in question should get much cheaper very soon. The European Parliament has just voted 578 to 10 to cap the price customers pay at no more than 70 Euro cents (91 US cents) per megabyte starting from July 1st, with that price eventually dipping to 45 Euro cents (58c US) a year later and just 20 Euro cents (26 US cents) in 2014.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/10/europe-votes-to-cap-data-roaming-prices/

Yay, cheap ass data roaming!

This is why we should stay in the EU, I go back on everything I've ever said about them. Heil EU.

[GommeInc]

Hmm, they mention US cents which makes me think we could still leave it behind and enjoy cheap roaming. Or are they just telling people how much Euro cents translate to, even though in reality if an America used their mobile phone it will cost considerably more?

[Chippiewill]

Hmm, they mention US cents which makes me think we could still leave it behind and enjoy cheap roaming. Or are they just telling people how much Euro cents translate to, even though in reality if an America used their mobile phone it will cost considerably more?

"if you're visiting from outside the EU, you'll be glad to hear that the anti-bill shock rule will apply to you this year as well."

Yay cheap stuff for everyone :D

[GommeInc]

"if you're visiting from outside the EU, you'll be glad to hear that the anti-bill shock rule will apply to you this year as well."

Yay cheap stuff for everyone :D
So in theory we could leave and enjoy the rates :D That said, I would still use WiFi where possible :P

[Chippiewill]

So in theory we could leave and enjoy the rates :D That said, I would still use WiFi where possible :P
Yeah, it's still pretty expensive even after the cost cuts per the mb.

[Tomm]

Still need to work on pricing outside the EU. Costs £7.50 per MB on T-Mobile. Their European pricing is quite good though, can get 50MB for £10.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I actually disagree - it is not the job of the state (Whitehall or the Brussels) to regulate prices.

[Recursion]

I actually disagree - it is not the job of the state (Whitehall or the Brussels) to regulate prices.

When the roaming data prices are enormously high for no good reason (yes, there USED to be a reason), indeed it's time for regulators to come in, otherwise companies would be running riot with everything.

Are you really that naive? You seem to constantly find fault with everything that's posted around here.

[Tomm]

That has got to be the most naive thing I've heard in quite a while. If there was no regulation in terms of prices we'd all be paying silly amounts for roaming charges. Remember, these roaming charges are mostly artificially created by mobile service providers.


I actually disagree - it is not the job of the state (Whitehall or the Brussels) to regulate prices.

[-:Undertaker:-]

In regards to a monopoly, which I know will be your responses to what i've posted below - how do you think most monopolies arise in the first place? government regulation such as price controls. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv24n1/morton.pdf)

I will give one example of the water companies which i'm familiar with. A great deal of people blame the water companies for being too greedy and charging too much for the droughts and shortages we have. This, on the face of it seems rational and it would then seem rational to have the water companies prices regulated and have the government even nationalise them. But this is a false argument, because if you look at the water companies in this country - it has been the government who have regulate the companies to the extent that only a few companies exist and are unable to build backup lakes due to government regulation.

If I manage to open a new mobile operating company (which, with the amount of regulations if very difficult) and I offer a better service but for a higher price (which I also need to do to recover my costs of investing in the first place) - you are preventing me from doing this. You thus prevent the market finding its correct value and you distort it, serving only to enforce the monopoly that the main companies at the top have because they then cannot be displaced by new rivals. I mean, why do you think so many large companies support (via lobbying) candidates and governments which want regulation? because it helps cement those at the top in their place.

It is the classic law of unintended consquences, you only serve to reinforce the monopoly.


When the roaming data prices are enormously high for no good reason (yes, there USED to be a reason), indeed it's time for regulators to come in, otherwise companies would be running riot with everything.

Are you really that naive? You seem to constantly find fault with everything that's posted around here.


That has got to be the most naive thing I've heard in quite a while. If there was no regulation in terms of prices we'd all be paying silly amounts for roaming charges. Remember, these roaming charges are mostly artificially created by mobile service providers.

Yeah you're both right actually, lets regulate prices - worked well in the 1970s didn't it? why not extend it to televisions, energy, fast sports cars, football kits, clothes, iPods? hell, lets just nationalise everything!

If you seriously believe price regulation by the state (de facto nationalisation) works then frankly, well I don't even know what to say.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'll just add quickly that I fancy a new mobile, wouldn't mind a Blackberry - since it may only cost Blackberry £30 to make one and they're selling it for £300, can I have the government come in and make it £90? Sounds great doesn't it? but as the numerous examples of price controls shown in the CATO document I linked to show - it distorts the market, creates unintended consquences and solidifys a monopoly. One other example is this - that I would like to know of those who sold sweets on the playground when they were in school, did they limit themselves to a certain profit of say 10p per chocolate bar sold? or did they sell for the highest that they could possibly get? .... like every single business in history.

[FlyingJesus]

Government intervention in business is FUN and always works out for the best...........

Oh interesting coincidence as I open up tumblr:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3uy0gaX9G1rrtm3ao1_500.jpg

[Recursion]

In regards to a monopoly, which I know will be your responses to what i've posted below - how do you think most monopolies arise in the first place? government regulation such as price controls. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv24n1/morton.pdf)

I will give one example of the water companies which i'm familiar with. A great deal of people blame the water companies for being too greedy and charging too much for the droughts and shortages we have. This, on the face of it seems rational and it would then seem rational to have the water companies prices regulated and have the government even nationalise them. But this is a false argument, because if you look at the water companies in this country - it has been the government who have regulate the companies to the extent that only a few companies exist and are unable to build backup lakes due to government regulation.

If I manage to open a new mobile operating company (which, with the amount of regulations if very difficult) and I offer a better service but for a higher price (which I also need to do to recover my costs of investing in the first place) - you are preventing me from doing this. You thus prevent the market finding its correct value and you distort it, serving only to enforce the monopoly that the main companies at the top have because they then cannot be displaced by new rivals. I mean, why do you think so many large companies support (via lobbying) candidates and governments which want regulation? because it helps cement those at the top in their place.

It is the classic law of unintended consquences, you only serve to reinforce the monopoly.





Yeah you're both right actually, lets regulate prices - worked well in the 1970s didn't it? why not extend it to televisions, energy, fast sports cars, football kits, clothes, iPods? hell, lets just nationalise everything!

If you seriously believe price regulation by the state (de facto nationalisation) works then frankly, well I don't even know what to say.

You're making yourself out to be a moron if you're suggesting we regulate EVERYTHING on the market, of course we shouldn't, that would be ridiculous. What isn't ridiculous though, is regulating natural resources, basic amenities and "public" services. Consumer product prices regulate themselves, if everyone suddenly whacked their TV prices up, one company is going to take advantage of this and offer them at a lower price whilst demand falls due to the expense, it just wouldn't happen.

Regulating public services on the other hand (which SHOULD include water companies in my opinion) is a fantastic idea, especially from a technical standpoint (you bring up the case of starting a new mobile network, go ahead, Giff Gaff managed it by using other people's networks. Now, if you want to setup your own network, beg Ofcom like Three did who got massive discounts on frequency space because of their smaller size back in the day) because it means everything works properly for a start, and from a monetary standpoint, it means we aren't all paying £100 a month for basic mobile service.

You can't put an exact price on a recurring service with very few companies because the market cannot regulate itself in this case (oh look, which is the case with roaming data abroad, funny that).

A great example of some lovely regulation is the fuss O2 and Vodafone are kicking up because of Everything Everywhere's ability to get a new LTE network up wayyyy ahead of them, thus creating a monopoly providing a much faster service before O2 and Vodafone could physically do it. Ofcom have stepped in and are currently assessing the situation, otherwise we'd have law suits flying around and consumer service would get hurt in the process.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You're making yourself out to be a moron

There is no need to directly insult me because while your argument may be simple minded, ill thought and thus moronic, I very much doubt you are a moron yourself.


..if you're suggesting we regulate EVERYTHING on the market, of course we shouldn't, that would be ridiculous. What isn't ridiculous though, is regulating natural resources, basic amenities and "public" services. Consumer product prices regulate themselves, if everyone suddenly whacked their TV prices up, one company is going to take advantage of this and offer them at a lower price whilst demand falls due to the expense, it just wouldn't happen.

I just gave the key example of water, a natural resource, and how government involvement and regulation (for the good of course as it the reason always given) has actually pushed up prices and led to the water shortages we have now yet you've completely ignored it. And besides, doesn't government regulate of natural resources de facto mean regulation of everything else indirectly?


Regulating public services on the other hand (which SHOULD include water companies in my opinion) is a fantastic idea, especially from a technical standpoint (you bring up the case of starting a new mobile network, go ahead, Giff Gaff managed it by using other people's networks. Now, if you want to setup your own network, beg Ofcom like Three did who got massive discounts on frequency space because of their smaller size back in the day) because it means everything works properly for a start, and from a monetary standpoint, it means we aren't all paying £100 a month for basic mobile service.

Then you need to read up on the water companies and the involvement of EU regulation and Whitehall regulation which has led to the absolute mess we have now. In addition to that, a read of the CATO document of historical price controls (which I seriously doubt you managed to read or bothered to read) wouldn't go amiss nor would a look at how nationalised industry performed/performs in 1940s Britian to 1970s Britain/the Soviet Union.


it means we aren't all paying £100 a month for basic mobile service.

I don't want to pay £300 for a Blackberry, where is my regulation for a basic mobile that I desire?


You can't put an exact price on a recurring service because the market cannot regulate itself in this case.

Can I ask what no regulation actually means? does it mean business doing what it wants and creating a produce/profit (the purpose of business) and regulation meaning what you want? that's the definition truly, isn't it? can I ask you what makes you think you have a 'right' to force the owners of a company and service which they own to offer a price you find suitable? you have no such right my friend.

You do however have the right to set up your own company and rival the existing monopoly - which would be made far easier (or even possible) without all the regulations you yourself put into place on other companies but which now directly also apply to you. As a small business, you are thus prevented from charging a higher price for a newer (and even better service) because you have enforced price controls leaving you unable to recoup your investment = thus a monopoly is created.


A great example of some lovely regulation is the fuss O2 and Vodafone are kicking up because of Everything Everywhere's ability to get a new LTE network up wayyyy ahead of them, thus creating a monopoly providing a much faster service before O2 and Vodafone could physically do it. Ofcom have stepped in and are currently assessing the situation, otherwise we'd have law suits flying around and consumer service would get hurt in the process.

The only reason lawsuits are involved is because of the mess regulation causes, ie again - water companies and shortages in the United Kingdom as of 2012.

Oh what a web we weave..

[Recursion]

There is no need to directly insult me because while your argument may be simple minded, ill thought and thus moronic, I very much doubt you are a moron yourself.



1. I just gave the key example of water, a natural resource, and how government involvement and regulation (for the good of course as it the reason always given) has actually pushed up prices and led to the water shortages we have now yet you've completely ignored it. And besides, doesn't government regulate of natural resources de facto mean regulation of everything else indirectly?



2. Then you need to read up on the water companies and the involvement of EU regulation and Whitehall regulation which has led to the absolute mess we have now. In addition to that, a read of the CATO document of historical price controls (which I seriously doubt you managed to read or bothered to read) wouldn't go amiss nor would a look at how nationalised industry performed/performs in 1940s Britian to 1970s Britain/the Soviet Union.



3. I don't want to pay £300 for a Blackberry, where is my regulation for a basic mobile that I desire?



4. Can I ask what no regulation actually means? does it mean business doing what it wants and creating a produce/profit (the purpose of business) and regulation meaning what you want? that's the definition truly, isn't it? can I ask you what makes you think you have a 'right' to force the owners of a company and service which they own to offer a price you find suitable? you have no such right my friend.



5. The only reason lawsuits are involved is because of the mess regulation causes, ie again - water companies and shortages in the United Kingdom as of 2012.

Oh what a web we weave..

1. I'm not going to pretend I know a whole lot about out water situation (it's ridiculous that we're using 'for profit' companies for this, but hey **! Same goes for energy (and lol, the joke of a UCAS service), perhaps these should be nationalised... so long as we don't end up with massive amounts of wind farms) so I can't really say too much on it.

2. I really don't want to read something like that at 2am on a Saturday morning, especially when I have far more reading to do on a project I have due in a week and a half

3. A mobile phone is a consumer device, the prices regulate themselves. An iPhone is worth £500 because when Apple priced it, they knew consumers would pay it, obviously people weren't buying it, they would lower the price. It's simple supply and demand. I'm not sure where you plucked the £30 manufacturing cost from, but it's quite obviously a mobile phone costs a fair amount more than that to manufacture after research, design, materials, processing, assembly, testing, marketing, sale etc. Also, hence why a lot of networks will subsidise the cost of a phone with a contract, if you don't want to pay so much for a phone, you can take out a monthly contract with a subsidised phone cost.

4. "No regulation" to me would mean no government involvement, let companies do whatever the hell they like, whilst regulation (again, to me) would mean protecting the consumer from ridiculous profit margins and greedy shareholders. Lets go back to mobile data, like this thread is about. How do you put a price on data? It's an intangible good. The network provides the medium (copper, and an allocated frequency by... Ofcom!) to process and transfer this data, so you pay for the installation and maintenance of said equipment, but what price do you put on a data packet? Someone needs to be around to regulate that.

5. Law suits don't come around from regulation, generally anyway. Law suits generally come form two types of business. A, where someone sees something good happening elsewhere and wants a slice of the action, usually limiting product growth and limiting technological advancements. And then B, where a company has generally fallen fowl somewhere (perhaps due to a regulator in fact, which can also become part of a law suit) that legitimately needs fixing (ala O2 and Vodafone falling behind EE on LTE rollout).

Anywhos, tomorrow needs to be a productive day for me. Good night!

[-:Undertaker:-]

1. I'm not going to pretend I know a whole lot about out water situation (it's ridiculous that we're using 'for profit' companies for this, but hey **! Same goes for energy (and lol, the joke of a UCAS service), perhaps these should be nationalised... so long as we don't end up with massive amounts of wind farms) so I can't really say too much on it.

You think the state doesn't and won't run these companies for profit? do you honestly believe that? the key difference is, because everything runs on a profit, whether state appointed bureaucrats appointed not on expertise but political position can do a better job than those with knowledge of the industry wanting consumers to choose their business over rivals? who do you think will provide the better service?

Because both are out to make profit, it's simply a matter of choosing the more competent one.


2. I really don't want to read something like that at 2am on a Saturday morning, especially when I have far more reading to do on a project I have due in a week and a half

Something for you to bookmark then.


3. A mobile phone is a consumer device, the prices regulate themselves. An iPhone is worth £500 because when Apple priced it, they knew consumers would pay it, obviously people weren't buying it, they would lower the price. It's simple supply and demand. I'm not sure where you plucked the £30 manufacturing cost from, but it's quite obviously a mobile phone costs a fair amount more than that to manufacture after research, design, materials, processing, assembly, testing, marketing, sale etc. Also, hence why a lot of networks will subsidise the cost of a phone with a contract, if you don't want to pay so much for a phone, you can take out a monthly contract with a subsidised phone cost.

A mobile phone is a service/product as is the network/service which it runs on. The example I gave of the Blackberry is randomly picked out of the air, but yes companies make profits of those proportions - so on the basis that you think services should be regulated, why shouldn't mobile phone prices be regulated? the argument you give for this EU ruling is to 'protect consumers' in other words 'use the state to force a company to charge the price I deem fit/the lowest price possible' - why can this not be applied to everything, from bread to sugar, to mobile phones and football kits?

Why? because history shows that it does not work.


4. "No regulation" to me would mean no government involvement, let companies do whatever the hell they like, whilst regulation (again, to me) would mean protecting the consumer from ridiculous profit margins and greedy shareholders.

And you are not greedy? when you sell your car on, do you not try and charge the highest possible price that the consumer is willing to pay? to do otherwise is an act of charity and a business is not a charity. I again go back to the sweets example on the playground. In the words of Milton Friedman "..of course none of us are greedy, it's always the other fella who is greedy".

It seems to me that you use the word greedy as an excuse to have something forcibly made cheaper, which I argue is on the level of theft (which is true greed).


Lets go back to mobile data, like this thread is about. How do you put a price on data? It's an intangible good. The network provides the medium (copper, and an allocated frequency by... Ofcom!) to process and transfer this data, so you pay for the installation and maintenance of said equipment, but what price do you put on a data packet? Someone needs to be around to regulate that.

It is a service which they provide/use which you choose to buy.


5. Law suits don't come around from regulation, generally anyway. Law suits generally come form two types of business. A, where someone sees something good happening elsewhere and wants a slice of the action, usually limiting product growth and limiting technological advancements. And then B, where a company has generally fallen fowl somewhere (perhaps due to a regulator in fact, which can also become part of a law suit) that legitimately needs fixing (ala O2 and Vodafone falling behind EE on LTE rollout).

Anywhos, tomorrow needs to be a productive day for me. Good night!

A shows to me exactly how your priorities are wrong, indeed regulation which comes to support your point on A is exactly what denies new rivals from breaking a monopoly - it creates a monopoly.

[Tomm]

Firstly the article you linked is completely irrelevant because it only discusses price controls in terms of good but we are talking about services - the two are different. Not to mention the bias of the organisation who published the article..

Also the barrier to entry of setting up a mobile phone company has nothing to do with roaming charges. The main barrier to entry would be the infrastructure needed to provide the service to the whole of the country. You mention monopoly but there is no monopoly, we have an oligopoly in the UK in terms of mobile phone service providers. What I don't think you understand is that roaming charges are mostly artificial charges levied on mobile phone service providers by other mobile phone service providers for use of their network that are then passed on to customers. These charges are substantially higher than what is actually costs to process the call/text/data. If you actually look at the limits on wholesale pricing for roaming charges (i.e what other networks charge each other for use of their network) you'll see that in some cases the charges are still higher than what they would charge their owns customers on their network.

The price controls are really only to remove the artificial price inflation on roaming charges set up between the mobile phone service providers which I don't see how you can see as a bad thing as it almost amounts to indirect price fixing.

Also there is no link between the quality of your service and roaming charges. You might provide a excellent service with 100% coverage anywhere in the country and charge a higher price to your customers in your home country. Fine. Now think what roaming charges actually are. They are the cost to a customer to use their mobile phone on another mobile phone provider's network that is not their normal network. Their normal network has no control over the quality of the other mobile phone network's service and no matter if they did roaming for free or it cost a million pounds a minute for calls they are not going to get any better or worse.


In regards to a monopoly, which I know will be your responses to what i've posted below - how do you think most monopolies arise in the first place? government regulation such as price controls. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv24n1/morton.pdf)

I will give one example of the water companies which i'm familiar with. A great deal of people blame the water companies for being too greedy and charging too much for the droughts and shortages we have. This, on the face of it seems rational and it would then seem rational to have the water companies prices regulated and have the government even nationalise them. But this is a false argument, because if you look at the water companies in this country - it has been the government who have regulate the companies to the extent that only a few companies exist and are unable to build backup lakes due to government regulation.

If I manage to open a new mobile operating company (which, with the amount of regulations if very difficult) and I offer a better service but for a higher price (which I also need to do to recover my costs of investing in the first place) - you are preventing me from doing this. You thus prevent the market finding its correct value and you distort it, serving only to enforce the monopoly that the main companies at the top have because they then cannot be displaced by new rivals. I mean, why do you think so many large companies support (via lobbying) candidates and governments which want regulation? because it helps cement those at the top in their place.

It is the classic law of unintended consquences, you only serve to reinforce the monopoly.





Yeah you're both right actually, lets regulate prices - worked well in the 1970s didn't it? why not extend it to televisions, energy, fast sports cars, football kits, clothes, iPods? hell, lets just nationalise everything!

If you seriously believe price regulation by the state (de facto nationalisation) works then frankly, well I don't even know what to say.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Firstly the article you linked is completely irrelevant because it only discusses price controls in terms of good but we are talking about services - the two are different.

The only difference between goods and services is the physical element, other than that nope.


Not to mention the bias of the organisation who published the article..

Really? there's bias in a document that supports the free market?


Also the barrier to entry of setting up a mobile phone company has nothing to do with roaming charges. The main barrier to entry would be the infrastructure needed to provide the service to the whole of the country. You mention monopoly but there is no monopoly, we have an oligopoly in the UK in terms of mobile phone service providers. What I don't think you understand is that roaming charges are mostly artificial charges levied on mobile phone service providers by other mobile phone service providers for use of their network that are then passed on to customers. These charges are substantially higher than what is actually costs to process the call/text/data. If you actually look at the limits on wholesale pricing for roaming charges (i.e what other networks charge each other for use of their network) you'll see that in some cases the charges are still higher than what they would charge their owns customers on their network.

What is this use of the phrase 'artifical charges'? do you not realise that everything in business is an 'artifical charge' once the cost of developing and producing the product reaches £0? the phrase you should be using and would be using say if you sold a car for the highest price possible is profit. If you do not like the costs, then do not use the service.

It really is that simple.


The price controls are really only to remove the artificial price inflation on roaming charges set up between the mobile phone service providers which I don't see how you can see as a bad thing as it almost amounts to indirect price fixing.

Price fixing doesn't matter if the market is deregulated enough to allow new rivals to emerge. If price fixing exists in a market then you know it is over regulated because they can charge anything they want without fear of a new rival coming and offering either a better service or a cheaper service (or both).


Also there is no link between the quality of your service and roaming charges. You might provide a excellent service with 100% coverage anywhere in the country and charge a higher price to your customers in your home country. Fine. Now think what roaming charges actually are. They are the cost to a customer to use their mobile phone on another mobile phone provider's network that is not their normal network. Their normal network has no control over the quality of the other mobile phone network's service and no matter if they did roaming for free or it cost a million pounds a minute for calls they are not going to get any better or worse.

Don't use your phone then if you're going to be charged for it and you deem it unacceptable, duh.

[The Don]

-:Undertaker:-;

There are regulations for a reason. Pure capitalism and the idea of a free market have one major flaw, eventually all money will end up in the hands of a few whilst the rest are poor. Regulations prevent consumers being exploited and being forced to pay extreme prices.
Heck, should we remove health and safety regulations from kitchens? I’m pretty sure you’d come complaining when one of your loved ones dies from salmonella or cholera or would it be for the greater good because government regulation is pure evil :rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

@<a href="http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24233" target="_blank">-:Undertaker:-</a>;

There are regulations for a reason. Pure capitalism and the idea of a free market have one major flaw, eventually all money will end up in the hands of a few whilst the rest are poor. Regulations prevent consumers being exploited and being forced to pay extreme prices.

No it doesn't, indeed the effect has been the opposite since the pre-Industrial Revolution .. before the Industrial Revolution the few very Lords held the wealth and the peasants had next to none, with the Industrial Revolution this changed with the educated (but who otherwise would have been poor) inventing and producing which then led to workers conditions improving gradually. The best example of this today I can give you is the case of China and India - India is a very restrictive market with numerous regulations to improvement workers conditions whereas China is vastly more free. Yet ask this of yourself, would you rather be a worker in China or India?

The poor to wealthy pattern you describe today however is a product of our monetary system, not the free market.


..being forced to pay extreme prices.

Nobody forces you to buy anything, well, except the government through nationalisation.


Heck, should we remove health and safety regulations from kitchens? I’m pretty sure you’d come complaining when one of your loved ones dies from salmonella or cholera or would it be for the greater good because government regulation is pure evil :rolleyes:

It depends what you class as health and safety, this video explains it [the role of the government and its courts in the economy/health and safety] much better than I can.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg

"..what i'm trying to say to you, is that these things are a little more sutle and sophisticated than you are at first led to believe."

[The Don]

No it doesn't, indeed the effect has been the opposite since the pre-Industrial Revolution .. before the Industrial Revolution the few very Lords held the wealth and the peasants had next to none, with the Industrial Revolution this changed with the educated (but who otherwise would have been poor) inventing and producing which then led to workers conditions improving gradually. The best example of this today I can give you is the case of China and India - India is a very restrictive market with numerous regulations to improvement workers conditions whereas China is vastly more free. Yet ask this of yourself, would you rather be a worker in China or India?

The poor to wealthy pattern you describe today however is a product of our monetary system, not the free market.



Nobody forces you to buy anything, well, except the government through nationalisation.



It depends what you class as health and safety, this video explains it [the role of the government and its courts in the economy/health and safety] much better than I can.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg

"..what i'm trying to say to you, is that these things are a little more sutle and sophisticated than you are at first led to believe."

The workers conditions improved because of various legislation brought in by government to maintain a safe environment. If the government hadn’t of regulated the safety standards of factories during the industrial revolution, the flaw in capitalism would be present today. However, because the flaw (the few are rich whilst the rest are poor) isn’t present today, doesn’t mean it isn’t real, the only thing preventing this is the various efforts from government with aspects such as the minimum wage act, discrimination act etc.

[Tomm]

Yes the difference is the physical element and this is quite significant.

Again you are missing the point and judging by your attitude it is clear that you are struggling to grasp the concept and seem to be very reactionary to anything that involves government regulation without looking at the facts (n.b: I am not always for government regulation either. However, I look at the fact of each case individually without jumping to some unfounded conclusion as soon as I hear the word "regulation" mentioned). The incorrect link you are making here is that government regulation means reduction in competition.

This regulation does not impose any barrier to entry. Setting up a mobile phone service provider does not even require you offer a roaming service and even if it did you could potentially argue it reduces the barrier to entry as you would be charged less for using other mobile phone provider's infrastructure.

The charges are artificial in the sense that they are determined by what is essentially collusion between mobile phone service providers. It is of mutual benefit to themselves for mobile phone service providers to charge each other high prices for letting their customers roam on each others networks.

Yes there is bias in the document you linked. The Cato Institute is a pro-free market think tank funded by very large corporations with it's board members also containing people from large corporations. Do you really think that such a institute is going to give a balanced and reasoned view on government regulation?

Just in case you think I take a unbalanced viewpoint on this then I will give you a sensible disadvantage of this regulation that does not revolve around some flawed anti-competitive argument. Since roaming charges are clearly quite profitable for mobile phone service providers it could be argued that by forcing reduced costs then it may have a impact on the ability for providers to invest in new and updated infrastructure (e.g 4G networks).


The only difference between goods and services is the physical element, other than that nope.



Really? there's bias in a document that supports the free market?



What is this use of the phrase 'artifical charges'? do you not realise that everything in business is an 'artifical charge' once the cost of developing and producing the product reaches £0? the phrase you should be using and would be using say if you sold a car for the highest price possible is profit. If you do not like the costs, then do not use the service.

It really is that simple.



Price fixing doesn't matter if the market is deregulated enough to allow new rivals to emerge. If price fixing exists in a market then you know it is over regulated because they can charge anything they want without fear of a new rival coming and offering either a better service or a cheaper service (or both).



Don't use your phone then if you're going to be charged for it and you deem it unacceptable, duh.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The workers conditions improved because of various legislation brought in by government to maintain a safe environment. If the government hadn’t of regulated the safety standards of factories during the industrial revolution, the flaw in capitalism would be present today. However, because the flaw (the few are rich whilst the rest are poor) isn’t present today, doesn’t mean it isn’t real, the only thing preventing this is the various efforts from government with aspects such as the minimum wage act, discrimination act etc.

Wrong, the present day case of India and China proves this to be totally and utterly false, as does Chile when compared with the rest of South America - it is the only developed country in South America due to its 1980s free market reforms. I ask again, would you rather be a worker in India or China? Chile or Brazil? Due to free market conditions, China and Chile have been able to advance within a very short time span (much like Hong Kong, Singapore and the other deregulated Asian Tigers) when compared with heavily regulated economies, thus meaning that the end result is the workers you sought to protect with legislation (because legislation afterall doesn't produce, the free market does) are worse off than those who didn't have that protection.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as true as ever.


Yes the difference is the physical element and this is quite significant.

Both are provided by the private sector and both you have a choice whether to use or not.


Again you are missing the point and judging by your attitude it is clear that you are struggling to grasp the concept and seem to be very reactionary to anything that involves government regulation without looking at the facts (n.b: I am not always for government regulation either. However, I look at the fact of each case individually without jumping to some unfounded conclusion as soon as I hear the word "regulation" mentioned). The incorrect link you are making here is that government regulation means reduction in competition.

An increase in government regulation does mean a decrease in competition.


This regulation does not impose any barrier to entry. Setting up a mobile phone service provider does not even require you offer a roaming service and even if it did you could potentially argue it reduces the barrier to entry as you would be charged less for using other mobile phone provider's infrastructure.

I said before, don't pay it (thus by using it) if you don't like it.


The charges are artificial in the sense that they are determined by what is essentially collusion between mobile phone service providers. It is of mutual benefit to themselves for mobile phone service providers to charge each other high prices for letting their customers roam on each others networks.

Indeed, so do not use them then.


Yes there is bias in the document you linked. The Cato Institute is a pro-free market think tank funded by very large corporations with it's board members also containing people from large corporations. Do you really think that such a institute is going to give a balanced and reasoned view on government regulation?

It gave a detailed document with examples provided, instead you choose to simply say "oh well thats biased" - I have news for you my friend, everything is biased but often some things offer indisputable facts as I do above with the free market examples of China and Chile when compared with the heavily regulated India and Brazil.


Just in case you think I take a unbalanced viewpoint on this then I will give you a sensible disadvantage of this regulation that does not revolve around some flawed anti-competitive argument. Since roaming charges are clearly quite profitable for mobile phone service providers it could be argued that by forcing reduced costs then it may have a impact on the ability for providers to invest in new and updated infrastructure (e.g 4G networks).

I don't think you understand how a business works to make profit, if something is worth investing in (as you say) then companies will do that of their own accord - they do not need a teenager or a Eurocrat telling them what to invest in and what not to invest in. The fact that haven't invested in whatever you are suggesting they do tells me that actually its not a worthwhile investment.

[GommeInc]

Personally I think this has worked out quite well. A Government is usually elected to work for the public good and the general interests of the public. Although the EU is about as elected as Tesco Everyday Value chicken breast, I think the fact they've intervened to stop outrageous international/European roaming prices has worked towards a public, general good. It's perhaps one of the few times they've utilized any amount of democratic powers. Mobile companies are just one type of company who have grown despite economic woes, at least now they can make a decent income without leeching off their customers for something as simple as data charges. It's one step to modernising.

It's the very least of what you expect from any Government organisation to be pro bono publico. The Government is there to intervene for the public good, and this time Government intervention benefits the public and not private organsations like water companies.

[Tomm]

A great example of where regulation increases competition would be in the home broadband market where BT was forced to lower wholesale prices and offer LLU unbundling. Therefore your catch all statement of "An increase in government regulation does mean a decrease in competition." is obviously false and further exemplifies my point of your reactionary response to regulation without looking at the facts on a case by case basis.

Also you keep saying "don't buy it then" which is a completely nonsensical when I am talking about barriers to entry.

The fact you don't seem to understand how bias affects a document and be able to take this into account is very worrying and does not bode well for your ability to think critically which is blatantly obvious by your continued use of sweeping statements.

Furthermore you again show your lack of understanding when you think that mobile phone service providers don't think that 4G (or "whatever" as you put it) is worth investing in.


Wrong, the present day case of India and China proves this to be totally and utterly false, as does Chile when compared with the rest of South America - it is the only developed country in South America due to its 1980s free market reforms. I ask again, would you rather be a worker in India or China? Chile or Brazil? Due to free market conditions, China and Chile have been able to advance within a very short time span (much like Hong Kong, Singapore and the other deregulated Asian Tigers) when compared with heavily regulated economies, thus meaning that the end result is the workers you sought to protect with legislation (because legislation afterall doesn't produce, the free market does) are worse off than those who didn't have that protection.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as true as ever.



Both are provided by the private sector and both you have a choice whether to use or not.



An increase in government regulation does mean a decrease in competition.



I said before, don't pay it (thus by using it) if you don't like it.



Indeed, so do not use them then.



It gave a detailed document with examples provided, instead you choose to simply say "oh well thats biased" - I have news for you my friend, everything is biased but often some things offer indisputable facts as I do above with the free market examples of China and Chile when compared with the heavily regulated India and Brazil.



I don't think you understand how a business works to make profit, if something is worth investing in (as you say) then companies will do that of their own accord - they do not need a teenager or a Eurocrat telling them what to invest in and what not to invest in. The fact that haven't invested in whatever you are suggesting they do tells me that actually its not a worthwhile investment.

[peteyt]

It's an interesting debate. I'm glad it's going to be cheaper but at the same time if they are going to regulate this why not regulate other things - Someone can buy a domain for a few quid and sell it for 100's. The domain I wan't is owned by a domain selling company who wan't £900 for it and probably paid about a fiver if that. But the thing is that's business

[The Don]

Wrong, the present day case of India and China proves this to be totally and utterly false, as does Chile when compared with the rest of South America - it is the only developed country in South America due to its 1980s free market reforms. I ask again, would you rather be a worker in India or China? Chile or Brazil? Due to free market conditions, China and Chile have been able to advance within a very short time span (much like Hong Kong, Singapore and the other deregulated Asian Tigers) when compared with heavily regulated economies, thus meaning that the end result is the workers you sought to protect with legislation (because legislation afterall doesn't produce, the free market does) are worse off than those who didn't have that protection.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as true as ever.



Both are provided by the private sector and both you have a choice whether to use or not.



An increase in government regulation does mean a decrease in competition.



I said before, don't pay it (thus by using it) if you don't like it.



Indeed, so do not use them then.



It gave a detailed document with examples provided, instead you choose to simply say "oh well thats biased" - I have news for you my friend, everything is biased but often some things offer indisputable facts as I do above with the free market examples of China and Chile when compared with the heavily regulated India and Brazil.



I don't think you understand how a business works to make profit, if something is worth investing in (as you say) then companies will do that of their own accord - they do not need a teenager or a Eurocrat telling them what to invest in and what not to invest in. The fact that haven't invested in whatever you are suggesting they do tells me that actually its not a worthwhile investment.

Dan I refuse to debate you because you drag it out and tell me I’m wrong when presenting facts and then use a skewed comparison to get your point across (In this case India and China) when they are just mere example and I could also provide examples of countries doing well whilst having regulations.

peteyt; that’s completely different. A Domain isn’t a necessity; you could always get a different one for much cheaper, whereas internet access is becoming a basic necessity.

[peteyt]

Dan I refuse to debate you because you drag it out and tell me I’m wrong when presenting facts and then use a skewed comparison to get your point across (In this case India and China) when they are just mere example and I could also provide examples of countries doing well whilst having regulations.

@peteyt (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=69493); that’s completely different. A Domain isn’t a necessity; you could always get a different one for much cheaper, whereas internet access is becoming a basic necessity.

I agree the internet is important but the problem is without it for a short time people will still survive. I like what they have done, the prices have been too high in the past, but it does beg the question what should and shouldn't be regulated and even the question what defines a necessity?

[Recursion]

I agree the internet is important but the problem is without it for a short time people will still survive. I like what they have done, the prices have been too high in the past, but it does beg the question what should and shouldn't be regulated and even the question what defines a necessity?

A domain isn't a service, it's a product with the potential for you to set your own price. It's only worth £900 because that's what people are willing to pay for such a domain, if people weren't willing to pay that much for a 'good' domain then it'd be much cheaper.

[Stephen]

Guys stop trying to prove undertaker wrong, he's always right so you're just wasting your time

[peteyt]

A domain isn't a service, it's a product with the potential for you to set your own price. It's only worth £900 because that's what people are willing to pay for such a domain, if people weren't willing to pay that much for a 'good' domain then it'd be much cheaper.

But my point is you could say this for phones - Some people use their phones abroad already because they have to - which means that people are willing to pay the price. You can say they have no choice but my point is you can say that about a lot of things - if a domain was needed by a big company before someone else bought it they might pay a stupid price not because they want to but because they need to.

I like that phone calls and internet usage will be cheaper however I think it would be better if instead of the government getting involved the actual networks would actually lower the prices as it might lead to others doing so. My problem is the internet is great and stuff, but if it died I'd just have to get over it - it's not like it's as important as food, water etc. stuff we need to actually survive. Obviously some businesses need it, but you can say that about a few things.

[Recursion]

But my point is you could say this for phones - Some people use their phones abroad already because they have to - which means that people are willing to pay the price. You can say they have no choice but my point is you can say that about a lot of things - if a domain was needed by a big company before someone else bought it they might pay a stupid price not because they want to but because they need to.

I like that phone calls and internet usage will be cheaper however I think it would be better if instead of the government getting involved the actual networks would actually lower the prices as it might lead to others doing so. My problem is the internet is great and stuff, but if it died I'd just have to get over it - it's not like it's as important as food, water etc. stuff we need to actually survive. Obviously some businesses need it, but you can say that about a few things.

Slightly off topic, but companies can force a domain handover if they own the trademark or copyright behind it.

Judging by your post, I don't think you realise the extent of the internet (or ability to route data around the world even) nowadays, if the internet died tomorrow the world would pretty much come to a standstill. We rely on it for our economics, foreign intelligence, global trading, communications between people/countries/companies and the list goes on. As I said before though, how can anyone put a price on data being transferred, after network maintenance costs etc? With a domain the prices are actually regulated at the first sale, from there on it's up to whoever owns the domain to price it accordingly for consumers.

[Luke]

What the **** happened to this forum.. o_O

[xxMATTGxx]

What the **** happened to this forum.. o_O

The word "EU" was mentioned in a tech thread and then all hell broke lose.

[Luke]

OIC.
.

[peteyt]

Slightly off topic, but companies can force a domain handover if they own the trademark or copyright behind it.

Judging by your post, I don't think you realise the extent of the internet (or ability to route data around the world even) nowadays, if the internet died tomorrow the world would pretty much come to a standstill. We rely on it for our economics, foreign intelligence, global trading, communications between people/countries/companies and the list goes on. As I said before though, how can anyone put a price on data being transferred, after network maintenance costs etc? With a domain the prices are actually regulated at the first sale, from there on it's up to whoever owns the domain to price it accordingly for consumers.

I thought if you owned the domain first then it was legally yours no matter what unless they owned the copyrighted first

[Chippiewill]

What the **** happened to this forum.. o_O

I realised 5 seconds after I posted the thread that I should have dumped it in CA. Mybad.

[-:Undertaker:-]

A great example of where regulation increases competition would be in the home broadband market where BT was forced to lower wholesale prices and offer LLU unbundling. Therefore your catch all statement of "An increase in government regulation does mean a decrease in competition." is obviously false and further exemplifies my point of your reactionary response to regulation without looking at the facts on a case by case basis.

I have looked at a fact by fact basis as does the document, you choose to ignore this and instead continue with this dogmatic argument that regulation is good because it benefits me, but obviously would be bad if it lost you money.


Also you keep saying "don't buy it then" which is a completely nonsensical when I am talking about barriers to entry.

Well, you don't have to buy it or use it.


The fact you don't seem to understand how bias affects a document and be able to take this into account is very worrying and does not bode well for your ability to think critically which is blatantly obvious by your continued use of sweeping statements.

Where have I claimed that the CATO document is unbiased? I have never claimed anything is unbiased.


Furthermore you again show your lack of understanding when you think that mobile phone service providers don't think that 4G (or "whatever" as you put it) is worth investing in.

If it is worth investing in, they will. If it's not, they won't.

Being a technical wizz kid on a forum or a university-to-Brussels politician doesn't make you a successful advisor to business.


Dan I refuse to debate you because you drag it out and tell me I’m wrong when presenting facts and then use a skewed comparison to get your point across (In this case India and China) when they are just mere example and I could also provide examples of countries doing well whilst having regulations.

Well of course you do, it's very hard to disprove historical examples and i'm glad you decided against it.