Peter Kelford
Member
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 903
Or, in the case of border areas (e.g. Northern Ireland), a five minute walk.
Indeed.
Or, in the case of border areas (e.g. Northern Ireland), a five minute walk.
There must be places where the reception near a border means a phone is actually picking up the roaming signal from the other side, in which case people could be paying roaming charges while in their own country.Or, in the case of border areas (e.g. Northern Ireland), a five minute walk.
That happens in Sandwich, Kent where the French network signals can be stronger than the UK. My friend got an unexpectedly large bill one month when her phone roamed without her noticing and then someone called her.There must be places where the reception near a border means a phone is actually picking up the roaming signal from the other side, in which case people could be paying roaming charges while in their own country.
It used to happen quite frequently in NI (and in Kent as @jellybaby notes).There must be places where the reception near a border means a phone is actually picking up the roaming signal from the other side, in which case people could be paying roaming charges while in their own country.
That happens in Sandwich, Kent where the French network signals can be stronger than the UK. My friend got an unexpectedly large bill one month when her phone roamed without her noticing and then someone called her.
Yes, that's true. I remember tariffs increasing when EU roaming charges were abolished. Oh, wait...
Or, in the case of border areas (e.g. Northern Ireland), a five minute walk.
They are also an example of EU consumer protection. Roaming costs the network provider, but only a tiny fraction of what they were charging their customers. If the providers had been reasonable and only passed on the real extra costs then the EU wouldn't have acted to remove the charges completely.
How come the French network signals were stronger then the UK network signals?
It isn't solely signal strength but quality. When you're in some parts of Kent, near the coast, you may have a good signal from across the water versus a signal from inland that is impacted by buildings etc.
When I was in Dover, I occasionally roamed on a French network but it was while walking along the cliffs.
That is the case now. In the future, well that's what the discussion is about...Ahh, I thought roaming charges were abolished so regardless if you’re on the Irish side or Northern Ireland side if the border it wouldn’t matter as it cost the same.
Since NI and Ireland are both EU countries (for another two weeks) that is the case.Ahh, I thought roaming charges were abolished so regardless if you’re on the Irish side or Northern Ireland side if the border it wouldn’t matter as it cost the same.
Since NI and Ireland are both EU countries (for another two weeks) that is the case.
If there is no legal requirement that forbids it why would any company forgo a revenue stream? Other than some perceived marketing benefit?However once we leave the EU, will mobile operators keep the status quo of no roaming charges or would they put up roaming charges?
Looking Orange's 2014 PAYG charges, the per-minute cost for a call to a landline was 30p. Today, on EE the PAYG per-minute cost is 35p. That is exactly in line with inflation.They have. IDD call costs have gone up, in some cases by more than 200%, out-of-bundle call charges on pay monthly contracts have gone up by as much as 50% in cases.
However once we leave the EU, will mobile operators keep the status quo of no roaming charges or would they put up roaming charges?
All existing arrangements and rules including those on roaming charges continue until the end of 2020. After that, anyone's guess.Since NI and Ireland are both EU countries (for another two weeks) that is the case.
When I was in Dover, I occasionally roamed on a French network but it was while walking along the cliffs.
Could you point to sources that confirm that:They have. IDD call costs have gone up, in some cases by more than 200%, out-of-bundle call charges on pay monthly contracts have gone up by as much as 50% in cases. Out of EU roaming costs have incrementally risen as well. Just because you’ve chosen not to see that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened.
This has had a bigger impact than Lebra, etc. Mobile (and to a slightly lesser extent fixed-line operators) see themselves as IP providers with voice service thrown in on top....plus there's VoIP for free via Facebook, Whatsapp and so on...
This has had a bigger impact than Lebra, etc. Mobile (and to a slightly lesser extent fixed-line operators) see themselves as IP providers with voice service thrown in on top.
From a purely technical point of view this makes sense - why continue to emulate circuit-switched networks on top of their packet-switched networks?
There must be places where the reception near a border means a phone is actually picking up the roaming signal from the other side, in which case people could be paying roaming charges while in their own country.
Could you point to sources that confirm that:
Thanks.
- This actually happened
- This was as a result of data roaming charges in the EU being abolished
"Price rises" and "comptetitive market" are very rarely, if ever, part of the same sentence without a negative joining clause - for example "price rises have been minimised due to the competitive market" or "despite price rises, the market remains competitive"...Up until last year, I worked for a mobile phone network and saw first hand internal documents that stated price rises were due to a competitive market “due to new EU roaming regulations”.
I don't see any reason why the agreeements would be terminated.The other thing I’m wondering about is at the moment you have Three UK who have a roaming agreement with T-Mobile in Germany now will the existing roaming agreements stay after Dec 2020 or would the networks need to resign all the various roaming agreements?
That's fair enough. Thanks for that.Up until last year, I worked for a mobile phone network and saw first hand internal documents that stated price rises were due to a competitive market “due to new EU roaming regulations”. Obviously I won’t say more than that.
Why shouldn't I (and others) keep stating that leaving the EU is not a good idea? Until recently, the idea that voicing an opinion backed with plenty of facts and evidence would be uncontroversial. In '97 when Blair won his first landslide, the opposition didn't just shut up and vote along with the government. But, now that Johnson has won his it appears that people with opposing views are supposed to do exactly that. That is not how democracy should work.Without stating the obvious, whether you agree with leaving the EU or not (and I get the distinct impression that 95% of the people on this thread voted remain), change will most undoubtedly happen and there isn’t much point going on and on about it. If anything changes, I reckon it’ll be a LONG way away....
I don't see any reason why the agreeements would be terminated.