Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
girlwhowaspluggedout writes:
"The European Commission reports that, fearing high roaming charges, many EU citizens forgo the use of their mobile phones outside their home country. According to a survey done by the Commission (pdf), when travelling to another EU country, 90% of all EU citizens limit their e-mail use, 47% do not use their mobile internet connection, 33% never place calls, 25% do not text, and a staggering 28% simply turn off their mobile phones.
Roaming charges, the Commission suggests, are hurting the fledgling EU app sector. In trying to avoid paying data premiums, travelers limit their use of data-heavy apps, like travel guides, maps, and photo applications. Frequent travelers are even more likely to turn-off their phones, perhaps due to being better informed about the costs of data roaming.
The Commission reports that data roaming use across the EU has increased by 1500% since the introduction of price caps in 2008. It suggests that by eliminating all roaming charges, mobile providers will gain a further 300 million customers. These findings give further support to regulations proposed by the Commission that will create a single mobile phone market throughout the EU, enabling all customers to enjoy domestic rates when travelling within the EU."
(Score: 1) by frojack on Wednesday February 19 2014, @10:41PM
Yes, I see how those charges must be passed back to the user's originating carrier.
But, there seems to be no reason why these should be that much higher. Maybe marginally higher to cover transactional costs, but realistically, that is all done by computer these days.
The roaming doesn't have to balance. There is always going to be imbalance, and charges from one carrier to the other. And locally owned carriers make BANK off of travelers roaming onto their network. Especially in resort towns.
The point I was trying to make, is that there will always be charges among carriers to pay for roaming.
But that should not affect the customer much, if at all. I'm not being a drain on my local carrier when I roam onto another carrier's tower. So ALL THE MONEY that I paid my carrier for that time is a windfall to my carrier. If they can then charge me EXTRA for roaming (instead of coughing up what I already paid to them), its sort of unfair to the end user.
Not saying there should be Zero Inter-Carrier money transfers. Just saying It should not affect the end-user to the extent it typically does.
Discussion should abhor vacuity, as space does a vacuum.
(Score: 1) by edIII on Friday February 21 2014, @04:55PM
The roaming does have to balance to have a net zero change for both carriers. Otherwise, they do have to pass on the cost. Typically in peering and transit you pay for that difference. It might be carrier A paying one day, and carrier B paying the next.
Locally owned carriers only make bank right now precisely because of unreasonable roaming costs. Those were created by unreasonable monetization plans from greedy execs that can't figure out that *always* going for the money does not *always* translate into the best business decision long term. Typically, over time those businesses get their asses handed to them, or if they are well enough connected, they bribe governments to forcefully assist them with their business models.
However, if we move to a deal with no roaming charges, and we move toward flat data, you simply must have peering and transit costs. Those are further complicated by the fact that not all network devices attached to the network are paying customers. So it's peering and transit, but also peering and transit for guest access as well. That's not normal, and you only see that with cellular. Traditional data networks have *all* access to their POPs paid for at the local rate. That can vary widely from network to network. I've seen datacenters in one city be 30% of the bandwidth costs or another city a few hundred miles away.
Locally owned carriers in resort towns are going to have major issues when they can't even bill the originating network for the traffic. They have to be able to at least bill it at the same rate they bill their customers. If they have a small user base, they are at an even bigger disadvantage in distributing the costs out to everyone equally. The point of that being you don't notice it all that much
That rate, will vary from resort town to resort town, and be substantially different than a city or rural area.A super huge carrier can just 'smooth' over those usage bumps and not care about it. You won't notice a thing probably. Pennies, if that.
The EU isn't like that though is it? From what I understand tourism is just ridiculous in some parts. There will be carrier networks in those places affected by large scale unpaid for usage. Spain was the top in 2012 with 234.4 million nights (which is days) spent by tourists. That's a metric crap load of bandwidth not paid for, that needs to be distributed out among the remaining paying population.
In situations like that, yes, you are going to see higher rates. I think it's unavoidable, but it can be significantly less than roaming costs. Probably 80% off at least if you only bill it to other carriers at just your standard wholesale rate determined by network traffic analysis and pricing.
What you want must be viewed as only data, part of peering and transit, and must have detailed analysis of all the network traffic and associated revenue. Only then can the costs come down to anywhere near reasonable. Which it means it comes down to execs being reasonable and not greedy, which does nothing for the almighty shareholder (citizen 1st class supreme).
I wish I could remember that damn book! It went into quite a bit of detail in the strategies for peering and transit networks. It's very disruptive, and pretty oool.
TL;DR It's like herding cats. Don't hold your breath waiting for it.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday February 22 2014, @12:33AM
I'm pretty sure we are plowing old ground here.
Lets not talks about roaming payments from one carrier to another for roaming, Ok?
We both know its happening, and has to continue.
However that does not mean the USER should have to pay these.
When I roam off of AT&T, (say to T-Mobile) I impose no burden on AT&T. I use no bandwidth, I use no minutes, I use no connections to their towers. I COST AT&T nothing.
Yet I pay them the same.
So that percentage of my bill, for the time that I am off of AT&T and roaming onto T-Mobile, should just be transferred by AT&T to T-Mobile.
Now don't tell me this can't happen, or that it can't be that simple. It can happen, and I am on such a plan. I have a nation wide business plan right now from AT&T which is just pennies more than a paid roaming plan. Not enough more to cover even a few roaming calls. I can and have spent a week on T-Mobile and Bell South towers, taking and making calls with zero difference in my bill.
Discussion should abhor vacuity, as space does a vacuum.