Vodafone reinstates gouging, sorry roaming charges

[notya...@gmail.com]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/vodafone-roaming-charges-eu-uk-b1899566.html

After EE, 3 and O2 (to a lesser extent - just a cap), Voda has brought back roaming charges in Europe, abolished in the EU ~2017 at £2 per day. Particularly cynical for Voda, whose own network extends over most of Europe - so no cross network termination charges.

Not sure which is worse, the MNOs' greed or another realisation of a [denied] "Project Fear" prediction.

The only silver lining is that given the extremely strong correlation between Leave voters and low educational attainment, the most likely to get stung with rip off charges and bill shock are those who voted for Brexit.

[Abandoned_Trolley]

... given the extremely strong correlation between Leave voters and low

educational attainment, the most likely to get stung with rip off
charges and bill shock are those who voted for Brexit.

So ... if the Remain voters are so fucking clever, then how did they
manage to lose the referndum vote ?




--
random signature text inserted here

[Chris]

I don't think Three have announced a change, yet. They're the last one
and may be trying to see how much new custom they get before deciding if
it's viable for them to keep EU roaming inclusive.

[Scott]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 03:43:05 -0700 (PDT), "notya...@gmail.com"
<notya...@gmail.com> wrote:

>https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/vodafone-roaming-charges-eu-uk-b1899566.html
>
>After EE, 3 and O2 (to a lesser extent - just a cap), Voda has brought back roaming charges in Europe, abolished in the EU ~2017 at £2 per day. Particularly cynical for Voda, whose own network extends over most of Europe - so no cross network termination charges.
>

This seems only to affect new and upgrading customers. I have a SIM
only contract. AIUI these contracts continue on existing terms
(including RPI increase) at the end of the contract period. Do
Vodafone ever terminate contracts? If not, does this mean I could
avoid roaming charges forever?

[Andy Burns]

Chris wrote:

> I don't think Three have announced a change, yet.

They have

<https://www.vodafone.co.uk/roamingupdate22>

but these charges are not the type where you'll return home to find out
that little Johnny has run up charges of several thousand pounds playing
minecraft, just sort out a bundle for a tenner before you go ... or
stick with your existing contract and don't pay anything.

[Andy Burns]

Scott wrote:

> Do Vodafone ever terminate contracts?

They used to sell 3G dongles with preloaded SIMs per GB, which didn't
"ever" expire, but obviously people were stringing their data out for
too long, they stopped selling them, and eventually converted all credit
into expiring data.

[Chris]

On 10/08/2021 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> I don't think Three have announced a change, yet.
>
> They have
>
> <https://www.vodafone.co.uk/roamingupdate22>

That's Voda not Three.

[Chris in Makati]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 12:14:05 +0100, Abandoned_Trolley
<fr...@fred-smith.co.uk> wrote:

>... given the extremely strong correlation between Leave voters and low
>educational attainment, the most likely to get stung with rip off
>charges and bill shock are those who voted for Brexit.
>
>So ... if the Remain voters are so fucking clever, then how did they
>manage to lose the referndum vote ?

It's a numbers game. Most people have a low educational attainment and
are not very bright. That becomes obvious to me almost every day. In
the democracy we have everyone gets a vote, regardless of how stupid
they might be.

[Andy Burns]

Chris in Makati wrote:

> It's a numbers game. Most people have a low educational attainment and
> are not very bright. That becomes obvious to me almost every day. In
> the democracy we have everyone gets a vote, regardless of how stupid
> they might be.

Get a degree*, get an extra vote?
Oh wait ... it used to be like that until 1948.


[*] more likely get vaccinated.

[Java Jive]

On 10/08/2021 15:24, Chris in Makati wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 12:14:05 +0100, Abandoned_Trolley
> <fr...@fred-smith.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> ... given the extremely strong correlation between Leave voters and low
>> educational attainment, the most likely to get stung with rip off
>> charges and bill shock are those who voted for Brexit.
>>
>> So ... if the Remain voters are so fucking clever, then how did they
>> manage to lose the referndum vote ?

Because the population was lied to so extensively over the entirety of
social media, the right-wing mainstream media, and on the sides of a
bus, that enough people of low intelligence/high bigotry were persuaded
to believe the lies and thus swing the vote.

The pound has never recovered its former value, and, as we import more
than we export, all of us, including Brexshitters, are still paying for
it. It would be some sort of natural justice if those of us who voted
for common sense, Remain, could require those who voted Leave to foot
the entirety of the cost, but unfortunately the world is rarely that just.

> It's a numbers game. Most people have a low educational attainment and
> are not very bright. That becomes obvious to me almost every day. In
> the democracy we have everyone gets a vote, regardless of how stupid
> they might be.

Yes, though I suspect it actually takes less people than many might
believe to swing an election or a referendum of that sort.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

[Tweed]

“If your Vodafone Pay monthly plan started before 11 August 2021:

There will be no change to the way you roam as long as you stay on your
current mobile plan, so you won’t need to pay any additional charges.”

I just rang up Vodafone’s “thinking of leaving us” line and renewed a sim
only contract to get under the wire for tomorrow’s deadline. In case it
helps anyone, sim only, £11/month £11Gb (1Gb plus 10Gb free apparently)
unlimited voice and text, 24 month contract, WITH global roaming.

[Abandoned_Trolley]

>
> It's a numbers game. Most people have a low educational attainment and
> are not very bright. That becomes obvious to me almost every day. In
> the democracy we have everyone gets a vote, regardless of how stupid
> they might be.
>

You're right - is IS a numbers game, so heres a few numbers for you to
consider.

The result of the 1975 referendum (called by the Labour government after
a manifesto commitment) was 67% in favour of remaining.

The result took account of loads of old stupid bigots who voted to leave
at the time.

41 years later, most of them have died off, or were too infirm to make
it to the polling booth. They were replaced by 41 years worth of younger
smarter voters with much higher educational attainment and A levels
coming out of their ears.

So if the "young + smart = remain" equation has any truth, then you
would expect that 1975 result of 67% to be a baseline for the 2016
referendum.

So how did they manage to lose from that position ? And it wasnt a minor
vote reduction, it was a loss of more than 27% from a winning position.

The idea that social media is to blame doesnt really hold water either,
for the simple reason that old stupid Leave voters are much less likely
to be on social media in the first place, and the biased "Tory press"
was every bit as biased in 1975 as it is now.

I dont know or pretend to know the answer to this conundrum, but its
clear to me that the worn out "Leave voters are stupid" trope simply
doesn't explain the facts.

[Abandoned_Trolley]

On 10/08/2021 17:16, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:

> So how did they manage to lose from that position ? And it wasnt a minor
> vote reduction, it was a loss of more than 27% from a winning position.
>

Apologies for the typo - I meant "more than 17%"

AT

[David Higton]

In message <setn1u$91r$1...@dont-email.me>

Abandoned_Trolley <fr...@fred-smith.co.uk> wrote:

> So ... if the Remain voters are so fucking clever, then how did they
> manage to lose the referndum vote ?

Outnumbered by the idiots.

David

[Abandoned_Trolley]

>
>> So ... if the Remain voters are so fucking clever, then how did they
>> manage to lose the referndum vote ?
>
> Outnumbered by the idiots.
>
> David
>

Unlikely - the numbers simply dont add up.

Perhaps we should spare a thought for the leader of the Remain campaign,
as he called the rferendum in the first place :-\

[Pamela]

Am just wondering what benefits Brexit brought so far or is likely to
bring in the near future. I wont hold my breath.

[Scott]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 15:28:33 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>> Do Vodafone ever terminate contracts?
>>
>> They used to sell 3G dongles with preloaded SIMs per GB, which didn't
>> "ever" expire, but obviously people were stringing their data out for
>> too long, they stopped selling them, and eventually converted all credit
>> into expiring data.
>>
>
>“If your Vodafone Pay monthly plan started before 11 August 2021:
>
>There will be no change to the way you roam as long as you stay on your
>current mobile plan, so you won’t need to pay any additional charges.”

My question was whether Vodafone could terminate the contract, meaning
you would no longer be on your 'current mobile plan' and offer a new
contract that excludes roaming.

[MB]

On 10/08/2021 12:30, Andy Burns wrote:

> They have
>
> <https://www.vodafone.co.uk/roamingupdate22>
>
> but these charges are not the type where you'll return home to find out
> that little Johnny has run up charges of several thousand pounds playing
> minecraft, just sort out a bundle for a tenner before you go ... or
> stick with your existing contract and don't pay anything.

Seems quite reasonable that the people who want to use their phones
abroad should pay. I have no interest in going abroad so why should I
subsidise those who do?

[Java Jive]

On 10/08/2021 17:16, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
>

> You're right - is IS a numbers game, so heres a few numbers for you to
> consider.
>
> The result of the 1975 referendum (called by the Labour government after
> a manifesto commitment) was 67% in favour of remaining.
>
> The result took account of loads of old stupid bigots who voted to leave
> at the time.
>
> 41 years later, most of them have died off, or were too infirm to make
> it to the polling booth. They were replaced by 41 years worth of younger
> smarter voters with much higher educational attainment and A levels
> coming out of their ears.

Too many bigoted assumptions inherent in all the above to be at all
useful, except to show anyone reading it how bigoted you yourself are.
See below ...

> So if the "young + smart = remain" equation has any truth, then you
> would expect that 1975 result of 67% to be a baseline for the 2016
> referendum.

There's your answer, it doesn't:

Young != smart != remain
Old != bigoted != stupid ( != leave )

(in some computing languages '!=' means 'does not equal')

Intelligence, meaning a native measure of ability you are born with, is
very difficult to measure absolutely anyway, and is highly correlated
with genetic inheritance, but very poorly correlated, and even slightly
inversely correlated, with age, see below, and anyway, by the very
definition of average, always half the population will be more
intelligent than average and half less.

The real factor here is source of news:
Young ~= social media = more vulnerable to fake news
Old ~= mainsteam media, vulnerability to fake news
depends on mainstream media.

> The idea that social media is to blame doesnt really hold water either,

FALSE! If you have a situation, as happened during the referendum
campaign, where most young people are being bombarded with anti-EU fake
news, and from a third to a half of mainstream media are also pushing
anti-EU fake news, then the result, however unpatriotic and detrimental
to the best interests of the country it was always going to be, was
unsurprising - extremely disheartening to people like myself as a
demonstration of how stupid either that we have always been or that we
have become, but unsurprising. In fact, I half predicted it in this
very ng about a year beforehand during discussions about the Scottish
Independence Referendum, pushing it as an argument to vote for Scottish
Independence ...

In a thread entitled "STV on three satellite channels?"
On 06/08/2014 20:08, Java Jive wrote:
>
> My chief fear
> is that Scotland votes against independence but then the UK as a whole
> votes to leave the EU. I am perfectly convinced that, given a choice
> between being a member of the EU as an independent country, or being
> within the UK, but outside the EU, Scotland would be better off as the
> former.

Around the same time, though I've not been able to find that post, I,
and I think others here, were also half predicting that Johnson would
become PM, and Trump President!

> for the simple reason that old stupid Leave voters

Again negative stereotyping, having no basis in reality, into bogey men
of your own creation that tells the world nothing useful about old
people but everything about your own bigotry! Intelligence has little
to do with age, if anything increases with it up to a point, because
survival is slightly correlated with intelligence, so, as a population
ages, its average intelligence will rise slightly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Deary

"Lothian Birth Cohort studies

Deary was one of the co-founders of the Lothian Birth Cohort studies of
1921 and 1936.[9] These studies collect data from older Scottish
individuals who, aged 11, had their intelligence tested as part of the
Scottish Mental Surveys of 1932 and 1947. From the year 2000 onward,
Deary and colleagues contacted surviving members of these surveys living
in the Edinburgh and Lothians areas and invited them to retake the same
intelligence test, along with further batteries of cognitive tests.[10]
Members of the cohorts born in 1921 were followed up at age of 79, and
those born in 1936 at age 70. Interview and biomedical data were also
collected from the cohort members to allow wide-ranging investigation of
the causes and consequences of differences in cognition across the lifespan.

Using data from the Lothian Birth Cohort studies, Deary and colleagues
have investigated the effects of ageing on cognition. For instance,
studies have shown that intelligence between age 11 and age 79 is highly
stable (correlation of around r = .66[11]), and that childhood and old
age intelligence have a genetic correlation of .62.[12] A number of
papers from the Lothian Birth Cohort studies, co-authored by Deary, have
reported that higher childhood intelligence scores negatively predict
earlier mortality; that is, more intelligent people live longer.[13]"

Also, older people have more experience of hearing political bunk, and
therefore tend to be more wary when reading it.

> and the biased "Tory press"
> was every bit as biased in 1975 as it is now.

No, standards were definitely higher then than now, and genuine debate
was promoted much more even-handedly. For example, this is Edward Heath
in The Times during the run up to the EEC Referendum of 1975; AIR, as
part of the public debate, successive days had articles both for and
against EEC membership around the same place in the paper, so either
earlier or later in the same series there was an emotive and ill-founded
tirade against the EEC by Michael Foot:

https://archive.org/details/NewsUK1975UKEnglish/Jun%2002%201975%2C%20The%20Times%2C%20%2359411%2C%20UK%20%28en%29/page/n11/mode/2up

> I dont know or pretend to know the answer to this conundrum

Clearly.

> but its
> clear to me that the worn out "Leave voters are stupid" trope simply
> doesn't explain the facts.

It goes some way, but certainly not the whole way, to explaining them,
because unintelligent people and bigots are more likely to be taken in
by fake news of the sort that was widely prevalent during the referendum.

[David Higton]

In message <seupr3$rqc$1...@dont-email.me>

MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote:

> Seems quite reasonable that the people who want to use their phones
> abroad should pay. I have no interest in going abroad so why should I
> subsidise those who do?

But it doesn't cost the mobile companies any more. They use it as an
excuse to extract more money from their customers.

David

[David Higton]

In message <XnsAD82D77...@144.76.35.252>

Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Am just wondering what benefits Brexit brought so far or is likely to
> bring in the near future. I wont hold my breath.

I have yet to see even one benefit.

David

[Tweed]

I don’t use my phone in rural Scotland. Why should I subsidise the extra
network infrastructure costs for those that do? (Obviously I don’t really
mean this, but I’m illustrating the point)

[Chris]

The only one has been the speed to order and approve the first vaccine so
we were able to vaccinate people faster than the EU. However, many have now
overtaken us in overall vaccination rates.

[Chris]

There was no subsidy. The costs were simply regulated to cost no more than
a local call when roaming. Now for no other reason than because they can
mobile operators are charging more.

This isn't going to make your local calls cheaper, which would be the case
if they had been subsidised.

[Chris]

Scott <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 15:28:33 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>> Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do Vodafone ever terminate contracts?
>>>
>>> They used to sell 3G dongles with preloaded SIMs per GB, which didn't
>>> "ever" expire, but obviously people were stringing their data out for
>>> too long, they stopped selling them, and eventually converted all credit
>>> into expiring data.
>>>
>>
>> “If your Vodafone Pay monthly plan started before 11 August 2021:
>>
>> There will be no change to the way you roam as long as you stay on your
>> current mobile plan, so you won’t need to pay any additional charges.”
>
> My question was whether Vodafone could terminate the contract, meaning
> you would no longer be on your 'current mobile plan' and offer a new
> contract that excludes roaming.

They don't need to as after two years everyone will be out of contact and
they can change the terms as they wish.

[Abandoned_Trolley]

Interesting piece.

Maybe you could find a dictionary and look up "sarcasm" the next time
you are in a mood to label people as bigots

[Scott]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 06:48:26 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Scott <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 15:28:33 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do Vodafone ever terminate contracts?
>>>>
>>>> They used to sell 3G dongles with preloaded SIMs per GB, which didn't
>>>> "ever" expire, but obviously people were stringing their data out for
>>>> too long, they stopped selling them, and eventually converted all credit
>>>> into expiring data.
>>>>
>>>

>>> ?If your Vodafone Pay monthly plan started before 11 August 2021:

>>>
>>> There will be no change to the way you roam as long as you stay on your

>>> current mobile plan, so you won?t need to pay any additional charges.?

>>
>> My question was whether Vodafone could terminate the contract, meaning
>> you would no longer be on your 'current mobile plan' and offer a new
>> contract that excludes roaming.
>
>They don't need to as after two years everyone will be out of contact and
>they can change the terms as they wish.
>

I suppose so. They have always allowed my contracts to run on, but I
suppose that is because it suited them.

[Bob Eager]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 06:42:21 +0000, Chris wrote:

>> Am just wondering what benefits Brexit brought so far or is likely to
>> bring in the near future. I wont hold my breath.
>
> The only one has been the speed to order and approve the first vaccine
> so we were able to vaccinate people faster than the EU. However, many
> have now overtaken us in overall vaccination rates.

Which we would have been able to do so as part of the EU, in any case.

[Chris in Makati]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 15:21:04 +0100, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

I think that's a good idea. Everyone gets one vote, but you can become
qualified to be given an additional vote by showing that you have a
good understanding of a range of important issues.

[Chris in Makati]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 21:10:48 +0100, Pamela
<pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Am just wondering what benefits Brexit brought so far or is likely to
>bring in the near future. I wont hold my breath.

Although I believe Brexit was a bad decision, to be fair, you can't
blame Brexit for roaming charges being reintroduced.

Roaming within the EU was banned by the EU. When we left, that ban no
longer applied to the UK.

The UK government was then free to maintain the roaming ban if they
wished, but chose not to do so. It's entirely within the power of the
British government to reintroduce the roaming ban on UK network
providers if they want to.

Chris

[Chris]

Which is exactly the point. The brexiteers wanted to leave in order so
that a conservative government would be able to help their chums make
more money and have less oversight. They claimed none of that was true
and nothing would change which was preposterous yet people swallowed it
up hook, link and sinker.

So *it is* Brexit's fault because it's working as designed: remove the
EU from our decision making even when it's in individuals' best interests.

[Pamela]

That myth was put to sleep a long time ago. The EU was slow in placing
orders for the vaccine but any member state was allowed to make its
own arrangements and many did (such as the UK which was a member at
the time).

[Chris]

Yup.

[Pamela]

There is a lot of truth in that. For years British toffs used to
tuling the country as they liked were uneasy that the EU could look
over their shoulder and comment on any poor decisions our ruling toffs
made.

Now toffs, such as Rees-Mogg, can enagage in all sorts of shenanigans
without an EU murmur. We can expect state subsidies to companies run
by MPs' friends. Watch uncompetitive industries get propped up at
great expense by the taxpayer, together with worker strikes in these
new monopolies.

In the abscence of meaningful foreign competition, held back by
tariffs and quotas, prices will rise and the consumer get shafted.
Meanwhile farmers, the Northern Irish, fisherman and a whole host of
others will watch their income decline.

All this for no gain.

[David Kennedy]

On 11/08/2021 10:28, Chris in Makati wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 21:10:48 +0100, Pamela
> <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Am just wondering what benefits Brexit brought so far or is likely to
>> bring in the near future. I wont hold my breath.
>
> Although I believe Brexit was a bad decision, to be fair, you can't
> blame Brexit for roaming charges being reintroduced.
>

Unless you feel that they wouldn't have happened without Brexit...

> Roaming within the EU was banned by the EU. When we left, that ban no
> longer applied to the UK.
>
> The UK government was then free to maintain the roaming ban if they
> wished, but chose not to do so. It's entirely within the power of the
> British government to reintroduce the roaming ban on UK network
> providers if they want to.

Unless you feel they are incompetent...


--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

[David Kennedy]

On 11/08/2021 11:13, Chris wrote:
> On 11/08/2021 10:28, Chris in Makati wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 21:10:48 +0100, Pamela
>> <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Am just wondering what benefits Brexit brought so far or is likely to
>>> bring in the near future. I wont hold my breath.
>>
>> Although I believe Brexit was a bad decision, to be fair, you can't
>> blame Brexit for roaming charges being reintroduced.
>>
>> Roaming within the EU was banned by the EU. When we left, that ban no
>> longer applied to the UK.
>>
>> The UK government was then free to maintain the roaming ban if they
>> wished, but chose not to do so. It's entirely within the power of the
>> British government to reintroduce the roaming ban on UK network
>> providers if they want to.
>
> Which is exactly the point. The brexiteers wanted to leave in order so that a
> conservative government would be able to help their chums make more money and
> have less oversight.

Well at least they managed that.

> They claimed none of that was true and nothing would
> change which was preposterous yet people swallowed it up hook, link and sinker.
>
> So *it is* Brexit's fault because it's working as designed: remove the EU from
> our decision making even when it's in individuals' best interests.
>

[David Kennedy]

I thought we had more fish?

And of course we also get more of Nigel Farage now he's not lining his pockets
in Brussels or sucking up to Trump. And wasn't his US tour a big success...

[Abandoned_Trolley]

>
> Which is exactly the point. The brexiteers wanted to leave in order so
> that a conservative government would be able to help their chums make
> more money and have less oversight. They claimed none of that was true
> and nothing would change which was preposterous yet people swallowed it
> up hook, link and sinker.
>
> So *it is* Brexit's fault because it's working as designed: remove the
> EU from our decision making even when it's in individuals' best interests.
>

I am not sure that I follow the logic of that.

The conservatives led us in to the EEC in the 70s, and then about 3
years later the Labour government wanted us out - leading us to the 1975
referendum. (In which J. Corbyn voted "Leave")

The 1975 Conservative guide to the referendum campaign was called "Yes
to Europe"

The Labour party was the only party with no official party position in
1975 - interestingly, the SNP advocated a "No" vote

The conservative PM fronted the Remain campaign for the 2016 referendum.

Dont forget that the Labour party almost split itself in half by
becoming a anti-Europe party (by about a 2:1 vote in conference) in
1980, leading to the formation of the SDP

The awful truth is that Brexit was won with the help of a very large
number of traditional Labour voters.

Apart from the Blair / Brown years I would suggest that in the long term
the traditional Labour party has been significantly more Eurosceptic
than the conservatives ever will be. The current Labour position on the
question of Europe (and in fact almost everything else) is a mystery to
most of us.


However, I do agree with the point about EU decision making. Theres no
finer example than our opt-out from the EU Working Time Directive. That
means we can work as long as we like now :-\

[Bob Eager]

Nevil Shute propounded that idea in his novel 'In The Wet'. Everyone got
one vote, but additional ones for various kinds of life experience and
contribution to society.

[Java Jive]

On 11/08/2021 11:45, David Kennedy wrote:
>
> I thought we had more fish?

Er, no, actually, that's another Brexit lie. The fish that we catch in
British waters spend their younger days on the shores of the continent,
so whose fish are they really? I think we can be certain that none of
'our' fish have taken nationality tests, so they are illegal migrants,
and if we are to apply the true Brexit principles to them, shouldn't we
be catching them live, carting them over to the continent, and releasing
them over there?

Oh, and, er, does that really need a smiley? Alright then :-)

[Java Jive]

A rather biased assessment - it would be nearer the truth to say that
those on BOTH of the extreme ends of the political spectrum have tended
to be anti-EU, those nearer the middle have tended to be pro-EU.

> However, I do agree with the point about EU decision making. Theres no
> finer example than our opt-out from the EU Working Time Directive. That
> means we can work as long as we like now :-\

Yes, that's another example of good EU legislation being lost to us now.

[Chris]

On 11/08/2021 11:45, David Kennedy wrote:

Yes and no market so it's happily rotting away...

[David Kennedy]

I'm beginning to wonder if you do actually trust Boris?

[Java Jive]

On 10/08/2021 22:14, Java Jive wrote:
>

> [...] result, however unpatriotic and detrimental to the best interests of

> the country it was always going to be, was unsurprising  -  extremely
> disheartening to people like myself as a demonstration of how stupid
> either that we have always been or that we have become, but
> unsurprising.  In fact, I half predicted it in this very ng about a year
> beforehand during discussions about the Scottish Independence
> Referendum, pushing it as an argument to vote for Scottish Independence ...
>
> In a thread entitled "STV on three satellite channels?"
> On 06/08/2014 20:08, Java Jive wrote:
> >
> > My chief fear
> > is that Scotland votes against independence but then the UK as a whole
> > votes to leave the EU.  I am perfectly convinced that, given a choice
> > between being a member of the EU as an independent country, or being
> > within the UK, but outside the EU, Scotland would be better off as the
> > former.
>
> Around the same time, though I've not been able to find that post, I,
> and I think others here, were also half predicting that Johnson would
> become PM, and Trump President!

Actually I've just realised that was in a different ng, not this one as
I said above.

[Java Jive]

On 11/08/2021 09:32, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
>
> On 10/08/2021 22:14, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 10/08/2021 17:16, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
>>>
>>> You're right - is IS a numbers game, so heres a few numbers for you
>>> to consider.

[...]

>>> but its clear to me that the worn out "Leave voters are stupid" trope
>>> simply doesn't explain the facts.
>>
>> It goes some way, but certainly not the whole way, to explaining them,
>> because unintelligent people and bigots are more likely to be taken in
>> by fake news of the sort that was widely prevalent during the referendum.
>
> Interesting piece.
>
> Maybe you could find a dictionary and look up "sarcasm" the next time
> you are in a mood to label people as bigots

No hint of sarcasm in your original quotes left in above, nor in the
others snipped merely for brevity, so maybe next time you need to
clarify your viewpoint.

[Abandoned_Trolley]

>
> No hint of sarcasm in your original quotes left in above, nor in the
> others snipped merely for brevity, so maybe next time you need to
> clarify your viewpoint.
>

sorry

I assumed that since the OP started this thing off by implying that
Leave voters were idiots then we all had a free hand to be as obnoxious
as we liked - in keeping with standard usenet "etiquette"

One of my viewpoints is that if sarcasm needs to be signposted then its
clearly wasted on the audience

[Chris]

On 11/08/2021 11:53, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
>
>>

>> Which is exactly the point. The brexiteers wanted to leave in order so
>> that a conservative government would be able to help their chums make
>> more money and have less oversight. They claimed none of that was true
>> and nothing would change which was preposterous yet people swallowed
>> it up hook, link and sinker.
>>
>> So *it is* Brexit's fault because it's working as designed: remove the
>> EU from our decision making even when it's in individuals' best
>> interests.
>>
>
>
> I am not sure that I follow the logic of that.
>
> The conservatives led us in to the EEC in the 70s, and then about 3
> years later the Labour government wanted us out - leading us to the 1975
> referendum. (In which J. Corbyn voted "Leave")
>
> The 1975 Conservative guide to the referendum campaign was called "Yes
> to Europe"
>
> The Labour party was the only party with no official party position in
> 1975 - interestingly, the SNP advocated a "No" vote
>
> The conservative PM fronted the Remain campaign for the 2016 referendum.

The only reason we got a referendum was because the conservative PM
wanted to placate his increasingly vocal euroskeptic backbenchers. The
Tory party's internal conflict made this happen.

The current conservative PM fronted the Leave campaign, remember.

> Dont forget that the Labour party almost split itself in half by
> becoming a anti-Europe party (by about a 2:1 vote in conference) in
> 1980, leading to the formation of the SDP
>
> The awful truth is that Brexit was won with the help of a very large
> number of traditional Labour voters.

No denying that, which was through successive incompetent Labour leaders
who disenfranchised them to the extent that they literally couldn't give
fuck and thought anything would be better than this.

Had the Labour leadership actually done some, you know, actual leading
then we might not be in this mess.

> Apart from the Blair / Brown years I would suggest that in the long term
> the traditional Labour party has been significantly more Eurosceptic
> than the conservatives ever will be. The current Labour position on the
> question of Europe (and in fact almost everything else) is a mystery to
> most of us.

Europe is not defining characteristic of any party in the UK.

[Chris]

We most certainly were not part of the EU during COVID. We left on 31st
Jan 2020.

[Java Jive]

Whereas one of mine is that sarcasm that isn't signposted is wasting the
time of everyone, beginning with the author.

[Bob Eager]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 15:49:39 +0100, Chris wrote:

>> That myth was put to sleep a long time ago. The EU was slow in placing
>> orders for the vaccine but any member state was allowed to make its own
>> arrangements and many did (such as the UK which was a member at the
>> time).
>
> We most certainly were not part of the EU during COVID. We left on 31st
> Jan 2020.

We were in the transition period, still subject to rules.

[Abandoned_Trolley]

>
> Whereas one of mine is that sarcasm that isn't signposted is wasting the
> time of everyone, beginning with the author.
>

I am not wasting anybodys time.

I don't ask you or anybody else to read any of my posts, or waste any of
your time on replying to them.

I assume that "beginning with the author" refers to the OP ?

[Andy Burns]

Bob Eager wrote:

> Chris wrote:
>
>> The only one has been the speed to order and approve the first vaccine
>> so we were able to vaccinate people faster than the EU.
>

> Which we would have been able to do so as part of the EU, in any case.

But given that no other EU country went it alone, it's doubtful we would
have done either.

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 12:14:08 UTC+1, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
> ... given the extremely strong correlation between Leave voters and low
> educational attainment, the most likely to get stung with rip off
> charges and bill shock are those who voted for Brexit.
> So ... if the Remain voters are so fucking clever, then how did they
> manage to lose the referndum vote ?
>

Simples - very small majority of people without A' levels.

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 11:42:28 UTC+1, David Kennedy wrote:
> On 11/08/2021 10:28, Chris in Makati wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 21:10:48 +0100, Pamela
> > <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Am just wondering what benefits Brexit brought so far or is likely to
> >> bring in the near future. I wont hold my breath.
> >
> > Although I believe Brexit was a bad decision, to be fair, you can't
> > blame Brexit for roaming charges being reintroduced.
> >
> Unless you feel that they wouldn't have happened without Brexit...

Well it wouldn't because roaming charges are no longer allowed in the EU - that is why they stopped in 2017.

> > Roaming within the EU was banned by the EU. When we left, that ban no
> > longer applied to the UK.
> >
> > The UK government was then free to maintain the roaming ban if they
> > wished, but chose not to do so. It's entirely within the power of the
> > British government to reintroduce the roaming ban on UK network
> > providers if they want to.
> Unless you feel they are incompetent...

Are they that good?

[notya...@gmail.com]

And in any event the rules did not prevent national governments ordering vaccine.

[tim...]

"Chris in Makati" <ma...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u067hg544v7l7rm51...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 21:10:48 +0100, Pamela
> <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Am just wondering what benefits Brexit brought so far or is likely to
>>bring in the near future. I wont hold my breath.
>
> Although I believe Brexit was a bad decision, to be fair, you can't
> blame Brexit for roaming charges being reintroduced.
>

> Roaming within the EU was banned by the EU. When we left, that ban no
> longer applied to the UK.
>
> The UK government was then free to maintain the roaming ban if they
> wished, but chose not to do so. It's entirely within the power of the
> British government to reintroduce the roaming ban on UK network
> providers if they want to.

In don't see how

I can't see how HMG have any jurisdiction about what foreign companies can
charge UK citizens whilst in a foreign country. And it is a foreign company
who are responsible for the charges imposed upon other telco customers use
of their network, that is being passed on to UK users.

They could ban UK telcos from passing those charges onto uses, but that
would likely end up with a ban on roaming, not free roaming

[Abandoned_Trolley]

I am assuming that the references to a "roaming ban" in this thread
actually refer to a ban on roaming charges ?

AT

[Clive Page]

On 11/08/2021 10:02, Bob Eager wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 06:42:21 +0000, Chris wrote:
>
>>> Am just wondering what benefits Brexit brought so far or is likely to
>>> bring in the near future. I wont hold my breath.
>>

>> The only one has been the speed to order and approve the first vaccine

>> so we were able to vaccinate people faster than the EU. However, many
>> have now overtaken us in overall vaccination rates.
>

> Which we would have been able to do so as part of the EU, in any case.

And Hungary did the same (with a different vaccine) and it was and is in the EU.


--
Clive Page

[Clive Page]

Not true, Hungary did.

--
Clive Page

[Java Jive]

On 11/08/2021 16:18, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
>
>[Quoting broken: Java Jive said:]

>>
>> Whereas one of mine is that sarcasm that isn't signposted is wasting
>> the time of everyone, beginning with the author.
>

> I assume that "beginning with the author" refers to the OP ?

You know very well it means you, for not making your position clear.

[Abandoned_Trolley]

The conservative PM fronted the Remain campaign for the 2016 referendum.
>
> The only reason we got a referendum was because the conservative PM
> wanted to placate his increasingly vocal euroskeptic backbenchers. The
> Tory party's internal conflict made this happen.

Maybe not the only reason.

Its possible that the rising tide of votes cast for UKIP was seen as a
potential (if not actual) Tory vote splitter. I think UKIP may have
gathered nearly as many votes as the LibDems managed in 2015 but only
one seat ? - or maybe no seats at all.

Anyway, the referendum may have been called by Cameron as a way of
getting UKIP defectors back in the tent, as they were always going to
cause more electoral problems for the Tories than any other party. But
this assumes that the Remain vote went his way. Following a successful
result it may have been his intention to call a general election after a
short period, in order to consolidate or validate his position.

If that was the case then he must have known that the polls were
dangerously close or just seriously misjudged the situation. Given the
state of the polls he would have been well advised to step back from the
Remain campaign leadership and throw someone else under the bus - George
Osborne would probably have done nicely.

If anybody had queried Camerons neutral stance on the referendum after
having called it, then he could simply point out that the entire Labour
party had done the same thing in 1975.
But we will never know now.

Basically, I would be surprised if Cameron took much notice of any of
his back benchers, assuming that he was even introduced to them.

>
> Europe is not defining characteristic of any party in the UK.

I would suggest that Europe is / was a defining characteristic of UKIP,
the BNP and the Communist party, and that the LibDems were also fairly
strong on Europe (to the point of declaring that they would "Get Brexit
Done" by simply cancelling it - hows that for democracy?)

I would also suggest that if Europe is not a defining characteristic of
either Labour or the Tories then it certainly has the potential to cause
serious splits within both parties.

So its probably best for both Labour and the Tories to make sure that
Europe is NOT a defining issue and to continue to sweep it under the
carpet.



--

[Chris in Makati]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:42:26 +0100, David Kennedy
<davidk...@nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote:

>On 11/08/2021 10:28, Chris in Makati wrote:

>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 21:10:48 +0100, Pamela

>> <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Am just wondering what benefits Brexit brought so far or is likely to
>>> bring in the near future. I wont hold my breath.
>>

>> Although I believe Brexit was a bad decision, to be fair, you can't
>> blame Brexit for roaming charges being reintroduced.
>>

>Unless you feel that they wouldn't have happened without Brexit...
>

>> Roaming within the EU was banned by the EU. When we left, that ban no
>> longer applied to the UK.
>>
>> The UK government was then free to maintain the roaming ban if they
>> wished, but chose not to do so. It's entirely within the power of the
>> British government to reintroduce the roaming ban on UK network
>> providers if they want to.
>

>Unless you feel they are incompetent...

Whether I feel they're incompetent or not has got nothing to do with
it.

The fact is that our own democratically elected government has chosen
not to ban roaming charges. It was and still is entirely within their
power to continue the ban if they wanted to, but they didn't. Sorry,
but that's democracy. If you don't like it make sure your MP is aware
that unless he pushes for a ban to be put back in place you won't be
voting for him again.

[Chris in Makati]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 08:04:25 +0100, "tim..." <timsn...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>"Chris in Makati" <ma...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:u067hg544v7l7rm51...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 21:10:48 +0100, Pamela
>> <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Am just wondering what benefits Brexit brought so far or is likely to
>>>bring in the near future. I wont hold my breath.
>>
>> Although I believe Brexit was a bad decision, to be fair, you can't
>> blame Brexit for roaming charges being reintroduced.
>>
>> Roaming within the EU was banned by the EU. When we left, that ban no
>> longer applied to the UK.
>>
>> The UK government was then free to maintain the roaming ban if they
>> wished, but chose not to do so. It's entirely within the power of the
>> British government to reintroduce the roaming ban on UK network
>> providers if they want to.
>
>In don't see how
>
>I can't see how HMG have any jurisdiction about what foreign companies can
>charge UK citizens whilst in a foreign country. And it is a foreign company
>who are responsible for the charges imposed upon other telco customers use
>of their network, that is being passed on to UK users.

Oftel regulate mobile network providers in the UK, whether they are
foreign owned or not.

[tim...]

"Chris in Makati" <ma...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:bmcchgl85tpqump0j...@4ax.com...

but they CAN'T stop the foreign networks charging a premium for roaming by
non EU customers (when they are in those foreign countries)

so what's the UK Telco going to do?

a) pass that charge on
b) swallow them
c) turn off foreign roaming?

can't see (b) happing myself

and If HMG bans (a) only (c) is left

[Tweed]

Covid times apart, there’s a certain amount of balancing traffic with
roaming. So we go to overseas networks, and people from abroad come here
and roam. That’s why “free” roaming within the EU isn’t a financial
disaster for the networks. The networks are charging now largely because
they can, not because they need to.

[Chris]

It would be interesting to know if any EU telcos are removing the UK from
an inclusive deals.

> The networks are charging now largely because
> they can, not because they need to.

Yup.

[Chris in Makati]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 11:03:02 +0100, "tim..." <timsn...@gmail.com>

If you're talking about international telecoms settlement/termination
charges, those are negotiated and agreed between individual carriers
in each country, and always have been.

Nothing has changed there, and anyway they're outside the scope of the
EU regulations we're talking about. The EU regulations only related to
charges made to consumers, not charges between the carriers
themselves.

[Andy Burns]

Chris wrote:

> It would be interesting to know if any EU telcos are removing the UK from
> an inclusive deals.

not Deuetsche Telekom, so far ...

In der EU ist Roaming für vorübergehende Reisen mit angemessener Nutzung
enthalten. In Nicht-EU-Ländern (aktuell: Schweiz und Großbritannien)
darf die Nutzung im Ausland eine angemessene Nutzung (1.000 Minuten und
1.000 SMS pro Monat sowie übertragenes Datenvolumen pro Monat in Höhe
des jeweiligen Inlandsdatenvolumens bevor die Bandbreite beschränkt
wird) nicht überschreiten.

[tim...]

"Chris in Makati" <ma...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:6pfdhglrb4vkdhi32...@4ax.com...

No

using a "foreign" mobile in your territory is NOT a termination fee. that
is a charge imposed for one of you own customers receiving the call all on
you own territory

>those are negotiated and agreed between individual carriers
> in each country, and always have been.

So what?

That doesn't enable the fees charge for international roaming to be forced
down to zero by HMG

They have no influence on that whatsoever..

> Nothing has changed there,

everything has changed

HMG have zero jurisdiction on the fees that foreign telcos can charge for
offering to provide roaming to foreign mobiles.

> and anyway they're outside the scope of the
> EU regulations we're talking about. The EU regulations only related to
> charges made to consumers, not charges between the carriers
> themselves.

which as per my PPs, pretty much amounts to the same thing

[Pamela]

I meant when we ended the transition period to great fanfare ("Let's
get Brexit done") on 1st January this year. That's when the shit hit
the fan.

[Chris in Makati]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 08:13:18 +0100, "tim..." <timsn...@gmail.com>

Yes it does. The UK government could ban UK network providers from
charging their customers for roaming, just as they did when we were in
the EU.

>
>They have no influence on that whatsoever..
>
>> Nothing has changed there,
>
>everything has changed
>
>HMG have zero jurisdiction on the fees that foreign telcos can charge for
>offering to provide roaming to foreign mobiles.

Charges that telecom companies agree between each other were never
regulated anyway, so nothing has changed there.

We're not talking about what foreign telecom charge each other, we're
talking about what UK networks charge their own customers, and that is
fully within the jurisdiction of the UK government.

The ONLY thing that has changed is that instead of the EU ruling
EU-wide on it, the UK government has taken back that authority for
themselves as far as the UK is concerned.

[Abandoned_Trolley]

>
> Yes and no market so it's happily rotting away...
>
>> And of course we also get more of Nigel Farage now he's not lining his
>> pockets in Brussels or sucking up to Trump. And wasn't his US tour a
>> big success...
>>
>

Dear Mr Chris,

I think you may have pressed a wrong button somewhere - I have just
extracted one of your responses from my junk email box

[tim...]

"Chris in Makati" <ma...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:9m8ghg5654ljeuvug...@4ax.com...

yes I got that bit.

and as I have explained to you 3 times:

as they can't stop the foreign Telco charging the UK Telco for this, all
that will happen is that UK telcos will ban roaming

it won't create free roaming

[Tweed]

Nope. Nothing has fundamentally changed at telco network level. The inter
network charging arrangements, say between Vodafone UK and Vodafone DE, or
Orange F are as they have ever been. Those arrangements were never covered
by the EU laws covering end user pricing. All that’s changed is that UK
networks are no longer prevented from price gouging the consumer. UK
government could have chosen to continue with the same rules as were
pertaining before we left the EU, but has chosen not to.

[Chris in Makati]

On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 18:04:52 +0100, "tim..." <timsn...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>>>those are negotiated and agreed between individual carriers
>>>> in each country, and always have been.
>>>
>>>So what?
>>>
>>>That doesn't enable the fees charge for international roaming to be forced
>>>down to zero by HMG
>>
>> Yes it does. The UK government could ban UK network providers from
>> charging their customers for roaming, just as they did when we were in
>> the EU.
>
>yes I got that bit.
>
>and as I have explained to you 3 times:
>
>as they can't stop the foreign Telco charging the UK Telco for this, all
>that will happen is that UK telcos will ban roaming

But that falls within the framework of telco interconnection charges,
which are not regulated even within the EU. So the example you give of
a "foreign Telco charging the UK Telco" happened while we were in the
EU, still happens today, and happens even among EU network operators.

Al networks charge each other for traffic passed between them, which
includes roaming traffic. The only thing the EU is regulating is the
charges that a network makes to it's customers, which say that they
can't charge different rates for roaming and domestic calls. So any
charges passed to them by foreign networks have to be invisibly
incorporated into the tariffs they charge their customers.

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 16:39:21 UTC+1, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
SNIP

> >
> > Europe is not defining characteristic of any party in the UK.
> I would suggest that Europe is / was a defining characteristic of UKIP,
> the BNP and the Communist party, and that the LibDems were also fairly
> strong on Europe (to the point of declaring that they would "Get Brexit
> Done" by simply cancelling it - hows that for democracy?)

In their manifesto for General Election, but they didn't win. It was a mistake not to promise [nor the government to hold] a confirmatory referendum on the deal negotiated - as indeed once promoted by the Brexiteers: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3rX4nJ0snc *

>
> I would also suggest that if Europe is not a defining characteristic of
> either Labour or the Tories then it certainly has the potential to cause
> serious splits within both parties.
>
> So its probably best for both Labour and the Tories to make sure that
> Europe is NOT a defining issue and to continue to sweep it under the
> carpet.

It is not going to just melt away people notice empty shelves, having their fingerprints taken like common criminals to go on holiday, M20 lorry park, bill shock on their mobiles, unnecessary paperwork making their produce uncompetitive and inflation.

More back on topic: -

https://www.iamexpat.de/expat-info/german-expat-news/german-mobile-phone-operators-reject-brexit-roaming-charges

OTOH who are the German mobile phone operators?

Why Vodafone, Telefónica and Deutsche Telekom, so not much hope of the first two sticking to their word.

>
>
>
> --

* Rees-Mogg ON the record in parliament.

[notya...@gmail.com]

Telefónica and Vodafone operate directly in most if not all EU countries, there is no foreign network nor any premium, nor in reality any marginal cost for roaming on their [own] networks in the EU, and you phone will 'prefer' to roam on your MNO's network outside the UK.

The whole point was that in the EU one was not on a foreign network, but a European one, hence the EU retired roaming charges in the EU. Of course we chase to become foreigners again and will literally pay the price.


BTW in the early days of UK mobiles a call outside London cost 25p per minute, but inside the M25 33p per minute - a crude kind of roaming charge within the UK.

[David Kennedy]

On 13/08/2021 09:55, Chris in Makati wrote:

>
> The fact is that our own democratically elected government has chosen
> not to ban roaming charges. It was and still is entirely within their
> power to continue the ban if they wanted to, but they didn't. Sorry,
> but that's democracy. If you don't like it make sure your MP is aware
> that unless he pushes for a ban to be put back in place you won't be
> voting for him again.
>

I didn't vote for the parasite last time so no change there. Any communication
with him is met with a standard form response telling me ow busy he is working
on behalf of his constituents but, if the matter is serious I should respond
with the full details of the matter and it will receive his attention...

PS Do roaming charges affect you much in the Philippines?

[David Kennedy]

On 13/08/2021 09:55, Chris in Makati wrote:
>

> Oftel regulate mobile network providers in the UK, whether they are
> foreign owned or not.
>

You are a conservative MP and I claim my £5!

[David Kennedy]

On 13/08/2021 11:47, Tweed wrote:
> Covid times apart, there’s a certain amount of balancing traffic with
> roaming. So we go to overseas networks, and people from abroad come here
> and roam. That’s why “free” roaming within the EU isn’t a financial
> disaster for the networks. The networks are charging now largely because
> they can, not because they need to.
>

Correct.

[David Kennedy]

On 14/08/2021 21:18, Chris in Makati wrote:
>
> The ONLY thing that has changed is that instead of the EU ruling
> EU-wide on it, the UK government has taken back that authority for
> themselves as far as the UK is concerned.
>

And now they can sit back and tell us that it is nothing to do with them while
they [and their chums who run these companies] rake in the profits/donations.

[David Kennedy]

On 16/08/2021 10:09, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Telefónica and Vodafone operate directly in most if not all EU countries, there is no foreign network nor any premium, nor in reality any marginal cost for roaming on their [own] networks in the EU, and you phone will 'prefer' to roam on your MNO's network outside the UK.
>
> The whole point was that in the EU one was not on a foreign network, but a European one, hence the EU retired roaming charges in the EU. Of course we chase to become foreigners again and will literally pay the price.
>

Correct.

[Chris in Makati]

Roaming in the Philippines is prohibitively expensive from a UK
network, so I use a local SIM card.

Chris

[notya...@gmail.com]

It is even simpler than that Telephonica (O2) and Vodafone have extensive networks across Europe and the marginal cost to them of roaming either way is zero.

O2's is probably the least likely to lead to bill shock and is probably designed to prevent people buying UK contracts and then using them elsewhere.

Of course you don't pay to roam when visiting the west country from London or vice versa, although France did have regional charges back in the early 90's.

Of course one's view of this is coloured by whether you see Europe as a cohesive entity or are little Englanders. The current government is the latter, so roaming rip off's just reinforce Brexit and our separation from our neighbours. More fun next month when full import paperwork commences, unless Boris bottle it...