Roaming profits need to be rational and in line with international standards

hkn

Roaming profits need to be rational and in line with international standards [Copy link]

Roaming profits need to be rational and in line with international standards

2006-7-20

After two months of stalemate and bargaining, the European Commission recently announced that it would impose a cap on European mobile phone roaming charges from the first half of next year, and roaming charges are expected to drop by half. Although this move has been strongly resisted and opposed by many operators, and they have claimed to sue the EU for this, it is certain that European mobile operators will no longer be able to enjoy the "roaming profits" as easily as in the past. The

　　biggest beneficiaries of reducing mobile phone roaming charges are undoubtedly consumers in EU countries. While applauding the EU's bold move to "draw the sword" against the profiteering industry, the author can't help but look forward to: When will the domestic mobile phone roaming charges, which have been regarded as natural for many years, be reduced as much as the EU?

　　For a long time, roaming charges have been the fattest part of operators' income. Not long ago, an industry expert pointed out that for operators, the cost of domestic roaming charges is zero. The reason why roaming charges exist is actually a reflection of operators coordinating different tariff policies in various regions, and it has nothing to do with operating costs. As soon as the view came out, domestic operators immediately tried their best to refute it. Regardless of who is right or wrong, it is an indisputable fact that "roaming profits" are huge.

　　This inevitably reminds people of the hottest topic of "international integration" at present. Since joining the WTO, all walks of life have raised the banner of international integration. But in reality, what we see is that every time when adding charging items and raising prices, the industry always uses "international integration" as an excuse and raises the banner of "cost increase". However, when international telecommunications rates are lowered and consumer benefits are improved, the excuse of international integration is gone.

　　Faced with the increasing doubts of consumers, domestic operators obviously cannot remain indifferent. Therefore, mobile and Unicom in various places continue to launch various new services and reduce call charges to appease the people. However, what puzzles the author is that in order to enjoy these discounts, you have to join this package or that package at any time, and many restrictions are set, which is extremely cumbersome. It is inevitable that there is a suspicion of "price reduction in name, but actually locking in". Correspondingly, the actual benefits of consumers are greatly reduced.

　　In the era of economic globalization, it is a progress to integrate economic life with the international community. It is also a progress to consider market-oriented issues on prices. However, when "international practice" is alienated into "international practice" of charging fees blindly, and integration with the international community has become a selective integration, is it still progress?

　　In fact, selective integration highlights the gap between us and the international community. Don't you see that there are always powerful interest groups in every integration or non-integration? In fact, under the market economy, it is understandable that enterprises pursue profits. However, when monopoly enterprises take advantage of the uneven distribution of national public resources and have absolute say in prices, thereby obtaining excess profits, the government has the obligation to formulate the rules of the game, set price ceilings through administrative power to constrain the behavior of monopoly enterprises, and prevent various means of seeking profits and avoiding harm from being too concentrated in the hands of individual groups or individuals.

　　Back to the issue of mobile phone roaming fees, it is a fact that China's telecommunications market is not fully developed and the development levels of various provinces and regions are too different; compared with the United States, which has more than 100 telecommunications operators, several state-owned enterprises have formed a monopoly position in the domestic telecommunications market to control prices, highlighting the immaturity of China's telecommunications market. Now, we need to follow the EU's example, draw the sword against monopoly and profiteering, and ultimately safeguard the interests of consumers.