EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[sutty27]

Just seen an stay in advert, apparently by the time a baby is old enough to work the UK will have created another 800,000 jobs for them to do if we stay in. They forgot to mention that by the time they are old enough to work there will likely be an additional 4,500,000 immigrants in the country either employed in or fighting for those jobs, assuming net immigration stays around the 250,000 a year figure.

[Vaati]

The next time this thread goes off topic and singles out people for their nationality, you are very likely going to be suspended.

[tzijlstra]

I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or not to be honest.

Sounds okay on the face of it, but the mobile phone companies were already in heavy competition which has seen prices heading steadily downward for as long as I can remember.

Surely either the prices of other services will now drop more slowly or the tech will advance more slowly.

Anyway, it seems rather beside the point. Maybe the EU did a good thing, more likely not, but in either event it hardly justifies membership as it would have been quite achievable without it.

 

I'm not sure, but stating that prices were already heading steadily downward is a misrepresentation of the truth (one that phone-companies like to continue). Prices for calls/texts might have come down slightly, but now the money-maker is in 3G/4G. When the iPhone (original) came out you could get a contract for around £20/m, now you need £40/m (small variations aside).

 

Texts are now usually offered as 'unlimited' like it is a big deal, but texts have been super cheap to offer straight from their invention. As a kid it used to cost me 25 cents (guilder cents) per text, until an 'ofcom' investigation in the Netherlands revealed that the actual cost of processing a text for the provider came close to 0,03 cents. That is a markup of 24,97 cents per text - the same thing is still going on with mobile internet. The 4G spectrum was sold for 2,3 billion in the UK in 2013 with Vodafone one of the biggest bidders. Last year Vodafone announced to the world that their 'huge' investment was beginning to pay off. It sure has, the company as a whole made 2bn profit in 2014-2015 alone with one of the biggest drivers 'data consumers on the 4G network'.

 

People are overpaying for these network offerings. iPhones and similar top-spec models are build for under 200$ yet sold here for over 500-700£, the networks buy up containers full of them for around 4-500$ then sell them here in a parcelled package with data contracts that are already overpriced, it is a pure cash-cow.

 

This is an area I studied for my PhD (that was about social media and as such mobile data was relevant). I am not saying there is anything illegal or untoward going on, business is business, but stating that killing absurd roaming charges (the bytes cost the big networks (ie. Vodafone, T-Mobile and so on who operate through the whole of the EU anyway) EXACTLY the same overseas as they do here...) is going to lead to higher prices is buying into the marketing trap of mobile operators.

 

This conclusion was, by the way, part of the EU investigation into this whole topic. Not that the BBC would tell you that, I watched in amazement as the fact that this is the result of EU regulation was not mentioned once in a 1 minute report on the topic. But then the BBC is biased of course...

[unbeliever]

I'm not sure, but stating that prices were already heading steadily downward is a misrepresentation of the truth (one that phone-companies like to continue). Prices for calls/texts might have come down slightly, but now the money-maker is in 3G/4G. When the iPhone (original) came out you could get a contract for around £20/m, now you need £40/m (small variations aside).

 

Texts are now usually offered as 'unlimited' like it is a big deal, but texts have been super cheap to offer straight from their invention. As a kid it used to cost me 25 cents (guilder cents) per text, until an 'ofcom' investigation in the Netherlands revealed that the actual cost of processing a text for the provider came close to 0,03 cents. That is a markup of 24,97 cents per text - the same thing is still going on with mobile internet. The 4G spectrum was sold for 2,3 billion in the UK in 2013 with Vodafone one of the biggest bidders. Last year Vodafone announced to the world that their 'huge' investment was beginning to pay off. It sure has, the company as a whole made 2bn profit in 2014-2015 alone with one of the biggest drivers 'data consumers on the 4G network'.

 

People are overpaying for these network offerings. iPhones and similar top-spec models are build for under 200$ yet sold here for over 500-700£, the networks buy up containers full of them for around 4-500$ then sell them here in a parcelled package with data contracts that are already overpriced, it is a pure cash-cow.

 

This is an area I studied for my PhD (that was about social media and as such mobile data was relevant). I am not saying there is anything illegal or untoward going on, business is business, but stating that killing absurd roaming charges (the bytes cost the big networks (ie. Vodafone, T-Mobile and so on who operate through the whole of the EU anyway) EXACTLY the same overseas as they do here...) is going to lead to higher prices is buying into the marketing trap of mobile operators.

 

This conclusion was, by the way, part of the EU investigation into this whole topic. Not that the BBC would tell you that, I watched in amazement as the fact that this is the result of EU regulation was not mentioned once in a 1 minute report on the topic. But then the BBC is biased of course...

 

Okay, those contract prices are profound misleading.

The first 2 years' contract rate is essentially paying back what amounts to a loan for the purchase of the phone.

Compare prices properly and you see that you have reached a conclusion which is flat out incorrect.

 

The rest of your analysis is in the same vein. The price of texts and data must cumulatively pay for the original infrastructure investment not just the operating costs.

 

If there were a genuine saving to be made (when all is properly accounted for) then given the level of competition in play the operators would seek to increase their market share by under-cutting the competition.

All you're really describing is a different pricing model from one nation to another.

[tzijlstra]

Okay, those contract prices are profound misleading.

The first 2 years' contract rate is essentially paying back what amounts to a loan for the purchase of the phone.

Compare prices properly and you see that you have reached a conclusion which is flat out incorrect.

 

The rest of your analysis is in the same vein. The price of texts and data must cumulatively pay for the original infrastructure investment not just the operating costs.

 

If there were a genuine saving to be made (when all is properly accounted for) then given the level of competition in play the operators would seek to increase their market share by under-cutting the competition.

All you're really describing is a different pricing model from one nation to another.

 

You misunderstand the point and I don't have the desire to spell it all out, so let's reverse engineer -

 

Vodafone (global) in 2014/2015 had a revenue of 11 billion, a profit of 2 billion, at this point it had already paid for the infrastructure. It has shops in every high street in the country, it has a big HQ, it sponsors various sporting events, it advertises liberally on TV, it has support networks in all its markets native languages and pays taxes (presumably). Yet of every pound going through the business 18 pence was pure profit.

 

All they do is sell phones and contracts. Pretty lucrative business that, most investors would kill for an 18% return year on year.

[unbeliever]

You misunderstand the point and I don't have the desire to spell it all out, so let's reverse engineer -

 

Vodafone (global) in 2014/2015 had a revenue of 11 billion, a profit of 2 billion, at this point it had already paid for the infrastructure. It has shops in every high street in the country, it has a big HQ, it sponsors various sporting events, it advertises liberally on TV, it has support networks in all its markets native languages and pays taxes (presumably). Yet of every pound going through the business 18 pence was pure profit.

 

All they do is sell phones and contracts. Pretty lucrative business that, most investors would kill for an 18% return year on year.

 

What about the vast array of radio equipment and IT hardware required to make the system work in the first place? Not to mention the R&D for these technologies.

You're describing an 18% profit margin for a company having a good year. That's hardly extraordinary. If they kept it up year on year one would have to ask questions about the state of the marketplace.

[tzijlstra]

What about the vast array of radio equipment and IT hardware required to make the system work in the first place? Not to mention the R&D for these technologies.

You're describing an 18% profit margin for a company having a good year. That's hardly extraordinary. If they kept it up year on year one would have to ask questions about the state of the marketplace.

 

They are keeping it up year on year and the costs you mention are all part of the expenses. You do know what profit means, right?

[unbeliever]

They are keeping it up year on year and the costs you mention are all part of the expenses. You do know what profit means, right?

 

You excluded the radio and IT equipment from your accounting of infrastructure costs and stated that "all they do" was sell phones. This infrastructure is subject to constant development and upgrades. So what you said was clearly untrue. You do know what infrastructure means right?

 

If you think Vodaphone are over-charging, buy a phone contract from somebody else. This practise of regulating things which are already optimised through competition is typical of wrong-headed EU economics.

 

There's a reason that the growth rate in Europe has been lagging behind the US for decades.

 

Since the EU is making it its business to regulate by stealth the profits of private enterprises which pose no potential threat to public safety and where there is no monopoly, is it also going to bail out these companies when they have a bad year?

Edited May 1, 2016 by unbeliever

[tzijlstra]

You excluded the radio and IT equipment from your accounting of infrastructure costs and stated that "all they do" was sell phones. This infrastructure is subject to constant development and upgrades. So what you said was clearly untrue. You do know what infrastructure means right?

 

If you think Vodaphone are over-charging, buy a phone contract from somebody else. This practise of regulating things which are already optimised through competition is typical of wrong-headed EU economics.

 

There's a reason that the growth rate in Europe has been lagging behind the US for decades.

 

On the infrastructure, que sera sera. I thought it was pretty clearly implied. I don't think Vodafone are overcharging here, I do think they have been raking it in on unfair roaming charges though. How anybody can argue against that when you used to get bills for 10£ after downloading your e-mails whilst on a business trip is completely beyond me. And for me this was on a T-Mobile contract in Germany, where they are HQed, you explain to me how that is anything other than abusing a loophole in the market?

 

On the US, odd statement for someone who wants to kerb free market access yet uses it here as an argument against the EU, in particular because the internet infrastructure in Europe is lightyears ahead of that in the US thanks to numerous government initiatives (including the EU) to fund roll-out of fibre. You know all those rural villages getting connected by BT? EU money.

[unbeliever]

 

On the US, odd statement for someone who wants to kerb free market access yet uses it here as an argument against the EU, in particular because the internet infrastructure in Europe is lightyears ahead of that in the US thanks to numerous government initiatives (including the EU) to fund roll-out of fibre. You know all those rural villages getting connected by BT? EU money.

 

You have no basis for suggesting I want to "kerb free market access". The EU "single market" is not an exercise in free markets as this regulation clearly shows.

 

On the "EU money" spent on internet infrastructure. That's our money. Not the EU's money. There is no such thing as EU money. The EU has no money. It spends the money of European tax payers with little consultation.

 

It's perfectly clear that your idea of good economics and social policy is largely consistent with the EU's ideas. Mine isn't. This is why you want to be a citizen of the EU and I don't.

Regulation of markets should be minimal. Not zero. Don't let me find 3 posts later you telling me I'm against all government regulation regarding trade. That's not what I'm saying. Regulation costs growth. The absence of regulation leads to monopolies and chaos. But over-regulation is like a tax which raises no revenue. It's daft.

 

All this is rather beside the point anyway. We didn't need to be members of the EU to apply this regulation. Some Brexiters would have approved. Others not. I'm not sure whether it would have happened or not in an independent UK. I don't really care.

I want these decisions make by a properly accountable government. You think the EU meets this standard. I don't.

I also don't think that the UK people should have the crazy hybrid corporatism-socialism politics which infests the EU when almost nobody in the UK would vote for it.

Edited May 1, 2016 by unbeliever