Good or bad eu blocks 3 takeover

[Bob Arctor]

Indeed it does. Rory Cellan-Jones's analysis includes this (my bold):

It might be worth comparing what services US customers get for the higher prices they pay before wanting to reduce competition over here.

 

Certainly in the early days of "cellphones", US customers had to use different networks (and therefore different numbers) in different states, whereas in the EU regulators insisted that networks had European-wide coverage. Hooray for regulation.

[tzijlstra]

So they deny this, because they think it will hurt the others and there's not enough competition..

 

Yet they have allowed BT to purchase EE..... they say it won't hurt the market because BT's not already a player in Mobiles, yet (at least as far as I'm aware) BT have always had some form of mobile service offering, be it BTCellnet (which turned into O2 eventually) or using someone elses network (like currently)

 

You are misinformed, BT sold its mobile network, by then O2, to Telefonica in 2005 for 18 billion pounds.

 

PS - on American services - they have very patchy 4G coverage, to the extent that it is no where near comparable to what we get here, their broadband coverage and quality is well below par compared to the EU in general.

[Ghozer]

You are misinformed, BT sold its mobile network, by then O2, to Telefonica in 2005 for 18 billion pounds.

 

PS - on American services - they have very patchy 4G coverage, to the extent that it is no where near comparable to what we get here, their broadband coverage and quality is well below par compared to the EU in general.

 

Yes, I know TB sold O2 to Telefonica, I wasn't going into it as that wasn't the point..

 

They had BTCellnet, it changed to O2, that was the last time BT 'owned' a network... was my point...

 

But they have always offered a service, even if its via a virtual provider on another network etc....

[swarfendor437]

]

You are misinformed, BT sold its mobile network, by then O2, to Telefonica in 2005 for 18 billion pounds.

 

PS - on American services - they have very patchy 4G coverage, to the extent that it is no where near comparable to what we get here, their broadband coverage and quality is well below par compared to the EU in general.

 

American services whether mobile or internet is patchy - period. Just look at the size of it's land mass and how it's population is spread and how the infrastructure cannot compare to the size of the UK or Japan or Korea for instance.

 

---------- Post added 11-05-2016 at 20:35 ----------

 

Yes, I know TB sold O2 to Telefonica, I wasn't going into it as that wasn't the point..

 

They had BTCellnet, it changed to O2, that was the last time BT 'owned' a network... was my point...

 

But they have always offered a service, even if its via a virtual provider on another network etc....

 

Hi Ghozer, thanks for jogging my memory - I thought it became O2 before the 'cell' [was a typo and decided to make it a pun!] off - as usual it appears to be one rule for one organisation and not for another - the BT/EE deal should also have been stopped.

Edited May 11, 2016 by swarfendor43

[tzijlstra]

Yes, I know TB sold O2 to Telefonica, I wasn't going into it as that wasn't the point..

 

They had BTCellnet, it changed to O2, that was the last time BT 'owned' a network... was my point...

 

But they have always offered a service, even if its via a virtual provider on another network etc....

 

It is completely the point, BT was not active in the mobile market when it bought EE, O2 and 3 both were. I am not sure what is difficult to understand about the significance of that.

[geared]

BT buying EE doesn't change the number of 'big players' in the market, those being EE, O2, Vodaphone and Three.

Three buying O2 reduces the number of big players to Three, which has been decided is not enough.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Sky made a move on O2 now.