Receiving a call is beyond my control, why should I pay for something I didn't initiate?

The current setup makes perfect sense to me, Reding's just being difficult for the sake of it.

I lived in the US and worked for a phone company. Believe me - current European methods are much better. The US system was setup by the FCC to make mobile phones seem seamless to the phone subscribers: no different area codes dividing connections. (This has a few advantages.) But the system ends up being very, very costly and mobile phone subscribers pay for SMS messages. Which now leads them to pay for spam - at fairly high rates.

The current European system makes all phone charging the same: you pay to MAKE a call, regardless of what you connect to. The US system makes you pay for a call you make, IF it isn't a mobile phone at which point the receiver pays for it. Including wrong numbers, sales calls, and all messages!

Come on, it's a load of codswallop.

They will all put their prices up a similar amount, they know exactly already how it will work. It's simple maths, not rocket science.

If we have to reduce the charge at one place, then we increase it somewhere else to keep profits the same.

I really don't think you can compare business models over in europe to those in the US without first considering that the US has some very low population densities covering large areas of the country, thus making it very expensive to provide service to many parts of the states. This increased expense, naturally keeps adoption rates quite low, not so much the business model.

On another note, eliminating termination fees would probably wipe out 3... so it must be a good thing.

I agree with Vodafone!

This would certainly be enough for me to ditch my phone.

It'd mean that whenever I am out of credit (i.e. most of the time) I would be uncontactable and thus the phone would be useless.

Damned Eurocrats.