Roaming costs - is this actually correct?

Forums › One NZ (including Farmside) › Roaming costs - is this actually correct?

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#262256 13-Jan-2020 10:34

I was doing some research on roaming costs.

I visited this page, where I read as follows:

Same Countries, Different Roaming Rates
Between Spark and Vodafone, there are different roaming rates for the same country. For example, if you stop off in Dubai for five days, and use 1 GB of data, with a Spark roaming plan you will pay $20 or $15, depending on the plan you pick. If you are with Vodafone, which does not offer the UAE in its standard roaming plan, you would pay $250 (as it sells 200 MB of data for $50 as part of its 'Data Angel Overseas' package). But if you go prepay, Vodafone would charge an astonishing $10,000 for 1 GB.

(My bold)

Is this actually true? It seems...excessive.

1 | 2

12173 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8469

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2390863 13-Jan-2020 10:53

Yes that is the cost in the UAE / Dubai so you know to keep mobile data off when roaming on Vodafone Prepay

PolicyGuy

1820 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1769

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2390872 13-Jan-2020 11:16

I have a Oz-based relative who got a $AU1,200 bill for cell-phone data usage whilst waiting a couple of hours between flights in Dubai.
In that context, the quoted Vodafone rate seems entirely possible.

😬

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41030

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2390938 13-Jan-2020 11:57

Yes, hard to believe how the same service has different prices depending on the product you are using - on account vs prepay...

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2391079 13-Jan-2020 14:45

Quite astonishing that they can do that with a straight face. $10,000?!

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2391082 13-Jan-2020 14:51

freitasm:

Yes, hard to believe how the same service has different prices depending on the product you are using - on account vs prepay...

For many Vodafone customers prepay roaming is now a significantly cheaper option than the $7 roaming - up to 50% cheaper depending on your usage.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2391095 13-Jan-2020 15:23

The big advantage of the $5 now $7 flat rate is simplicity and the lack of a need to spend ages trying to work out what you might need in a particular place in a multi-stop trip.

Whilst there are, I am sure, technical reasons etc why it wouldn't happen, in PR and customer use terms VF missed a massive USP by not making their phones roam free on any VF owned network anywhere in the world IMO. What's the point of being the only global mobile network and not actually running it like a global mobile network?!

I certainly hope that there are a lot of warnings you go through before they ping you for $10,000 data!

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#2391110 13-Jan-2020 16:13

Wouldn't this be a good reason to just us a prepay card, especially when overseas? Surely on account people can also put a limit on their account that they can't exceed.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41030

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2391112 13-Jan-2020 16:20

sbiddle:
freitasm:

Yes, hard to believe how the same service has different prices depending on the product you are using - on account vs prepay...

For many Vodafone customers prepay roaming is now a significantly cheaper option than the $7 roaming - up to 50% cheaper depending on your usage.

Except where they charge the $10000/GB as per OP.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Linux

12173 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8469

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2391113 13-Jan-2020 16:21

@Geektastic VodafoneNZ being a global company no longer works as Vodafone Group has sold VodafoneNZ and owns 0% of it now

Vodafone Group Plc (“Vodafone”) announces the sale of 100% of Vodafone New Zealand Limited

https://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=22037

Oblivian

7345 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2117

ID Verified

#2391119 13-Jan-2020 16:36

Linux:

@Geektastic VodafoneNZ being a global company no longer works as Vodafone Group has sold VodafoneNZ and owns 0% of it now

Vodafone Group Plc (“Vodafone”) announces the sale of 100% of Vodafone New Zealand Limited

https://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=22037

I view them basically as a franchise now. Reselling a product with a familiar branding (up there with warehouse etc). Someone up the chain controlling the service and as a result likely don't get any favour rates above commercial agreements.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2391144 13-Jan-2020 18:00

Geektastic:

Whilst there are, I am sure, technical reasons etc why it wouldn't happen, in PR and customer use terms VF missed a massive USP by not making their phones roam free on any VF owned network anywhere in the world IMO.

I could tell you a very long story about both European regulators telling Vodafone they could not do this in the early 2000's because it would be anti competitive. Likewise off the record comments from the ACCC indicated that Vodafone NZ and Vodafone AU doing this would have been deemed anti competitive in both markets and so it never proceeded beyond the removal of roaming surcharges for voice and SMS in the 2000's

It's not that Vodafone didn't want to do this. It's that competition regulators ensured they couldn't because other players would not have been able to offer this and it would have been anti competitive behavior.. Until the EU then decided themselves that roaming costs had to be cut!

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2391433 13-Jan-2020 23:18

Linux:

@Geektastic VodafoneNZ being a global company no longer works as Vodafone Group has sold VodafoneNZ and owns 0% of it now

Vodafone Group Plc (“Vodafone”) announces the sale of 100% of Vodafone New Zealand Limited

https://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=22037

Yes, here that is correct. It would have worked (well, could have) before that. However, VF Global operates in over 65 countries according to Wikipedia, so they still could do it. I am sure they won't, but we can dream.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2391436 13-Jan-2020 23:21

sbiddle:

Geektastic:

Whilst there are, I am sure, technical reasons etc why it wouldn't happen, in PR and customer use terms VF missed a massive USP by not making their phones roam free on any VF owned network anywhere in the world IMO.

I could tell you a very long story about both European regulators telling Vodafone they could not do this in the early 2000's because it would be anti competitive. Likewise off the record comments from the ACCC indicated that Vodafone NZ and Vodafone AU doing this would have been deemed anti competitive in both markets and so it never proceeded beyond the removal of roaming surcharges for voice and SMS in the 2000's

It's not that Vodafone didn't want to do this. It's that competition regulators ensured they couldn't because other players would not have been able to offer this and it would have been anti competitive behavior.. Until the EU then decided themselves that roaming costs had to be cut!

Isn't it strange that "anti competitive behaviour" (in this case "making best use of our assets which we paid for"!) often seems to be objected to on some quaint moral or dogmatic grounds with little or no weight given to whether it might make things better for consumers....

richms

29098 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10208

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2391439 13-Jan-2020 23:27

sbiddle:

I could tell you a very long story about both European regulators telling Vodafone they could not do this in the early 2000's because it would be anti competitive. Likewise off the record comments from the ACCC indicated that Vodafone NZ and Vodafone AU doing this would have been deemed anti competitive in both markets and so it never proceeded beyond the removal of roaming surcharges for voice and SMS in the 2000's

It's not that Vodafone didn't want to do this. It's that competition regulators ensured they couldn't because other players would not have been able to offer this and it would have been anti competitive behavior.. Until the EU then decided themselves that roaming costs had to be cut!

Amazing that europe ruined something for a company from there, its usually the US ones they are out to crap over with excess regulation.

Richard rich.ms

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2391445 14-Jan-2020 07:13

Geektastic:

sbiddle:

Geektastic:

Whilst there are, I am sure, technical reasons etc why it wouldn't happen, in PR and customer use terms VF missed a massive USP by not making their phones roam free on any VF owned network anywhere in the world IMO.

I could tell you a very long story about both European regulators telling Vodafone they could not do this in the early 2000's because it would be anti competitive. Likewise off the record comments from the ACCC indicated that Vodafone NZ and Vodafone AU doing this would have been deemed anti competitive in both markets and so it never proceeded beyond the removal of roaming surcharges for voice and SMS in the 2000's

It's not that Vodafone didn't want to do this. It's that competition regulators ensured they couldn't because other players would not have been able to offer this and it would have been anti competitive behavior.. Until the EU then decided themselves that roaming costs had to be cut!

Isn't it strange that "anti competitive behaviour" (in this case "making best use of our assets which we paid for"!) often seems to be objected to on some quaint moral or dogmatic grounds with little or no weight given to whether it might make things better for consumers....

You seem confused about the purpose of regulators.

It's not to deliver the best outcome to consumers, it is to ensure that regulated markets and players in non regulated markets operate in a way that's fair. This is not the same as delivering the best outcome for customers, and in many cases purposely prevents customers getting the best deal by taking stepps such as minimising predatory pricing.

1 | 2