I hope Vodafone have improved since we left them and went to Three 5 years ago!
Will they keep the current Three platform going? Like Plusnet are still Plusnet even though owned by BT.
Vodafone and Three's proposed merger has been cleared by the UK's competition watchdog, as long as the pair commit to certain conditions. The move will create a third large-scale mobile operator, with the expectation this will offer greater competition for BT/EE and Virgin Media O2 (VMO2). The Competition and Markets Authority …
We only went to VF as they had a 3G plug-in box that talked down the broadband line, called "Suresignal". We (still) have no signal here in ruralsville and this was too early for wifi calling.
They got Suresignal badly wrong too, as the capacitors blew and often spectacularly, lucky no-one's house burned down. They refused to recall them. We ended up getting two replacements before they withdrew it (3G being old hat) and we withdrew our account - to Three.
To be fair to the regulators - they're subject to legal scrutiny. You can't just say that "I can tell by the pricking of my thumbs that you're a lying cheating bunch of shysters who won't stick to a deal." If you do, a court will strike that down and make you take your decision again. You have to find proper grounds for refusing to allow a merger. Added to that, you're also restricted by your charter and the law that you're implementing - which may have been badly drafted.
On the other hand, the CMA does have the power to launch investigations into industries to see if they're using predatory pricing.
Personally I think the CMA has done a pretty decent job of regulating mergers, since it got all its new shiny powers after Brexit. But that's only half the job. What it hasn't yet done in some big investigation into ongoing dodgy practices in an indusry and wielded the big stick. That's got to be the next proof that it's up to the job. Hopefully it can do better than Ofcom. Admittedly not a high bar to clear. I think the European Competition Commissioner has over-stretched a bit of late - but in general I'd like to see the CMA be more like the EU than the US, but not too much.
it's not the regulators and watchdogs that are due to wear those t-shirts and shorts. And they bear zero risk to themselves when you get soaked. Have you EVER heard of a regulator PUNISHED after their decision to act, or a failure to act, led to YOU picking the bill for their action / inaction? Punishment other than awkward silence or incomprenehsible mumbling?
Quite!
I had a run-in with one of the official Ombudsman services earlier this year. They rejected my complaint as they had assumed things about services provided by a government department which were factually incorrect (basic checking would have shown this - they hadn't even bothered to do this). I pointed this out, including sending them links to the official government web pages covering the relevant area and highlighing the relevant points. They simply refused to look at it again and told me that there was no right of appeal against their decisions, and if I didn't like it I would have to take legal action (judicial review). They helpfully made not-very-subtle threats that they would try to bankrupt anyone trying this (liable for thier costs, etc).
Utter shysters!
I had a similar fight with an incompetent Ombudsman. They found the Court Proceedings and Press Publicity VERY embaressing - several of their senior staff "retired", and I won in Court. I won Costs too, so their failed defence cost them £Millions. If you're really sure of your ground, take 'em on and bask in the glow of your win!
‘Legally-binding commitments’, yes? Sounds good!
So, hypothetically, and, of course these things never happen in real life, but just suppose; that said ‘commitments’ never happen? Are the current and future executives of both companies hauled up in Court, subject to question under oath, and ordered to personally pay $massive_fine; or is the company fined, the executives express how ‘disappointed they are with the ruling' and promptly pass the cost onto their customers (assuming, of course, that they still have any by then)?
Yes, I know, it’s a tough question to answer - but does anyone have any predictions?
I see this as a good thing overall. One big well backed operator (BT/EE) with 3 smaller operators isn’t really working. The smaller players simply don’t have enough to fund a decent 5G rollout. If the CMA really wanted 4 players they should have blocked BT grabbing EE and Ofcom would have needed to have done a better job allocating spectrum.
I do now worry for O2 however. They are going to be much smaller than the other two and have very little 5G spectrum. They also have a mast sharing agreement with Vodafone, will be interesting to see if that lasts.
It's working well enough at present that that one "big" operator (EE) only currently has less than 1/3 of the total customers in the UK. Removing one of their competitors and making another bigger isn't going to help anyone other than the shareholders as there's even less reason to compete, while everyone else gets to pay more for the same!
As for O2, they're not even using the spectrum they have in many places and EE have mast sharing with 3.
I don't see you getting the right to leave your contract - unless they choose to change it. Which would seem like more hassle than it's worth. The merger won't even start to happen until the middle of 2025 - so most contracts in place now are going to be halfway though by then. At that point, they'll still be operating two billing systems, and in the middle of working out how to merge them - so why change anything?
Moved from 3 to id (one of their MVNOs) a few years ago. Coverage good, service shite was my 3 experience as soon as they moved the support out of the UK. We shall see what happens, O2 are the only other viable option for me as I'm having nothing to do with BT/EE on general principle after having been a BT broadband customer some years ago (not through choice, no other FTTC providers at my exchange at the time).
Assuming that the first thing to go will be the cheap PAYG packages with Three. The fact they still have roaming included when the full-fat contracts ditched it years ago is a little gem.
Having said that my experience is that Vodafone have much better customer support than Three. They at least answer the phone instead of forcing you onto Live Chat, who tell you that they can't help, and to phone...
Personally I'd be keeping a close eye on the driveway of the person responsible for approving this whole deal and counting the new Range Rovers that mysteriously appear in six months.
Sadly I think we live in a world where both you and the Ferret can be correct. Of course, the formerly brilliant PAYG deal from 3 is probably a big part of why they are now broke. I can't have been the only person who spends enough of their life within range of friendly wifi that I could spend no more than £20 a year and still have all the service I needed.
Sounds like mealy mouthed assurances from all the high powered high paid executives.
Where's the guarantee that they'll do what they've promised?
"The CMA wants legally binding commitments "
There's one way to ensure that - get a registered charge over some of their assets. To be cleared when the commitments have been met.