Telephone companies resent EC price attack
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.BRUSSELS - Europe's monopoly telephone companies criticised a European Commission attack on the prices they charge for international calls, writes Tim Jackson.
The Commission yesterday published figures revealing that customers have to pay between two-and-a-half and three times more for an international call than for a domestic call of the same distance. International call prices vary sharply, depending on which end a call is made. The Commission says a three-minute call from Belgium to Denmark costs pounds 1.88; dialled from Denmark, the same call costs pounds 1.
Sir Leon Brittan, the Commission vice-president in charge of competition policy, has asked users and telephone companies to give their views on how the telephone-call market might be liberalised.
One telephone company accused the Commission of having a British and American bias, and disputed Sir Leon's contention that Europeans were likely to make more international calls if they cost less.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments