No - that proposal just tweaks the protected environment. You, and the proposal only mentions an idea for how to cure the symptom, not the disease.
That cure, for the symptom, is a bad thing for at least two reasons.
First, the actors in the environment needs to shift focus from improving their service and lowering price, to covering the lost revenue due to new legislation.
Second. The ones barred from taking part in this market (those that didn't get a license) are unable to improve customers services through participating in competition with lower prices, innovative new features etc.
> the actors in the environment needs to shift focus from improving their service and lowering price, to covering the lost revenue due to new legislation.
That argument is sufficiently general that it applies to any measure that in some way reduces an actor's revenue, irrespective of whether that revenue loss is due to a greater or lesser free market. 'If the government stops subsidising lemonade stands €10 a day, they'll have to shift focus from improving their service and lowering price, to covering the lost revenue'.
In this case, the lost revenue is from having to compete with mobile operators in other countries in a single, common European market (a common market is the original and primary goal of the EU). So yes, they will lose revenue by having to compete in a free[1] market, rather than - as they do at the moment - taking advantage the fact the each country is effectively silo'd off in a separate market (from transaction costs) to avoid that competition. Cry me a river.
[1] well, free-er at least - I take your second point that it'll still be a ways from completely free.
TLDR: you're ironically using a fully general argument against government intervention to implicitly argue for less competition and a less free market (the status quo).
There's nothing wrong with a general argument being applied correctly. Taking your lemonade example, i see nothing wrong in removing subsidies because that is removing the disease. (the disease being subsidies that skewed competition).
The reason it is wrong in the case of roaming is because you are imposing yet another regulation (not removing any). That means the actors doesn't have to shift focus towards acting in a freer market, but rather in a more restricted one.
If a ban on roaming prices was enacted worldwide do you think that would make for a more free market?
You're still focusing too much on the (rather misleading) "ban roaming charges" headline, instead of looking at what the proposed legislation will actually do ("push... roaming out of the market" by allowing people to "select... another provider for calls, texts and internet data services while travelling ... without having to change their phone number or buy a new sim card").
On the larger point, I'm fascinated by what seem to me to be the different instinctive reactions to proposals of supra-national common markets, free trade agreements, etc. by European-style 'classical-liberal' libertarians as opposed to the American brand of libertarianism.
The former generally support them, due to the benefits of having a single market - increased competition, reduced barriers to entry of other countries' markets, theories of comparative advantage, and so on. The latter, AFAICT, oppose them because they're Another Regulation which is Always Bad. Never mind that the purpose of the regulation is to remove 27 silo'd, anti-competitive, semi-protectionist national markets and replace it with a single European market.
You see the same split in discussions of anti-monopoly, anti-cartel etc. regulations - generally supported by European-style libertarians, with a view that competition is important in a free market and that may sometimes need government intervention to keep the market free, and opposed by American-style libertarians and corporatists on the grounds that government intervention should always be opposed.
That cure, for the symptom, is a bad thing for at least two reasons.
First, the actors in the environment needs to shift focus from improving their service and lowering price, to covering the lost revenue due to new legislation.
Second. The ones barred from taking part in this market (those that didn't get a license) are unable to improve customers services through participating in competition with lower prices, innovative new features etc.