There is of course an overall question here:
The pro-ban point of view
“Price will come down because the market for CFLs / LEDs
will be bigger”
Certainly marginal costs fall if you have a bigger production line
-but-
not only is competition from cheap bulbs removed (whoever makes them)
but there are fewer manufacturers of the more complex bulbs – even the Ecodesign committeee recognized the thousands of local job losses occurring with the bans.

Basically, companies charge what they can on the marketplace.
When major manufactureres enthusiastically support a ban, you have to ask yourself why. It’s hardly out of a wish to make less profits out of sales at low prices.

In fact, the EU ban has a lot of darker undertones,
about political payback to companies having had to commit to CFLs that noone wants to buy.
Given bans on frosted halogens (the only popular and realistic GLS ceiling lamp alternative without the glare of clear lamps), CFLs are the forced purchases for many people.
Poor CFLs create a double profit whammy for manufacturers, as people move on from CFLs to LED lamps in coming years.

http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax

[ As an aside re price,
it might be noted that with a light bulb tax,
a revenue neutral solution could include efficient products being zero rated for sales tax
- yet another of many baffling points about the ban, is why normally tax-happy politicians ignored the possibility of a tax on a product that is purely banned to lower electricity consumption, not banned because it is unsafe to use:
it is even more strange, given that cheap, ubiquitous, popular, short-lasting light bulbs would give massive tax revenues,
2 billion annual sales in each of USA and EU jurisdictions,
taxation remaining wrong in principle but surely better for all sides concerned ]