|
|
|
| Advice for calling US Mobile Phone? |
|---|
| message from Mark on 22 May 2005 |
Hi, I live in the UK and my girlfriend is going to america as part of an
exchange programme for the summer.
Does the cheapest/easiest way for us to keep in contact simply involve
her buying any old USA pay as you go mobile phone and then me calling
her via a voice over ip service? Can anyone recommend a decent one with
not too much lag? Or is there a better method than this, ie: is it
cheaper to register with one of those calling card companies in the UK
and call using their number? This'd be great if I could use a UK mobile
phone to call her and not pay through the roof?
Thanks for your help!
Mark.
|
| Georg Schwarz replied to Mark on 29 May 2005 |
the US does not have special numbers for mobiles, so any service that
can call US numbers should do.
I am not sure whether the callee still has to pay per minute for
incoming calls to a US mobile. Probably depends on the particular plan.
|
| Miguel Cruz replied to Georg Schwarz on 04 Jun 2005 |
Here in Malaysia I have to pay US$2.50 per month (the minimum recharge to
keep my SIM from expiring) for unlimited incoming minutes, and then about
US$0.12 per outgoing minute within Malaysia and to a few other countries
(such as the USA).
miguel
|
| Steve Sobol replied to Miguel Cruz on 04 Jun 2005 |
Not to burst your bubble, but isn't it possible that the difference in
prices are due to differences in value between the rupee and Malaysia's
currency, and the US Dollar? I mean, isn't *everything* in those countries a
lot cheaper than it is in the US?
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Miguel Cruz on 5 Jun 2005 |
I thought Malaysia was Calling Party Pays though? That's a very good
deal for unlimited incoming if you'd have to pay for it otherwise
though.
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 6 Jun 2005 |
<this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ah- ok. I have a couple of UK SIM's for which I get free incoming calls
(other person pays- their problem!) and all I have to do is make sure
the number is called every 6 months. It's the ne plus ultra for those of
us who don't need to make calls from the mobile for more than several
hundred minutes a month.
Yes, that's not bad. The only European country I've found that has low
mobile rates is Cyprus (South.) Until recently, it was a monopoly, so
it's interesting it was so cheap. (I would have thought the small area
and high population would make a difference there.)
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Mark on 23 May 2005 |
The cheapest way is for her to call your landline from a landline in the
U.S., using a calling card. Rates to the U.K. are very cheap, around 2 cents
per minute. To call a UK mobile phone is more, around 15-17 cents per
minute. Long calls to a mobile phone in the U.S. are going to cost you a
lot, since incoming calls are not free.
In terms of which prepaid phone to get, it depends on where she is going to
be, how much she is going to talk on it, and at what time. The best choice
is probably Beyond Wireless, which is as low as 10 cents per minute, has
excellent coverage, and will use any old Nokia or Motorola TDMA phone that
was previously used on AT&T Wireless TDMA (they will also sell you a phone).
7-11 convenience stores sell a GSM phone and charge 20 cents per minute, but
GSM coverage in the U.S. isn't so great.
Verizon InPulse is normally not a great plan, since they have a $1 fee for
every day you use your phone. But the per minute cost is only 10¢, and they
offer free night calling, 9:01 pm - 5:59 am, local time (but not free
weekend calling). So this may actually work out for you, given the time
difference. None of the other prepaid service offer free off-peak.
See http://prepaiduswireless.com for comparisons on prepaid wireless.
|
| Ivor Jones replied to Mark on 22 May 2005 |
Will there be broadband access where she'll be going..? If so she could
take a VoIP ATA and you could both use something like Sipgate
(www.sipgate.co.uk which would mean totally free calls. Of course you'd
have to buy the ATA's but alternatively you could use a softphone such as
X-Lite if PC's are available.
If you want to go the mobile route, then if she gets a US PAYG phone you
can call it using either inclusive minutes on an Orange or O2 mobile via
Pre-Dial, or at relatively cheap rates from Sipgate (1.5p/min) or
Telestunt/Telediscount etc. from a BT/Telewest line.
Hope this helps,
Ivor
|
| Joseph replied to Ivor Jones on 22 May 2005 |
Just don't forget that she'll be paying part of the freight as US
mobile system is charged for both incoming and outgoing calls. There
is no penalty however for calling a mobile number. The rate to call
is the same as a fixed line.
|
| Alec replied to Joseph on 23 May 2005 |
And there is no mobile-specific number (like 07). They are all geographical
numbers relating to the area the sim originates, indistinguishable from
landlines. The amount US mobile users pay to receive calls is fixed,
regardless of where they originate. It varies between 15 (8p) and 35 (20p)
cents a minute, depending on how much credit you get on your sim card or
when you top-up. Calling UK is around $1.50 a min (82p).
Alec
|
| Miguel Cruz replied to Mark on 23 May 2005 |
If you will be talking a fair bit, then she should get a post-paid plan that
includes a fair-sized pail of minutes.
Anything that doesn't involve mobile phones will be a lot cheaper (pretty
close to free if you do it right).
miguel
|
| Joseph replied to Miguel Cruz on 23 May 2005 |
If she doesn't have US credit it's unlikely she can get a postpaid
monthly plan unless she ponies up several hundered dollars deposit (if
then even.)
|
| Emma replied to Mark on 23 May 2005 |
The way I do this at the moment, is I can call my friend who's on T mobile in the states
out of my inclusive minutes from my o2 contract using telediscount as a dial through
number. He gets minutes deducted from his inclusive minutes bundle for when I call.
However, calling him on his landline results in a totally free call from either end
(unless you run out of inclusive contract minutes) :-) So if your girlfriend can access a
landline then you can call free using inclusive minutes on an O2 contract via telediscount.
If she's looking for a prepay for you to txt on, I managed to pick up a tmobile prepay sim
card when I was over there in a tmobile store. Works fine for txting and for receiving
calls from the UK (although it's right about paying either in money or minutes to receive
calls)
Hope this helps,
Em
|
| CT replied to Mark on 28 May 2005 |
Mark,
You've had many good suggestions. Just another idea, if you both have
internet connections (and there are many hotspots and other options in
US). CamTrek, www.camtrek.com, has monthly or quarterly subscription
options if you only desire short-time use. Just a thought...video adds
something special. Go see for yourself.
All the best,
CT
|
| Stuart Friedman replied to Mark on 22 May 2005 |
Does your girl friend have broadband in the US? Do you have a landline
in the UK? Do you have broadband.
Calling the UK is really cheap from the US with a calling card. I use
onesuite.com, it is two something cents a minute. In the other
direction, look at call1899.com. Half a p a minute. They also, have
a VOIP program. I
Does your girl friend have a triband? One of the better prepaid
offerings comes from 711.com. Their speakout wireless phones are
effectively free and the per minute rate is $US0.20 a minute. It works
nationwide in the US, and has a one year expiry. Remember that in the
US incoming calls come out of your bucket of minutes.
|
| Mark replied to Stuart Friedman on 22 May 2005 |
Sorry by this do you mean that if someone from abroad calls any native
US mobile phone, even if that phone is in the US, they have to pay to
/receive/ the call? Or does that go for all calls?
Thanks.
Mark.
|
| David Floyd replied to Mark on 25 May 2005 |
In message of Wed, 25 May 2005, Stuart Friedman writes
|
| Stuart Friedman replied to Mark on 23 May 2005 |
All calls with a few exceptions (e.g. certain mobile to mobile calls, some
off peak calls, etc.). All the exceptions are plan specific.
Stu
"Mark" <x@unknown.com> wrote in message
news:409ke.14508$hn5.14332@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
|
| Mark replied to Stuart Friedman on 23 May 2005 |
That's mad. I can't find anything on the 7-Eleven Speak Out site about
having to pay for incoming calls, it says incoming texts but doesn't say
incoming calls, can you point me to where to find out about this?
Stuart Friedman wrote:
|
| Ivor Jones replied to Mark on 23 May 2005 |
Not mad at all. The US school of thought is simple - *you* choose to go
mobile, therefore *you* pay for the privilege. Why should a *caller* have
to pay extra because *you* want to go out..?
It's not normally a problem as most US calling plans have more inclusive
minutes than you know what to do with, but for PAYG you have to watch out.
Also note that calls are usually billed by the minute not the second, so a
1 minute 5 second call costs you 2 minutes.
BTW please note that top posting is frowned upon in this group, thanks.
Ivor
|
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} replied to Ivor Jones on 23 May 2005 |
The caller has the choice whether to pay the cost of calling a mobile or not.
Thankfully we never went down the crazy route of paying for incoming calls.
|
| Andy Pandy replied to {{{{{Welcome}}}}} on 23 May 2005 |
Yes, but the mobile networks use termination charges to subsidise the prices
they charge their users. On a "caller pays" system, it should cost the same to
call a mobile from a landline as to call a landline from a mobile - but it is
generally much cheaper to call a landline from a mobile.
No? Ever used your phone abroad?
|
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} replied to Andy Pandy on 23 May 2005 |
Yes, many many times, but that is roaming, and things are changing in that
area too.
|
| Andy Pandy replied to {{{{{Welcome}}}}} on 24 May 2005 |
So presumably you've paid for incoming calls. Are you crazy?
|
| Rick Merrill replied to Andy Pandy on 24 May 2005 |
Can y'all stop cross-posting to the Voice-over-IP group? Thanks.
|
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} replied to Andy Pandy on 24 May 2005 |
But that is roaming, not just the normal receive the phone call.
I don't like the high charges on roaming, but can see the reasoning for it,
again even if I feel they should be a lot lower.
There is no reason whatsoever for being charged for incoming calls when in
your own country, that is just plainly a stupid idea.
Now if you have a Riiing SIM, you can road in many countries and not pay for
incoming calls.
|
| Ivor Jones replied to {{{{{Welcome}}}}} on 24 May 2005 |
[snip]
Haven't you got it yet..? The idea is that callers pay the same whether
they're calling a landline or a mobile. You can port numbers freely
between landlines and mobiles in the same way you can between mobile
operators. You have so many inclusive minutes it *doesn't matter* if some
are used for incoming calls..!
Wouldn't *you* like to be able to call someone's mobile and not pay
through the nose..? *So what* if it costs a few minutes a month out of
your allowance to receive calls..? Paying ridiculous charges to call
mobiles costs far more than paying for a few incoming calls.
Ivor
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Ivor Jones on 24 May 2005 |
This is true. I'd hate to see a system where I have to pay to call someones
mobile phone. If I choose to answer an incoming call from an unknown person,
at most I've wasted one minute out of more minutes per month than I ever
use. Especially since nearly everyone I ever call is on the same mobile
carrier, and these calls are free.
|
| Andy Pandy replied to {{{{{Welcome}}}}} on 25 May 2005 |
It's paying to receive calls, which you think is crazy.
There is no reason for roaming charges at all (not to "first world" countries
anyway). International calls are dirt cheap these days, companies like
Telediscount etc can afford to send a call to (eg) Germany for the termination
fee they get on a 1p/min 0844 number.
If I call a UK Vodafone number when the user is roaming in Germany, I'm already
paying a large termination fee to Vodafone. It should cost them a trivial amount
to send the call to Vodafone Germany who will terminate the call which I've
already paid for.
So anyone with an 0800 number is stupid then?
|
| Joseph replied to Andy Pandy on 24 May 2005 |
But assuming Vodafone Germany has caller pays the termination must be
paid to the Voda network in Germany. Just because you've paid the
termination charge once why do you think you'd be let off the hook for
termination charges in another country? Right now any time I call a
country with caller pays mobile I pay a premium which is up to five
times the rate for regular fixed wireline phones.
|
| DevilsPGD replied to Joseph on 24 May 2005 |
<JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
There doesn't need to be any termination charge for a call to be passed
from within one carrier's network to another.
It's essentially free on a per-call basis (Although they are still
installation and maintenance costs to maintain the lines between the
countries -- But this can be absorbed by the company as a cost of doing
business or it can be billed on a per-call basis, it depends on the
company)
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Joseph on 25 May 2005 |
Because Vodafone UK is not terminating my call on a mobile, it is routing it to
Germany, which as Telediscount etc demonstrate can be done for a trivial cost.
Vodafone Germany will terminate my call on a mobile - for which I've already
paid. Why should the mobile user then have to pay an additional sky high
termination fee?
Of course, that premium is for mobile termination.
But if I call a UK mobile roaming in Germany, I've *already* paid the mobile
termination premium. I've not paid for international routing, but the cost of
this to the network is surely trivial.
|
| Jet Morgan replied to Ivor Jones on 23 May 2005 |
Does that mean that if *I* choose not to have a phone at all, I
have to pay for a taxi for the caller to come and visit me ? Why
should a caller pay to travel to my house, just because *I* choose
not to have a phone ?
Richard [in PE12]
|
| David Floyd replied to Jet Morgan on 25 May 2005 |
In message of Wed, 25 May 2005, Stuart Friedman writes
|
| Ivor Jones replied to Jet Morgan on 23 May 2005 |
That's a poor analogy, they can always write a letter <g>
As I said, US calling plans generally have more inclusive minutes for the
money than we do so using some for incoming calls rarely causes a problem.
My friends in San Francisco pay around $35 for 2000 minutes and never use
them all, even with incoming calls.
Ivor
|
| Osmo R replied to Ivor Jones on 29 May 2005 |
66 cents of course! Why 66? It was originally 69 but price competition
reduced it fitsdt to 68 and then to 66? Three cents a month makes a
difference :-)
Well even the more expensive ones are under ten cents a minute with just
a few euros base fee. For example Sonera One: 8.9 cents a minute and
3.99 euros a month and Elisa Reilu: 8.5 cents a minute and 3.95 euros a
month. These are the two largest operators here. The prices have dropped
significantly since the number portability. Before it the cost to call
was about 16-17 cents a minute.
Here one could not make then with a land line and I doubt they can do it
in the U.S. either if one considers the base fee also. Average land line
user makes 100 five minute local calls a month. This costs about 30
euros a month. When one can get a 500 minute package at 17.80 it makes
little sense to use the land line. A significant reason for not getting
the land line is the opening cost of about 100 euros and the additional
costs and trouble when moving.
If one wants to call a specific person and speak long one can get good
mobile deals for it like 1500 minutes at 8.90 or 2.95 month and 2 cents
a minute. There used to be unlimited mobile deals with cheapest being
8.33 a month to a single number but they are not offered anymore (those
who got them can use them still).
Osmo
|
| Miguel Cruz replied to Osmo R on 29 May 2005 |
You mean the line rental? Well, of course. No other fees though.
In the US I was paying about US$25/month (19 euro) for unlimited calls to
local landlines and mobiles. As you can imagine, calling patterns in that
environment are quite different - people stay on the phone for hours.
I think we can assume from this that people would prefer to spend more time
on the phone and find more value in doing so, but in the high-cost European
telecoms market they cannot afford to.
That startup cost is insanely high as well. 100 euros??
So basically we have a situation where the mobile in Finland is somewhat the
lesser of two evils.
miguel
|
| Osmo R replied to Miguel Cruz on 30 May 2005 |
Well one can hope the other party does not have a mobile.
I doubt that. If they wanted to stay much longer on phone they'd get
land lines.
Yes, that's an example of what lack of competition causes. Probably
they want to keep on with the existing customers by giving a message
that there is no return.
In most cases landline just just a hassle. There is additional phone
number. One needs to have an answering machine or service for it, the
phones have poor phone directories etc. It is much simpler just to have
one phone even though it might in some cases cost more.
Well in some sense it is true. If all your friends get mobile phones you
need to get one too. This has in some cases been reduced very lately
when the calls to mobile phones were opened to competition. A ten minute
call from land line to mobile on day time used to cost up to about 2,80.
Now one can get it at 1,58. Still when one can get it at 69 cents from a
mobile it is cheaper. (A 10 minute local call is around 20 cents) The
worst, however, is pay phone to mobile. That can cost about 85 cents a
minute or about 60 cent a minute premium over a local call. It is more
than what phone booth to landline and landline to mobile cost added
together. IMO when direct call costs more than indirect then there is a
ripoff. Well the same run mobile phones and the phone booths.
Osmo
|
| John R. Levine replied to Osmo R on 29 May 2005 |
Depends when. A lot of US plans now offer either unlimited night and
weekend minutes or a large enough number that it might as well be
unlimited, e.g., I get 3500/mo. This works fine for me, since during
the day I tend to be in the office with my landline at hand, and
nights and weekends I'm more likely to be out.
Finland seems to be kind of a special case, just about the only place
I know where there are more mobiles than landlines. It sounds like
the landline service wasn't so grat, and the telco decided (not
altogether unreasonably) to make mobiles irresistable rather than
investing in landlines.
In the US, pretty much everyone had a phone by 1960. Other countries
took a lot longer to catch up, and if they waited long enough, mobiles
could be a good alternative. I gather that everyone in Hungary has a
mobile, too, because it was faster to build a new mobile network after
the communists left than to fix the decrepit fixed network.
R's,
John
|
| Osmo R replied to John R. Levine on 30 May 2005 |
With nights do you mean something like after 5 pm or after 9 pm. That
makes a huge difference. I never call someone after 9 pm unless that was
agreed beforehand. Weekends have never had cheaper prices here. As I
understand those pricings are result of mobile use still being mainly a
business use.
Sure they decided around 1990 that mobiles are the place where growth
is. They did not expect people to close landlines. In fact they
predicted a few hundred thousand mobile users by 2000. They got over
three million.
I hope you are not implying that Finland has been some developing
country when it comes to landlines. Nothing could be further from the
truth. The first telephone exchange in Helsinki opened in 1882 (the
first in the U.S. and the world opened in 1878). Unlike most of Europe
telephone was here mainly a private venture and not state operation so
it spread relatively rapidly. The above dates should be viewed in the
perspective that in the standard of living Finland was about 50 years
behind the U.S. By 1978 Finland was 8th on the word on phone density
(41/100 people compared to 72/100 in the leading U.S.). The number of
landlines peaked in 1997 at 2.85 million or 55.4 / 100 people. Since then
it has dropped to about 2.5 million. The number of mobile connections
was 4.7 million in 2003. That's about 90 / 100 people. note the above
makes no difference between corporate and home phones. In 1994 94% of
households had a mobile phone. Only 64% had landline.
Sources: Immonen: Sillat Sielujen ja Ihmismieleen (History of HPY/Elisa)
Statistics Finland: Statistical yearbook of Finland 2003
http://www.stat.fi/ajk/tiedotteet/v2004/046tuls.pdf
Simply put the fixed network has little to offer especially because of
the constantly increasing prices. The companies witched from
co-operative model to listed companies in the 1990's. This with lack of
competition increased prices as the higher the price the larger the
dividend on stockholders. A major reason for the drop has been because
broadband makes landline unnecessary for Internet use.
Osmo
|
| Joseph replied to Osmo R on 30 May 2005 |
Everything's always me me me with Osmo. It never occurs to him that
not everyone lives in Finland or that everyone has the same calling
habits as he does.
|
| Osmo R replied to Joseph on 31 May 2005 |
I just consider it polite not to call others at night. If that is an
expression of me me me then so be it.
Osmo
|
| Miguel Cruz replied to Osmo R on 31 May 2005 |
Unless it's to plan something for that same evening (like an early dinner) I
think it's pretty rare that I make or receive a personal call before 9pm.
None of which is to say that it's rude or polite to call at any particular
hour (except Saturday and Sunday mornings - I think there's something in the
Bible about how rude that is) - it all depends on the people you talk to.
The point is that it's not useful to assume that just because your own
calling falls into a particular pattern, you can somehow apply that to the
general public.
miguel
|
| Ivor Jones replied to Osmo R on 31 May 2005 |
People can call my phones whenever they want. If I'm not here to answer
it, then voicemail or an answering machine will do so. If I am here but
don't want to answer it, I don't..! If I don't want to be disturbed by the
ringing, I switch off the ringers in the phones..! Or in the case of my
mobiles, switch them off all together..!
Easy really..!
Ivor
|
| Ototin replied to Osmo R on 30 May 2005 |
The most common is 19:00 to 08:00
An example of "weekends" is from Friday at 19:00 to Monday at 08:00
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Ototin on 31 May 2005 |
Actually it's 21:00-0:700.
|
| John R. Levine replied to Steven M. Scharf on 30 May 2005 |
If you have friends who go to bed early, there's an extra cost option
that makes your free nights start at 1900. I haven't bothered since I
don't use up my minutes as it is.
|
| CharlesH replied to Osmo R on 31 May 2005 |
With respect to geographic coverage, is it fair to compare European
plans to the (now dwindling) "local" plans in the US, which typically
covered a single state and offered thousands of minutes at a cheap
price, rather than the now much more common plans which include the
entire U.S. as "local"? I understand that due to cultural differences, a
European is not as likely to make a call to Paris from Frankfurt as a
person in the U.S. is to make a call to New York from Chicago, so the
more "local" nature of European plans is not such an issue.
|
| Miguel Cruz replied to John R. Levine on 30 May 2005 |
This is the case in any number of underdeveloped nations. Mobile systems, as
compared to landline systems, are cheap in terms of capital and expensive in
terms of ongoing costs. So where there is not much money for long-term
investment, or faith in long-term stability, it is more likely that
investors will primarily fund development of mobile systems in order to
realize short-term profits even though the overall costs to the country are
greater.
miguel
|
| Miguel Cruz replied to Osmo R on 30 May 2005 |
Normally they have both, and everyone knows which is which. However, even if
they only have a mobile, the costs to use it are far lower than in Europe
(due to the called-party-pays system) so they feel freer to talk longer.
Unlimited local service is a very recent phenomenon in the few places in
Europe where it exists, so there hasn't really been an alternative. Just bad
vs worse.
I don't see how a bad landline system is justification for a bad mobile
system, which seems to be your fundamental argument. Sure, that particular
bad mobile system may have some advantages over that bad landline system but
that doesn't mean it's better than a good mobile system.
miguel
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Ivor Jones on 2 Jun 2005 |
I don't agree with you that you have a similar competitive environment.
In the UK, you have 4 companies who have similar numbers of subscribers
(they're each with a few percentage points of each other) and very
similar coverage areas. People do like to debate that on u.t.m, but they
are very similar when compared to US carriers! They all operate on the
same technology (forget 'three' for a moment) (e.g.- leave one company,
your phone will work on another once you unlock it for a small fee.)
I pay 10 pence per minute (plus a 3p set up charge) to call a mobile, at
weekends this is 3 pence a minute. It's perfectly transparent to me.
It's also perfectly clear that there are a huge number of _different_
prices I could pay with other providers, but all that happens is the
burden shifts slightly. That is, in the US, the caller will not
differentiate between how much they pay to a 'cell phone' or a
'landline' but they may have other considerations- is the number in
their 'local' calling area, and if not, how much are they paying? Living
in the US for 11 years, I can't say the pricing is any more transparent-
there is a massive amount of variation. Of course, when in the US, I use
very cheap providers, and know how much I'm paying (as I do in the UK)
but not everyone does.
Sure there are market forces operating. If you call mobiles a lot,
you'll use a low cost provider like 1899, or you'll get a mobile
contract like Three's 750 minutes a month.
Market forces also mean that people will make long calls from their
landlines or mobile to other landlines, or to on network mobiles. You
can call any UK landline for an unlimited time at _any_ time of the day
for 3p.
I do appreciate you finding these presentations, and they are persuasive
for the case they make. However, it still doesn't answer my question as
to how people arrive at the prices people pay for calls, whether you
include calls _to_ mobiles, as well as calls from them.
|
| Miguel Cruz replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 02 Jun 2005 |
Can you keep your number, or do you have to reprint all your stationery and
alert everyone you know about the change?
miguel
|
| Osmo R replied to Ivor Jones on 29 May 2005 |
Sure the connection goes throuhg the physical wire but that's not same
as having a land line. I have ADSL for which I pay its fee. I do not pay
anything for any land line as I do no have one.
I do not get your point?
Osmo
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Osmo R on 30 May 2005 |
It costs me typically £13 a month including line rental.
Typically 600 minutes of calls mobile-mobile would cost around £50 in the UK.
Cross network mobile-mobile calls are just as expensive as landline-mobile calls
here.
Yeah right. That would have meant they'd be paying about £60-70 a month for
their phone usage, rather than about £15. Great idea.
They know where the problem was. His wife's friend has now put her landline back
in, and they are a bit wiser about calling mobiles.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Ivor Jones on 31 May 2005 |
On some carriers this is an option, i.e. Sprint charges $5 per line for the
better hours for N&W. Those of us that have earlier N&W as a result of
having signed up before the carriers worsened N&W, cannot make many changes
to our service without losing the earlier start time.
|
| Miguel Cruz replied to Ivor Jones on 29 May 2005 |
I signed up for DSL on a line with no phone service in DC in 2000 and as far
as I know it's still being used (through Covad on Verizon's wires).
It makes good sense, since with people cancelling landlines, at least this
way the ILEC can make some money (by renting the pair to the DSL provider).
Otherwise the house might go to cable modem and mobile and leave the ILEC
with no revenue at all.
miguel
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Ivor Jones on 01 Jun 2005 |
Because if the termination charges were not so high, they would not be
intentionally avoiding making certain calls. I wanted people to look at the
big picture, and not just look at how the wireless carriers have conditioned
them to behave.
That is what the carriers want. They can successfully hide the true cost,
when people think only about themselves.
|
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} replied to Ivor Jones on 23 May 2005 |
What about people who only have a phone for emergencies and do not want to
have to pay a monthly rental charge?
|
| David Floyd replied to {{{{{Welcome}}}}} on 25 May 2005 |
In message of Wed, 25 May 2005, {{{{{Welcome}}}}} writes
Here,here
DF
|
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} replied to Rick Merrill on 23 May 2005 |
Yes, but if you have your phone not on a contract, how long will it work for,
and also you would have to ignore all incoming calls so not as to get charged,
as you phone is really only for emergencies, how do you know whether an
incoming call is an emergency or not, and to whether to answer the call and
then end up getting charged for a useless call.
No thank you very much.
|
| Rick Merrill replied to {{{{{Welcome}}}}} on 24 May 2005 |
In the US the phone will "work" for 911 until the battery fails.
If one has no plan, one has no number, and therefor there are no
incoming calls at all! Pretty convenient!
There are NO incoming calls. See above.
There are no charges.
You would look a gift horse in the mouth?
|
| Ivor Jones replied to Rick Merrill on 24 May 2005 |
I think he means emergencies as being able to call home or them be able to
call him, not just being able to call the emergency services.
Ivor
|
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} replied to Ivor Jones on 24 May 2005 |
Yes, that is my meaning of emergencies.
For example you could be out shopping and your child has become very ill or
injured whilst at school, I would want to know as soon as possible if any of
my children where having to be rushed to hospital.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to {{{{{Welcome}}}}} on 24 May 2005 |
For emergency use, forcing the caller to pay to call a mobile phone is a
very bad idea. Already we are seeing that some toll free numbers in the U.S.
won't accept calls from pay phones, because they get charged an extra fee by
the pay phone operator. As it is now, businesses, schools, etc., will
usually let someone use the phone to make an emergency call, but since these
calls are often to mobile phones, this generosity would stop if the caller
had to pay for the call if it were to a mobile.
The pay as you go mobile phones have caller-ID. If you don't want to pay for
an incoming call, you just ignore it. Or you ante up the 10¢ to risk
answering a call from an unknown or blocked caller-ID number.
Free incoming calls would be great, but not if the caller has to pay. Some
carriers used to offer FIMF (first incoming minute free) but AFAIK, none of
the major U.S. carriers still have this (some smaller carriers still include
it).
I hope the U.S. never takes the backward step of making the caller pay to
call a mobile phone. It's a crazy idea. I can't believe that people in
Europe put up with having to pay to call someone on their mobile phone.
|
| Joseph replied to Steven M. Scharf on 24 May 2005 |
I just love people who think that their way of doing things is always
the best. Europeans like it that way. Don't go to Europe and you
won't have to deal with it. Likewise if Europeans don't like the way
we do things here too bad. Get used to it.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Joseph on 24 May 2005 |
I don't claim that the U.S. system is necessarily the best, but no one has
put forth any coherent argument as to why a caller should have to pay extra
to call a mobile phone.
With the U.S. system, the person who wants the convenience of a mobile phone
is responsible for the charges. The owner of the mobile phone can choose
whether or not to answer calls, and is hence in complete control.over their
charges. Callers are not reluctant to call a cell phone because of extra
charges that they might incur.
|
| Ivor Jones replied to Steven M. Scharf on 25 May 2005 |
[snip]
I couldn't agree more.
Ivor (in the UK)
|
| Phil Thompson replied to Steven M. Scharf on 25 May 2005 |
to have the convenience of being able to call the called party
irrespective of their location ?
It is often more of a benefit to the caller to find the called person,
than it is for the called person to be found IME.
Mobile phone = electronic tag, but at least you can turn it off.
Phil
|
| Miguel Cruz replied to Phil Thompson on 25 May 2005 |
Nevertheless it was the choice of the phone owner to carry the phone.
It may be more convenient for you to visit me if I live in an apartment in
the city centre, but that doesn't mean you're going to pay my rent.
miguel
|
| Osmo R replied to Miguel Cruz on 29 May 2005 |
No, but it is expected that I pay to travel there. Note that here one
knows clearly what is a mobile phone (At least on local calls, on
foreign numbers it is harder to tell). For example in Finland all mobile
numbers begin with 04 or 050 and no fixed numbers begin with these. So
the caller knows that there is extra price. In general if the number
begins with 0 there is special cost (long distance, mobile, service number)
But as I have stated so often people do not in general use land lines to
call mobiles. The exceptions are people calling from work and old people
with no mobiles.
Why should receiver pays not apply to long distance and international
calls also?
Osmo
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Osmo R on 29 May 2005 |
Eh? I didn't say I don't have a mobile - I said most people who phone me do so
from a landline. Some of *them* may not have a mobile, and most who do have a
PAYG mobile which is expensive to use.
I think is unfair to expect people to pay 10 times the cost to call me on my
mobile rather than my landline.
Why should they have to check every time?
Nearly all mobiles have caller ID. In the UK most landlines don't.
|
| Joseph replied to Osmo R on 29 May 2005 |
People constantly keep bringing up what goes on in their home country
and seem to think that conditions equally apply everywhere. That's
just not so. Constantly bringing it up may make you feel grand and
superior but it does nothing to change people's situations.
|
| Osmo R replied to Steven M. Scharf on 29 May 2005 |
This whole idea is based on the assumption that mobile phones are
special. They are not so in Finland. They are the norm.
It costs same here to call any phone: land line or mobile. (remember
what is the norm here). In anyway if the caller is reluctant then
maybe his message is not that important anyway.
Osmo
|
| Miguel Cruz replied to Osmo R on 29 May 2005 |
I find this surprising if true. It costs me USD0.028/minute to call a
Finnish landline and USD0.181/minute to call a Finnish mobile - that's 6
times more expensive. Either Finnish mobile providers are subsidizing calls
between each other's networks, or they are colluding and providing lower
prices for inter-network termination than they provide to other operators,
or I have misunderstood your claim, or your claim is incorrect.
miguel
|
| Joseph replied to Steven M. Scharf on 24 May 2005 |
Because *someone* has to pay for the airtime. That's either the
caller (Europe/Asia) or the receiver (North America.) TANSTAAFL.
|
| mobileshoporg replied to Joseph on 24 May 2005 |
Many europeans would not go to the US on principle, because of the
over-intrusive personal data demanded nowadays.
Pariahs of the world, in the view of some.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to mobileshoporg on 24 May 2005 |
This is true, but at least the prepaid wireless is cheap in the U.S., if you
stay away from GSM. You'd think that the weak dollar would help U.S.
tourism, but this is not the case.
At least Europeans should be willing to visit the blue states. There's
nothing much to see in the red states (aka dumb****istan).
|
| Phil Thompson replied to Steven M. Scharf on 24 May 2005 |
I'm afraid the fingerprinting, Nazi immigration questionnaires, shoe
carnival at airport security, taking laptops out of bags and all that
**** is a sufficient deterent to send us elsewhere. Dubai was a
refreshing change.
Phil
|
| Joseph replied to mobileshoporg on 24 May 2005 |
Fine. Stay home. We don't need people like you anyway.
|
| GlintingHedgehog replied to Steven M. Scharf on 25 May 2005 |
I've not heard of any emergency situation where someone has been told
they can call a landline but not a mobile number.
I can quite see how it might be an issue if the "emergency" were that
a school pupil had forgotten his homework, but then that's not the
kind of emergency I'm concerned about being contacted for. In a case
where someone had been injured or was ill, the cost difference
between calling a mobile number and a landline is not large enough
that it's going to stop someone from allowing a call to be made.
|
| Osmo R replied to Steven M. Scharf on 29 May 2005 |
Well is a school is so cheap and uncaring is not a good place to put
children on. In anyway why not use your own mobile to make the call?
I think it is not crazy. It is a general fact in communication that the
one who initiates it pays for it. (Fax paper being one of the few
exceptions). I see no reason why mobile phones should be any exception.
They are by far the most common phones here.
Osmo
|
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} replied to Steven M. Scharf on 24 May 2005 |
And I can't see why anyone would want to favour the USA system.
|
| Ivor Jones replied to {{{{{Welcome}}}}} on 25 May 2005 |
[snip]
I've explained it to you over and over until I'm blue in the face, you're
just not getting it..! Or maybe you don't want to get it.
Ivor
|
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} replied to Ivor Jones on 25 May 2005 |
I fully understand, but to me it is a crazy idea.
I'm not going to change how you feel, and you aren't going to change how I
feel.
It's not a system I would like to see compulsory, but if you did have a choice
of either having a 07 number and not have to pay to receive calls or have an
01 or 02 number and pay for incoming calls then that would be OK. I just
don't want the USA system to be compulsory.
What I am for is choice and to have a debate about the in and outs of a
system, and to show both systems have good and bad points. So I would never
deny you your right to be able to choose a USA system, but not for it to
replace the European system.
|
| Joseph replied to {{{{{Welcome}}}}} on 24 May 2005 |
It won't be and things will likely remain the way they are. Why you
are whipping yourself into a frenzy over the issue of different
charging methods mystifies me. They are not going to change.
|
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} replied to Joseph on 25 May 2005 |
I am not.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Ivor Jones on 25 May 2005 |
Duh, he fully understands the advantages of not forcing callers to pay extra
depending on what type of phone they call. He is just being obstinate.
|
| Joseph replied to {{{{{Welcome}}}}} on 24 May 2005 |
Well, that's *you*! You really are a broken record.
|
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} replied to Joseph on 25 May 2005 |
And you're a prick, but you probably can't change that.
|
| Joseph replied to {{{{{Welcome}}}}} on 25 May 2005 |
I'd say the same applies to you but I won't. I am not in
kindergarten.
|
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} replied to Joseph on 25 May 2005 |
Maybe I was a little harsh, it just annoys me sometimes when people don't
realise we can have a difference of opinion and neither one of us is right or
wrong, and you mention about a broken record, when you are just as much one.
|
| Joseph replied to Ivor Jones on 24 May 2005 |
On TDMA (IS-136) phones that's very possible as well. You just have
to program the phone for 123-456-7890 and it will go to the "American
Roaming Network" any time you attempt to make a chargeable call. If
American Roaming Network places a call for you it's $2.99 to set up
the call and $1.99 per minute. If you absolutely have to make a call
you can. It's one way. No one can call you. For emergencies it will
fill the bill. In fact there's a concern called "Emergency Cell
Phones" which basically jus instructs you on how to program your
phone to use the American Roaming Network. On Nokia phones it's quite
a simple matter.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Joseph on 24 May 2005 |
With Beyond Wireless http://gobeyondwireless.com you may as well activate
the TDMA phone, since there is no monthly or yearly minimum (other than
having to make one call every sixty days to keep the number active). Calls
are between 10¢ and 14¢ per minute, depending on how much time you buy, and
you can buy as little as $5 (it comes with 35 minutes when you activate, and
there is no charge to activate).
|
| Joseph replied to {{{{{Welcome}}}}} on 23 May 2005 |
People in Europe are going to argue with people in North America til
the cows come home, but the fact remains that the North Americans are
*not* going to switch to a caller pays mobile system. That's it.
Get used to it. It's been tried and it failed in North America. If
you want to argue that caller pays is the greatest fine. Just don't
expect us here in North America to agree with you. Arguments are
really a *WASTE OF TIME!*
|
| John R. Levine replied to Joseph on 27 May 2005 |
Well, let's see. That's about USD 27. For $29/mo (plus tax) I get
250 daytime minutes and several thousand weekend minutes. For low use
I could pay $19/mo for 50 minutes. These all include nationwide
roaming and long distance, i.e., I can call anywhere in the US from
Alaska and Hawaii to Maine and Puerto Rico, and I can use my phone
anywhere in the US, even on other carrier's networks in areas where
mine (Cingular) doesn't have coverage.
|
| Joseph replied to John R. Levine on 28 May 2005 |
It isn't so there's no point in moaning over it is there? There's no
point in debating that caller pays is superior to called party pays
either. They are what they are and they're not going to change so why
have a jihad about it?!
|
| Phil Thompson replied to John R. Levine on 27 May 2005 |
about the same as here using the "real world" exchange rate of £1=$1.
We usually include tax in prices. The US market is 5 times bigger than
the UK has a minimum wage that is 40% lower and hasn't changed for
several years and has gasoline/petrol at 1/3 the price. So getting
stuff at the same price or less in the UK is somewhat unlikely.
As for "excessive" charges, can someone tell me which phone company is
making a huge profit %sales or %capital so I can go and buy some of
their shares :-)
Phil
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Phil Thompson on 28 May 2005 |
That is not the "real world" exchange rate.
Why is the minimum wage relavent? That's an amount per hour and doesn't even
correlate with a minimum income.
The average income is far more relevant, and that's about the same in the US and
UK - using the *actual* exchange rate.
Which is down to tax.
It's not. I can drink in a bar/pub cheaper in the UK. I can get a train cheaper
in the UK. I can make a long distance/international landline call for the same
sort of price in the UK as the US.
Why should mobile calls be more expensive in the UK, particularly as our
population density is much greater?
Vodafone were in the news this week. Profits before writedowns of £10.3bn on a
turnover of £34.13bn. Dividends doubled.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4574437.stm
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Andy Pandy on 28 May 2005 |
Until a few years ago the UK didn't even *have* a minimum wage - and the price
differential was about the same as it is now. It's got nothing to do with the
minimum wage.
Yeah - after "writedowns". They made a massive profits on ongoing business -
about 30% of their revenue.
I didn't say meals were more expensive. They are cheaper. Drinking in pubs/bars
is usually much more expensive in the US.
But we're talking telecoms - it's much more relavent to compare telecom prices.
Landline costs are about the same in the UK as the US, possibly even a bit
cheaper in the UK. Mobile prices are much more expensive in the UK, despite
geography, and research shows this *is* down to the caller pays system.
|
| Phil Thompson replied to Andy Pandy on 28 May 2005 |
my mate took his $40/month landline out and now only has VoIP over his
cable broadband. Transferred the same number to the VoIP.
depends what you include in "mobile prices". My mate couldn't get the
phone I have for free (from Orange on a 120 minute tariff) without
paying about $400 for it. So that's about $35/month to add on.
I couldn't be doing with their ****ed up "you can only have this plan
in this ZIP code" mentality either.
Virgin mobile comparison:-
Calls cost 15p a minute for the first five minutes of calls each day
and 5p after that
Calls are 25 cents a minute for the first ten minutes each day, and
then just 10 cents a minute for the rest of the day.
doesn't suggest any massive discepancy.
Phil
|
| Phil Thompson replied to Phil Thompson on 28 May 2005 |
indeed, 35p/min. My Orange phone doesn't differentiate as its an "any
network" tariff (though I probably would get more inclusive minutes if
it wasn't).
Phil
|
| Ivor Jones replied to Phil Thompson on 28 May 2005 |
If it's a "Your Plan" tariff you get 50% extra minutes for Orange to
Orange or to landlines if you opt not to have inclusive cross-net.
Ivor
|
| Ivor Jones replied to Joseph on 24 May 2005 |
Hey, I've been arguing *in favour* of the US system..! I'd like to see it
at least available as an alternative.
Ivor
|
| Joseph replied to Ivor Jones on 24 May 2005 |
That's fine, but it's just not going to happen. Part of it is the
different culture of telephone charging. Europeans have always
expected to pay for all calls. Americans and Canadians for the most
part have not. The reality is that the systems are what they are and
are unlikely to change.
|
| Stuart Friedman replied to Joseph on 24 May 2005 |
Subscriber pays is an option on Orange in the UK. You can get a
geographical number for your mobile and pay for the incoming calls. I think
those calls then come out of your same bucket of minutes. It is not a
commonly used option, but I know a locksmith in the UK who subscribes to it.
We basically works out of his van and decided that he would lose too much
business if he listed a mobile number.
I've benefited from caller pays and can see the attraction. I'm a Yank who
j is a very frequent visitor to the UK. I love have a UK SIM that I just
plop in my phone and go. The caller pay models make it attactive to make
these SIMs available. Caller pays makes emergency phones much easier. Buy
a Virgin SIM, slide an extra tenner on it and you're in business.
Similarly, my best friend who lives in London but has a number of foreign
guests, keeps a visitor's SIM. Like a borrowed car, just bring it back
full. The European model is definitely more convenient, but the American
model has a great deal to be said about it financially.
The problem in my mind with caller pays is that it switches around the
economic model. The caller is in a very difficult position to negotiate for
a cheap termination rate with the mobile provider in exchange for
guaranteeing the use of a largish block of minutes, e.g. I cannot call Voda
and say that I plan on spending a thousand minutes a month calling Voda
customers, what is the best rate you'll give me.
As a result, the cost of terminating calls to mobiles is significantly
higher than it should be. If the price of calling a mobile was only a few
cents higher than calling a landline, caller pays would be great.
This problem is amplified if you have foreign callers. For example, it
costs me two US cents a minute to call a German landline, but twenty-eight
US cents a minute to call a German mobile. The differential is too high.
With caller-pays, the end consumer loses their voice.
In the US, several carriers have free incoming plans. Even though calling
numbers is not surcharged, most people I know who subscribe to them, change
them for buckets with more incoming/outgoing minutes. The exception is
people in certain trades (plummers, taxis, locksmiths, etc).
In closing, I think what I'm saying (as I think out loud) is that the US
plans favor the high volume users. The European seem like a better deal for
the moderate users. Carriers on both sides of the pond rob us blind on
international roaming. Thank god for Riiing.
Stu
"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ff6691lkn30n4ed4997cvc09nga43kd5e6@4ax.com...
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Stuart Friedman on 25 May 2005 |
Absolutely. I'm generally in favour of a caller pays system on the grounds that
the caller has made the decision to make the call, and there is a choice about
who pays (eg the called party can call back the caller to switch around who
pays). Also I've sometimes needed to contact people on their mobile to ask
advice etc, purely for my benefit, and felt guilty enough disturbing them when
their out and about - I'd feel even worse if it was costing them.
But the mobile operators simply take the p with termination charges, and most
mobile users never give this a second thought. There are big price differences
between termination charges for different operators (eg calling a non-ported "3"
mobile in the evening will cost you over double calling a Vodafone) but is this
ever a decision making selling point?
Sounds about right for rec.travel.europe.
A regulator with teeth?
|
| Ivor Jones replied to Stuart Friedman on 24 May 2005 |
AFAIK the calls *don't* come out of inclusive minutes and are charged at a
very high rate and not worth it at all unless you can get a generous
employer to pay. In the case of your locksmith friend, a possibly cheaper
option would be to list his ordinary landline number and divert that to
his mobile when he's out. In fact I do that myself occasionally if I'm
expecting a call on the landline and have to go out unexpectedly. I'd
still prefer the US mobile system though..!
I would much rather have the US system. I rarely use all my inclusive
minutes even with a low calling plan (120 minutes) so using a few for
incoming calls would enable me to make the most of them and encourage
people to call me as well.
I just don't understand why it isn't available as an *option* for those
who want it. The Orange system isn't a true equivalent.
Ivor
|
| GlintingHedgehog replied to Ivor Jones on 24 May 2005 |
I've used both systems - have lived in North America and the UK - and
much prefer the UK system. I am much more willing to give out my
mobile number here in the UK, because I know that I'm not having to
pay for them doing so, whereas in North America, many people don't
give out their cellular numbers as freely because they don't want to
receive sales calls, for example. It's clear in the UK when you're
dialling a mobile number, and you choose to incur the cost or not,
whereas with the North American system, the person receiving (and
paying for) the call doesn't have any choice in the matter. As far as
using up extra minutes on incoming calls is concerned, I simply offer
to call people straight back.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to GlintingHedgehog on 24 May 2005 |
Of course they do. They can choose not to answer the call. Caller ID is
standard, and the phone displays who is calling if the name is in your
phone's phonebook.
|
| GlintingHedgehog replied to Steven M. Scharf on 25 May 2005 |
If you choose not to answer, it usually goes to voicemail, and you
pay for that anyway. And if the name's not in your phonebook, you
either take the call or take the chance of missing a call you want to
get - which is kind of a major point of having a mobile phone for me
in the first place.
|
| S Viemeister replied to GlintingHedgehog on 25 May 2005 |
On some, you don't pay to retrieve them, either.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to GlintingHedgehog on 25 May 2005 |
Some prepaid plans charge for this, but most do not. Also, you can listen to
your voicemail from a landline, and save your minutes.
|
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} replied to Ivor Jones on 24 May 2005 |
This idea is only good if you are happy to waste £25+ a month on a contract
phone, that you don't really need, when you can spend a few pennies a month on
a PAYG phone, that doesn't cost you any thing to receive calls.
No point in keep arguing, as said before changing to the poorer USA system is
unlikely. I just don't see the point of being forced to pay to receive calls,
all this will do is penalise those people who do not want to waste money each
month on a contract phone, and are happy to let £5 last them months, as the
phone is only really used for emergencies or maybe if they are out and someone
needs to get in touch.
I used to have a contract since 1996, about 18 months ago I ditched it, best
decision made, no longer need to waste almost £30 a month on the phone, and
just pay for the odd call I make, and it doesn't cost me a penny if someone
rings me, why should I pay when it is them who want to get in contact with me!
I make calls on my landline for free and via VoIP, I always try an call people
on their landlines first, second or third, only if it is really important do I
try a mobile, and then it is only a short call.
So again for someone who only wants the phone to use in an emergency, and that
includes those emergencies when someone need to reach them, why should they be
penalised.
If Europe had gone down the USA route of callee pays, then there wouldn't be
anywhere near the amount of mobile users as there is. Whether that is good or
bad.
|
| GlintingHedgehog replied to {{{{{Welcome}}}}} on 25 May 2005 |
Does anyone have stats for what proportion of the population have=20
mobile phones in the UK compared to North America?
It seemed to me that last time I lived in the latter (until about 1.5=20
years ago), more people (proportionally) had mobiles here in the UK.=20
I'm sure that the possibility of being contact-able, without having=20
to pay for a contract, is the major reason for that. Certainly I=20
wouldn't have had a mobile phone when I first did if I'd had to sign=20
up to a contract. I used a PAYG for about four years before getting a=20
contract, and if I couldn't get a "free" contract (via cashback deal)=20
I would go back to PAYG now. For me - and I'm sure I'm not alone in=20
this - being available for people to contact is more important than=20
being able to make calls when I'm out. It's rare that I need to make=20
a call that can't wait a couple of hours until I'm next to a=20
landline, but I find it reassuring that I can be contacted in an=20
emergency at any time (I have elderly family members and four=20
children).
|
| Stuart Friedman replied to GlintingHedgehog on 25 May 2005 |
For casual users, the UK system certainly makes the buy in cheaper. For
large volume users, I think the US system is cheaper.
Mobile statistics aren't completely fair, however, an extra Virgin SIM
sitting in a dresser qualifies as a UK mobile for statistic purposes.
Stu
"GlintingHedgehog" <hedgehog@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cfe4702e07904809896d3@news.dial.pipex.com...
In article <q_2dnSJI0Ma6GA7fRVnyhg@pipex.net>, bhx@hotmail.co.uk
says...
Does anyone have stats for what proportion of the population have
mobile phones in the UK compared to North America?
It seemed to me that last time I lived in the latter (until about 1.5
years ago), more people (proportionally) had mobiles here in the UK.
I'm sure that the possibility of being contact-able, without having
to pay for a contract, is the major reason for that. Certainly I
wouldn't have had a mobile phone when I first did if I'd had to sign
up to a contract. I used a PAYG for about four years before getting a
contract, and if I couldn't get a "free" contract (via cashback deal)
I would go back to PAYG now. For me - and I'm sure I'm not alone in
this - being available for people to contact is more important than
being able to make calls when I'm out. It's rare that I need to make
a call that can't wait a couple of hours until I'm next to a
landline, but I find it reassuring that I can be contacted in an
emergency at any time (I have elderly family members and four
children).
|
| Ivor Jones replied to {{{{{Welcome}}}}} on 24 May 2005 |
I have a contract anyway, the money isn't wasted for me. So why can't I
choose to use my inclusive minutes for receiving calls..?
You must realise that not everybody is like you and only has a PAYG phone
which they rarely use. My contract phone is used for both work and
personal use and is used daily. There is a system I would like to use (the
US one) that I cannot have due to the way the mobile companies think I
ought to be using my phone. I am paying them money for a service, why
can't I have the service I want..? I agree not everyone wants the system I
want, but that's no reason it can't be provided as an option for those
that do want it. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
If you're already paying for inclusive minutes, as I am, then it doesn't
cost you any extra. For a PAYG emergency phone, where a tenner credit
could theoretically last years, does it really matter that much..?
But if you only had to pay the same as for a landline, it wouldn't
matter..!
Like I said, for such a few (presumably) short calls, is it really that
much of a problem..? I know someone whose mother has a PAYG phone that
only sees one or two calls a year. What difference would a few pence for
the odd incoming call make to her when a tenner credit lasts years..?
Answer nothing.
Ivor
|
| GlintingHedgehog replied to Ivor Jones on 25 May 2005 |
Would it be possible for you to forward your landline number to your
mobile? (I don't know, I'm just wondering if it's something that's
possible and might work for your situation.)
|
| Ivor Jones replied to GlintingHedgehog on 25 May 2005 |
Yes I can and I do on occasion, but the point I am trying to make is I
want the US system of incoming calls *coming from inclusive minutes* which
seems an impossibility..!
Ivor
|
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} replied to GlintingHedgehog on 25 May 2005 |
Yes, this is possible.
|
| Joseph replied to {{{{{Welcome}}}}} on 24 May 2005 |
And you lied! You said no point in arguing but you come right out and
say that the USA system is poorer. You have made the decision for
everyone haven't you?! Somehow you think you have "won" the argument
when in fact you haven't done any such thing! They are different
systems and likely will remain so. Why you feel you need to put in
your feelings of your system's superiority is quite beyond me.
|
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} replied to Joseph on 24 May 2005 |
There are no winners or losers to the argument. I think the USA system is
crazy, the odd few think it is a good idea. Arguing ain't going to change it
anytime soon.
|
| Joseph replied to {{{{{Welcome}}}}} on 24 May 2005 |
Then why the hell do you do it?! You continue to claim that your
system is better and then say "arguing ain't going to change it."
Don't speak out of both sides of your mouth.
|
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} replied to Joseph on 25 May 2005 |
Isn't that the point of having a mouth, be pretty stupid to only talk out of
one half!
Makes you wonder how the USA got to the moon, or out of the studio.
If English isn't your first language, then I can forgive you for finding
English difficult to comprehend.
I believe our system is better, and you believe your system is better. I am
not going to change your mind, and you ain't going to change my mind on the
matter.
So there is little point arguing on that matter, as I can't see either the USA
or Europe changing the system they have in place, but that doesn't mean I
can't voice my opinion on the matter.
|
| mobileshoporg replied to Stuart Friedman on 26 May 2005 |
Look at www.call18866.co.uk for an example. Around 10p on weekdays, 3p
at weekends, I think.
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to mobileshoporg on 26 May 2005 |
I should have mentioned I've been making weekday calls to mobiles for 6p
a minute since March, but that's on the easymobile promotion, which is
due to finish at the end of June!
|
| mobileshoporg replied to Stuart Friedman on 24 May 2005 |
You can also get 0800 or 0845 or 0870 numbers that terminate at a
mobile.
|
| Ivor Jones replied to mobileshoporg on 24 May 2005 |
Which isn't the point under discussion.
Ivor
|
| mobileshoporg replied to Ivor Jones on 24 May 2005 |
Yes it is. It is a way that user of the mobile phone can pay for the
mobile leg of the call, so that callers don't have to pay a premium to
call a mobile.
|
| Andy Pandy replied to mobileshoporg on 25 May 2005 |
The caller *is* charged a premium for calling 0845 and 0870 numbers on nearly
all landline tariffs.
As for 0800 numbers terminating on a mobile - how much does that cost? Massively
more than the typical 10c/min US mobile users pay for incoming calls, I'd wager.
So yes, it is possible, but the costs are prohibitive.
|
| Ivor Jones replied to Andy Pandy on 25 May 2005 |
[snip]
Where do you get 10c/min..? My friends in the US get their calls taken
from their (large) bucket of inclusive minutes, they never pay over the
agreed line rental irrespective of the number of incoming or outgoing
calls they receive/make.
Ivor
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Ivor Jones on 25 May 2005 |
On prepaid, the best plans charge 10¢ per minute. See
http://prepaiduswireless.com . Also, if you divide the monthly cost of a
postpaid plan, by the number of included peak minutes, it works out to
around 10¢ per minute on the plans with the minimum number of included
minutes..
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Steven M. Scharf on 25 May 2005 |
Which GSM prepaid plans charge 10 cents a minute? If it didn't need
recharging withing 6 months, I'd get on in an instant!
|
| Joseph replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 25 May 2005 |
On Wed, 25 May 2005 17:44:34 +0100, this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.com
Once you get to gold rewards level with T-Mobile you can get 10
cent/minute which lasts for a year's time.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 25 May 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
No, not GSM. Only TDMA. There is a GSM plan that is 10¢ per minute, but it's
with a minimum of $25 per month. But in the U.S., TDMA coverage is much,
much better than GSM coverage, at least for now. And the TDMA phones can
also use AMPS, which means you get as much coverage as possible (there are
only two GSM phones that have AMPS capability, and they are not easily
available).
See http://prepaiduswireless.com
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Ivor Jones on 25 May 2005 |
Mentioned in this thread, I guess for a PAYG phone.
To work out the real cost for a contract phone with inclusive minutes, divide
the line rental by the number of minutes actually *used* per month (not the
number of minutes included).
|
| Stuart Friedman replied to Andy Pandy on 25 May 2005 |
I'm paying US$90 a month for 2,500 prime time minutes. That includes
incoming and outgoing calls. Calls made before 7am or after 7pm are free,
as are calls to other subscribers on the ATT/Cingular network.
http://onlinestorez.cingular.com/cell-phone-service/wireless-phone-plans/plan-details.jsp?skuid=csku00024
For $99 a month, you receive 2000 minutes, free nights, weekends,and mobile
to mobile calls. Not counting, the nights and weekends, you are paying
about just over three cents a minute. If you factor in the free calls, your
per minute cost drops to about two cents a minute for the average user. Not
bad for $54 quid.
Stu
.
"Andy Pandy" <spam8times@wonderful.spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:3fhsj6F805qnU1@individual.net...
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Stuart Friedman on 25 May 2005 |
http://onlinestorez.cingular.com/cell-phone-service/wireless-phone-plans/plan-de
tails.jsp?skuid=csku00024
For a high user I'm sure it's a good deal. But it depends on what you *actually*
use, or rather actually *need* to use, not how many minutes are included.
I know people here in the UK paying £30+ for mobile contracts with masses of
inclusive minutes which they either never use - or use up making calls which
they could have used their landline for at trivial cost. When you divide their
contract cost by the number of minutes they actually needed to use their mobile
for (ie not including calls made from home/work) the cost per minute is usually
massive.
|
| Phil Thompson replied to Andy Pandy on 25 May 2005 |
for which reason I moved to Vodafone's "no inclusive minute" plan. On
the current offer this is £14/month cheaper than the 200 minute plan
so the breakeven is at around 78 minutes of flat-rate calls to any
network.
Phil
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Phil Thompson on 25 May 2005 |
Yup. My company mobile sounds similar, it's a good tariff, the company gets
charged something like £4 a month line rental, and calls are between 3-5p per
minute to landlines and Vodafones, and about 15-20ppm to other networks. Min
charge 1p. I made 30 personal calls last month and it came to less than £1.
|
| Stuart Friedman replied to Andy Pandy on 25 May 2005 |
In response to Andy's comments about people buying more minutes than they
need, my response is: I probably buy a little more than I need because you
get hosed when you go over, but I haven't hesitated to down side my minutes
when my consumption went down. I make numerous business calls from the road
and my mobile number is effectively a second business line for me.
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Stuart Friedman on 25 May 2005 |
Exactly - I've seen UK tariffs where excess minutes are charged at higher rates
than even PAYG! It's an obvious ploy to get people to sign up for tariffs with
large amounts of inclusive minutes so they never need excess minutes.
The reality is that for many people, their mobile usage varies greatly from
month to month, and so having a tariff which gives them a fixed number of
minutes per month, which can't be carried over, will mean either wasting bucket
loads of minutes or paying silly charges for excess minutes.
That's fine if you can predict in advance how much you're going to be using your
mobile. If you can't, you may be better off with a tariff without inclusive
minutes instead of buying up front.
|
| Ivor Jones replied to Andy Pandy on 25 May 2005 |
[snip]
Fair enough. I rarely use all my allocated minutes, which is why I'd like
the US system - using some of them for incoming calls would benefit me by
helping me to use them all up as well as the caller by reducing their
costs.
Ivor
|
| mobileshoporg replied to Ivor Jones on 26 May 2005 |
No, it would simply put up the cost of the bundle. They are priced on
the expectation that most inclusive minutes are not used, because so
many people are too innumerate to realise that having all your calls
in bundle is a bad idea.
|
| Ivor Jones replied to mobileshoporg on 25 May 2005 |
Ok, *my* point is I want to be able to pay for incoming calls out of my
inclusive minutes, as per the US system. Why can't I have this as an
option..? I fully realise not everybody wants it, but it should be
available for those of us that do.
Ivor
|
| Ivor Jones replied to Ivor Jones on 25 May 2005 |
Sorry to reply to my own post but I forgot to mention - an 0845 or 0870
number is almost as bad as mobile rate..! 0800 is ok but there aren't many
0800 providers that will divert to a mobile and those that do aren't
cheap. I want calls out of my minutes, is that so hard to understand..?!
Ivor
|
| mobileshoporg replied to Ivor Jones on 26 May 2005 |
Well, yes it is, in fact. Inclusive calls are a bit of a swindle, used
by networks to keep revenues up from low users, Unless you are paying
for 10% of your calls after using the inclusive ones, you are on the
wrong tariff.
Me? I'm happy with Virgin tariff. No inclusive calls at all.
So why do you want to have to pay for incoming call minutes you may
not end up using, and over which you have almost no control?
If you are concerned about using your inclusive minutes to speak to
callers, ring them back. How hard is that?
As for 0800 numbers terminating on a mobile being expensive, you may
have a point. Mine costs around 20p per minute in peak times, whereas
the 0800 number to my office is only 2p per minute.
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Stuart Friedman on 25 May 2005 |
It varies greatly depending on which mobile network, which landline provider,
and the time of day.
Peak rates are generally between 10-22p per min. Off peak and weekends are
cheaper.
I use TalkTalk for my landline, rates are here (they also show BT rates):
http://www.talktalk.co.uk/talktalk/servlet/gben-tariffs-Tariffs?tariff=TALK1
Nope.
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Andy Pandy on 25 May 2005 |
They aren't free.
Or were you just suggesting I'd be better off with them than with TT? I
wouldn't, because I don't make many peak rate calls. The vast majority of my
offpeak calls are cheaper with TT than with 1899/18866 (I've still got the
year's free evening/weekend calls deal).
Besides I would never give a CCA to anyone (or have they started taking DD yet -
ISTR there has been a FAQ on their website for ages saying they are looking to
make DD available soon).
|
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} replied to Andy Pandy on 25 May 2005 |
I too still have the years free evening and weekend landline calls with Talk
Talk.
I use1899 weekdays except to T-Mobile (+virtuals) and Vodafone in the evening
when Talk Talk is cheaper.
At the moment if I use 1899's 0808 access number instead of the 1899 access
number weekend mobiles are 2p/min.
|
| Andy Pandy replied to {{{{{Welcome}}}}} on 25 May 2005 |
TT are also cheaper for Orange and O2 numbers in your calling circle.
Yes, weekend calls are cheaper on 1899. Although the vast majority of my calls
to mobiles are very short anyway, so accounting for the 3p connection fee 1899
charge, TT could actually be cheaper! Whatever, the difference in my bill would
be trivial.
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Stuart Friedman on 25 May 2005 |
It will vary depending on the company you call, but many third party
providers have set rates. The company I use charges 10p a minute anytime
during the week- and 3p a minute at weekends, plus a 3p set up charge.
It costs the same whether I make the call from a landline or from my
mobile. I can call landlines from my mobile for a 3p set up charge-
thereafter unlimited. Anytime. I call the US from my mobile for 1p a
minute anytime- I have 1500 free minutes (offpeak and weekend) a month
to call the US and many other countries. Simply put, there are
advantages and disadvantages in both systems- I prefer the plan I have!
I don't know- I would doubt it. Plenty of mobile phone plans have free
(or lots of) minutes for calling landlines (and mobiles on the same
company) though.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 25 May 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
<this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in
Thanks. This confirms what the researcher stated
http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/dae/repec/cam/pdf/cwpe0426.pdf . The cost of
mobile phone calls in Europe is much, much higher than in the U.S..
It's the carriers in Europe that don't want RPP, since their revenue would
plunge as the price of mobile calls drops dramatically. They have succeeded
in convincing people that "incoming calls are free," isn't that just
terrific?! In fact, the actual cost per call is far higher than under RPP.
So the best plan for use in Europe, is to try to always be sure that the
mobile phone calls a landline, and to avoid calling a mobile phone whenever
possible, due to the high termination charges, unless it's a mobile on the
same network.
Do they charge the sender to send a text message from a computer to a phone?
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Steven M. Scharf on 25 May 2005 |
Of course it is. I'm surprised you needed confirmation of this. It
doesn't bother me though.
No, the charges are quite transparent. I don't pay to receive a call. I
pay 10p to call another mobile, 3p at weekends. I'm quite happy with
that situation.
Depends on your plan. Again, not everyone has a problem with that.
Sometimes. Depends on the provider sending the text messages.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 25 May 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
<this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in
In the U.S., you can send a message to a mobile phone from a regular e-mail,
without any charge. Some mobile plans don't charge for incoming text
messages. I.e., I got a prepaid phone for my daughter, it's as low as 10
cents per minute, no minumums, no expiration of time, and had free incoming
text messages.
|
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} replied to Steven M. Scharf on 25 May 2005 |
No UK operator charges for incoming text messages, except the premium rate
reversed billed ones, like weather reports, horoscopes etc.
There are still a few websites that allow you to send for free a text message
to a mobile.
|
| Osmo R replied to Steven M. Scharf on 29 May 2005 |
There is no need to convince that incoming calls are free. That is
assumed here. People have never paid for incoming calls. In fact people
complain when they have to pay for incoming calls when they roam. Please
do not project your views to us. Nobody would want to pay for receiving
calls here.
Here some operators actually compensate the user for incoming calls with
free airtime.
Osmo
|
| Ivor Jones replied to Osmo R on 29 May 2005 |
[snip]
Speak for yourself. I know which system I prefer.
Ivor
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Osmo R on 29 May 2005 |
So far, the riiing SIM has worked fine for me. Especially, as a lot of
my trips involve a short time in different countries, it's ideal for me-
and frankly, it isn't going to cost much more (if at all) for most
people to call me on a Lichtenstein mobile number than a UK one! :)
|
| Andy Pandy replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 29 May 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
Providing they use a call-through, eg telediscount or telestunt. Otherwise it'll
likely cost them a fortune (IIRC BT charge about 50ppm and TalkTalk about
40ppm).
1899 don't have rates for Lichenstein on their web site.
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Andy Pandy on 29 May 2005 |
BT's website says 18ppm during the week, 16ppm weekend to _landlines_. I
can't find what the mobile surcharge would be, but oddly, the only call
I made from the landline was charged 16ppm last weekend. I'll try a
weekday call and see what the per minute charge is. I'd read elsewhere
that 18ppm was the BT charge, so maybe it's the same, at the moment.
Yes- they don't actually place calls there- nor do 18866 yet.
|
| Andy Pandy replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 29 May 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/current/docs/Cust_Opts_Res.boo/31853.htm
gives landline rates as you quote.
Further down is:
Table 4 - International Direct Dialled (IDD) PPM Prices to Mobile Telephones
Operative Date:01.08.2000
IDD calls to some mobile telephones will be charged at 21.27 pence (ex VAT)/25
pence (inc VAT) per minute more than the equivalent IDD calls to fixed
telephones. Full details of the destinations and number ranges to which this
applies are shown in Section 2 Part 16
which points at:
http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/current/docs/Call_Charges.boo/16361.htm
which show codes (423) 76/77/78/79 are subject to this surcharge (so that would
be cheaper than I quoted, 41-43ppm).
I guess if the number of your SIM doesn't start as above, then you'll pay the
landline rate, although this would seem odd, I thought the numbers in that list
included all mobiles (except for countries like US and Canada where the receiver
pays).
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Andy Pandy on 29 May 2005 |
The number is 423 66 etc.- so that might explain it.
|
| Andy Pandy replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 29 May 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
Interesting. You could try the telediscount number for Liechenstein landlands,
this would be 5ppm. Or the mobile one is 10ppm.
|
| Miguel Cruz replied to Osmo R on 29 May 2005 |
They might if they knew it would result in the cost of their outgoing calls
dropping to half or less.
miguel
|
| Osmo R replied to Miguel Cruz on 01 Jun 2005 |
They do not. I surely do not.
Osmo
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Osmo R on 01 Jun 2005 |
It depends on the laws in each country, and if collusion is legal or not. In
a free market, the total cost per call would fall dramatically with mobile
party pays, because the cost becomes transparent (in the UK sense of the
word!).
All studies on the issue of CPP/RPP/MPP show that the cost falls with MPP.
|
| Osmo R replied to Steven M. Scharf on 01 Jun 2005 |
Here the law prevents bundling phones with connections and long
contracts (in the latter I am not sure though if it is really law).
People here are free to switch whenever they wish keeping the number. As
the result the cost of call to foreign network is well below the
termination fee, sometimes it is almost half of it. Also the termination
fees have dropped significantly from around 13 c/min to 6.8-10 c/min.
Osmo
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Osmo R on 01 Jun 2005 |
California originally prohibited linking the handset price with a contract,
but eliminated this restriction more than ten years ago.
This is the key problem with CPP, and every study on the subject has reached
the same conclusion. The termination fees are significantly raising the
price per call, because the termination fee becomes the major part of the
cost of wireless service.
to 6.8-10 c/min.
Still very high. The regulators should limit termination fees to the same
level as what a carrier charges to call a landline or mobile, at the same
day and time.
|
| Osmo R replied to Steven M. Scharf on 02 Jun 2005 |
Here removing the man is considered on 3G phones. The removing should be
temporary. So many temporary decisions end up being permanent so I am
not that keen on seeing it lifted. The problem with 3G is not the cost
of the handsets but operators not giving good enough plans. They give
the same as with GSM so why bother.
I have no interest in paying for anyone's handset in my phone bills.
And just how many of those studies have studied the situation in Finland?
I agree they should be limited. I am not exactly sure of the powers the
regulators have but in general they prefer negotiations instead of
dictating the prices. However, the termination fee is not that much an
issue as the calls already cost less. The fact that we have a separation
between service and network operators confuses the issue even though all
the three network operators have their own service operator.
Osmo
|
| Osmo R replied to Osmo R on 02 Jun 2005 |
I am not. Thiose who say that CPP always leads to higher prices are.
Osmo
|
| Ivor Jones replied to Osmo R on 2 Jun 2005 |
That's because they're right.
Ivor
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Ivor Jones on 02 Jun 2005 |
Finland is an anomaly in wireless, for reasons that we are all well aware
of.
|
| Osmo R replied to Steven M. Scharf on 03 Jun 2005 |
So which is it? Does CPP always lead to high prices or is Finland an
exception? And if Finland is an exception, what could be the reason for it?
Osmo
|
| Steve Sobol replied to Osmo R on 03 Jun 2005 |
Finland's cost structure is different because Finland's telecomm structure
is primarily wireless - AS I'VE SAID BEFORE IN THIS THREAD, there is a much
higher ratio of wireless uses to wireline users in Finland than anywhere
else. Pay attention.
|
| Osmo R replied to Steve Sobol on 04 Jun 2005 |
But the termination charges are just something that operators pay to
each other. They are not paid by the callers. Their influence on the
caller prices is not so simple. Sure they have some effect but as long
as the calls spread evenly between networks the termination fees even
up. That operators lose on outgoing inter-network calls they gain in
incoming ones.
Those are charges international callers using that specific operator
pay. They have nothing to do with Finnish domestic calls. The
termination fees between mobile operators are 6.8-10 cents per minute
(without VAT) with largest networks having smallest ones.
Osmo
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Steven M. Scharf on 25 May 2005 |
Yes.
It's not something they ever make a point of, as incoming calls are always
assumed to be free. What they do do, is use termination charges to subsidise
"free" handsets and contracts.
Exactly.
There used to be a web site that did this free but I think it charges now.
|
| Ivor Jones replied to Andy Pandy on 25 May 2005 |
[snip]
Orange still do 30 free SMS a month from their website but you have to be
an Orange customer to access it.
Ivor
|
| Joseph replied to Andy Pandy on 25 May 2005 |
Ha! It's to pay for everything. That's how the company makes money
on the airtime that they sell. They're just designating who pays for
the freight that's all. Mobile companies make money on the service
that they sell whether that's airtime for voice traffic or whatever
they charge for data use on their network.
|
| Andy Pandy replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 25 May 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
Either you have a plan I'd be very interested in, or you have an interesting
definition of the word "free". Are you sure you don't mean "inclusive"?
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Andy Pandy on 25 May 2005 |
Oh, meant inclusive.
I get confused sometimes, as most of the calls I make from my mobile, I
don't pay the mobile company for. I see my contract as a £15 monthly
commitment, which allows me similar (if not exactly the same) access to
cheap calls as a landline would. The offpeak inclusive calls are an
added bonus.
|
| Andy Pandy replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 25 May 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
Orange ED50?
Shows your typical £30 per month contract up to be the rip-off it is.
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Andy Pandy on 26 May 2005 |
Indeed!
|
| Joseph replied to Stuart Friedman on 25 May 2005 |
Most US carriers had this feature for a while. Unless you've got an
old grandfathered plan such does not exist any longer.
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Stuart Friedman on 24 May 2005 |
Exactly, and this is the main problem with the caller pays system. Mobile
companies have the choice of diverting charges away from their own customers, to
their customers' callers. Thereby offering what appear to be very cheap deals -
even free handset and calls for a year with some cashback deals - because a
significant proportion of their revenue comes from termination charges.
When people weigh up the costs of their mobile use, they rarely seem to account
for the cost which will be bourne by their callers. A friend of mine ended up
with a massive landline bill a few months ago - reason was his wife's best
friend got a "3" mobile with loads of inclusive minutes and cancelled her
landline. She didn't even stop to think that it'll massively increase the cost
to her callers, nor did her friend till the bill arrived. An hour long call
which was free jumped to nearly £10 ! She's been persuaded to put her landline
back in...
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Stuart Friedman on 25 May 2005 |
I don't remember that thread.
Given the population density and size of Singapore, it's apples and
oranges.
|
| Joseph replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 27 May 2005 |
Sorry, but you do not pay for toll-free calls. Those are the only
calls you don't pay for on metered service besides emergency calls.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Joseph on 27 May 2005 |
I called SBC (Pacific Bell) because I was thinking of switching to metered
service since we rarely use the landline (but they won't let you get DSL
without a landline). They told me that I would be charged for everything
except 911. I explicitly asked about toll free calls, and they said that
these were counted the same as local calls.
However I called back just now and checked again, and was told the opposite,
toll free numbers are not included in the per minute rate. So I owe you a
beer.
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 27 May 2005 |
How about it? I'm sure you could get a suit hand tailored there for a
lot less too...
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 27 May 2005 |
<this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes.
And China's mobile phone coverage is nothing like anything you'd expect
in Western Europe.
There are many factors that affect pricing, and I'm not even arguing
that the UK's is reasonable. I don't know if it is or isn't frankly- but
just comparing it to other countries isn't useful in determining that.
|
| Andy Pandy replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 27 May 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
The US has a much lower population density than the UK, yet lower mobile charges
overall. Termination charges charged by UK mobile operators are a rip-off, pure
and simple.
I think a simple way to end this rip-off while retaining the caller pays system,
would be if OFCOM banned T&C's which restrict who can buy mobile tariffs and
what they can use them for. If a mobile tariff is available to the public, then
anyone should be able to buy it, including other telcos.
Then you'd get discount telcos like 1899 buying banks of mobiles on top-end
contracts, and using them to route calls to mobiles and being able to offer very
cheap rates. BT could even do it. Termination revenues would then plummet and
the mobile operators would be forced into a more honest pricing policy. And
prices would be cheaper overall.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Andy Pandy on 27 May 2005 |
Yes, this is what the studies have concluded. And the termination charges
now, have come down from several years ago, but are still very high.
The key to the operators being able to get away with this, is making sure
that enough of the populace never looks at the big picture. They convince
them that 'incoming calls are free,' even though that this is untrue.
Externalizing the cost so it doesn't appear on the mobile phone owners bill,
but is instead distributed among all the people that call the mobile, makes
it appear insignificant.
What makes you think that OFCOM is looking out for the interests of
consumers?
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Andy Pandy on 27 May 2005 |
Define overall. I'm very happy with what I get for my 15 quid a month,
and I can't offhand think of any plan I'd rather have- other than it
being free. I'm happy to pay 10p a minute to call a UK mobile- even
happier with the 6p I currently pay (for a limited time.)
|
| Andy Pandy replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 27 May 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
The average cost of a call is lower (including charges paid by both parties).
But you only have a choice of UK plans. Your combination of Orange ED50 plus
1899 is a good deal *for the UK* but I'd wager it could be beaten in the US
(factoring in of course the premiums paid by your callers).
You're plan is - let's see if this is right - £15 a month, inclusive 50 minutes
offpeak a day to landlines and Orange mobiles (perhaps 25% of UK mobiles). To
call other mobiles you pay 3p + 10ppm during the week, 2ppm at weekends. To call
landlines peak you pay 3p per call. People calling you generally pay a 10ppm
premium.
10ppm is a rip-off. I can call someone in Sydney for a tenth of that price (1ppm
with Telediscount to Australia).
You might be happy paying £3 for a half hour chat, but I'm not.
Still, if most people are like you, I might just get a 10ppm premium rate 09xx
number - after all if people don't mind paying that sort of price I might as
well make some money out of it!
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Andy Pandy on 27 May 2005 |
Which plan beats it then, for my uses.
And calls to practically all the landlines I'm likely to call abroad.
I generally call landlines, both here and abroad, from my mobile. I pay
extremely low rates abroad as well, and I can call most of those numbers
as part of my inclusive calls. Seems like a pretty good deal to me-
there's a good reason it's not available to new susbcribers, without
transferring the plan from one person to another.
I can call someone in Australia using inclusive minutes, but I won't be
able to call a mobile in Sydney for that- nor will you- so make sure
you've got your comparisons straight.
I don't chat for half an hour when I'm calling someone's mobile. Most of
the calls I do make to mobiles are relatively short- and it's not
something that bothers me. The caller pays system has distinct
advantages for me as the consumer. If I wanted to cover their costs, I
could always divert my landline to my mobile, but of course I wouldn't.
The current system suits me very well- I certainly prefer it to the US
system, and I used to live there.
|
| Andy Pandy replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 27 May 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
If I knew I'd have posted it. Haven't got a clue about specific US tariffs. I
posted the details hoping someone from the US would tell us.
Some UK corporate deals are very good - I've got a company mobile which costs my
company £4 a month, and call rates are 3-5ppm, cross network 15-20ppm. I have
never got anywhere near to spending £11 a month on calls. Last month I made 30
calls and it came to less than £1.
Yes, because you're not paying mobile termination premiums.
I have! I'm comparing the cost of calling *landlines* with calling mobiles (in
the UK and other countries where it is free to receive). My point was that the
premium to call a mobile (both here and to other countries where it is free to
receive) is massive and 10 times the cost of sending the call to a landline on
the other side of the world.
I'm in favour of it too but without rip-off termination charges. It should cost
about the same to call a mobile from a landline as it does to call a landline
from a mobile - exactly the same resources are being used in both cases.
I think it is possible to get lower charges while retaining caller pays - as I
described.
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Andy Pandy on 28 May 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
What for? That's just comparing UK mobile termination premiums with Australian
mobile termination premiums, both countries use the same system with the same
problem.
A better comparison would be cost of calling a US mobile (including the charge
paid by the recipient) with the cost of calling a European/Australian mobile.
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Andy Pandy on 28 May 2005 |
It would be pretty tough to figure that out though, given the variation
in what you pay for incoming in the US.
Besides, I hardly ever call US cell phones- I call people on their
landlines.
|
| Ivor Jones replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 28 May 2005 |
Given that the US system doesn't differentiate between landlines and
mobiles from the caller's POV, how do you know..?!
Ivor
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Ivor Jones on 28 May 2005 |
Most often, because they tell me.
|
| Andy Pandy replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 28 May 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
Typical 10c per minute, about 5.5p.
1899 and 18866 typically charge a 13-14ppm premium (above the landline rate) to
call mobiles in countries were it is free to receive. So nearly 3 times the
cost, and that's probably best value. BT charge a 25ppm premium.
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Andy Pandy on 27 May 2005 |
I know- but that's not the factor- the point is, I can call them.
It's not a straight comparison, because you compared the cost of calling
a UK mobile to an Australian landline- compare a UK mobile to an
Australian mobile for a better comparison.
You also have to remember that the cost of calling landlines has fallen
dramatically. I remember in the 90s, when I lived in the US, thinking
that 10 cents a minute to call the UK was a great deal. Now, I'd think
it was too expensive.
Ah- but on some plans, it does cost the same. Look at the rip-off Orange
'Your Plan' jokes. It works out around 10p a minute to call a landline.
I'm all for lowering the charges, and trying to lower them- though I
think that consumer choice has a lot to do with it- i.e. they shouldn't
use the more expensive services. Problem is, consumers here are often
wowed by signing up for a contract to get a silly new phone that they
don't need.
|
| Ivor Jones replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 28 May 2005 |
[snip]
Wouldn't you be happier paying the same to call a mobile as a landline..?
One reason I *never* call a mobile from a landline is the sheer ripoff
charges. It's not so bad from my mobile but it's still a hell of a lot
worse than the US system IMHO.
Ivor
|
| harrogate2 replied to Ivor Jones on 28 May 2005 |
Got to be something wrong when it is cheaper (for the caller) to use a
service that places a cross-network UK-UK mobile call or a
landline-mobile call through the US?
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Ivor Jones on 28 May 2005 |
I wouldn't complain about it, but not if it meant having to pay for
incoming calls. One problem is that the cost of landlines has plummeted,
so the difference seems even greater. Another thing to remember is that
the cost of calling mobiles, while high, is not an exact reflection of
the termination charges- as the wide range of pricing illustrates.
Good- that's one way of forcing the prices down.
The US system seems great until you exhaust your daytime minutes, and
start having to pay 25 to 40 cents a minute. Frankly, when I'm getting
called on my mobile- it's on business- and the businesses calling me are
a) usually getting good rates on calling a mobile and b) not going to be
on the phone for long. If a friend calls me- I'll call them on a
landline. If none of your friends had access to a landline, I could
understand why you'd want a US system, but for my uses, the current
system works very well for me.
|
| Ivor Jones replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 28 May 2005 |
[snip]
The majority of US plans have so many inclusive minutes this is unlikely,
certainly for me it would be almost unheard of..!
Ivor
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Ivor Jones on 28 May 2005 |
On Cingular you have rollover, so you end up accumulating tons of minutes.
On Sprint, they bump you up to the next tier of minutes, and don't gouge
you. Verizon still gouges you, but again, it's just a matter of fitting your
plan to your needs.
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 27 May 2005 |
That doesn't strike me as a very good deal, based on my usage pattern-
remember, during the day, I'm charged 3p per landline call- it's then
untimed after that. How much does an an out of bundle daytime minute
cost?
|
| John R. Levine replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 28 May 2005 |
We're talking about the real price, counting inbound as well as outbound
calls and line rental. Looking at the price difference for me to call
a Finnish landline and a Finnish mobile, it looks like callers are
charged about 15 cpm for calls to mobiles.
Whoopee. I pay $30/mo for a bundle of 3750 minutes. That's 0.8 cpm
if I used them all.
Landline phones all have a monthly fee, but the local calls are free.
People talk for hours.
See what I mean?
R's,
John
|
| Miguel Cruz replied to John R. Levine on 29 May 2005 |
Doesn't matter - he's ahead of you way before 3750 minutes.
At "6.9-8.9" (which I'll just call 7.9), he's paying less than you after as
little as than 10 minutes of calling per day. With each additional minute of
calling he pays less and less than you do.
miguel
|
| Osmo R replied to Miguel Cruz on 30 May 2005 |
With 300 minutes a month it is better get here a plan that gives 500
minutes at 17.80 a month. Also do no forget received calls. 10 minutes a
day is pretty much. Average use here has been about 150 minutes a month
though it has been increasing somewhat recently as prices dropped.
Osmo
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Osmo R on 30 May 2005 |
It'll depend so much on what plan the incoming caller uses. Also it is possible
to be a "phone tart" and get a very cheap contract and phone, by switching
contracts every year. The networks are so desperate to sign people up that they
offer retailers big bonuses for every new customer, which some retailers use to
offer cashback to the customer.
I'll have a go using Orange ED50 plus 1899, the best value indirect access
telco. I need to guess the average call length, say 5 minutes (so 100 mins is 20
calls). Also off-peak is different between weekdays and weekends - so I will
assume half and half.
100 Peak Outgoing, In-Network Mobile to Mobile: £10.60 [1]
100 Peak Incoming, In-Network Mobile to Mobile: £10.60 (charged to
caller)
100 Peak Outoging, Mobile to Landline: £0.60
100 Peak Incoming, Landline to Mobile: £10.60 (charged
to caller)
100 Peak Outoging, Mobile to Out-of-Network Mobile £10.60
100 Peak Incoming, Out-of-Network Mobile to Mobile £10.60 (charged to caller)
100 Off-Peak Outgoing, Mobile to Landline 0
100 Off-Peak Incoming, Landline to Mobile £6.60 (charged to
caller)
100 Off-Peak Outgoing, In-Network Mobile to Mobile 0
100 Off-Peak Incoming, In-Network Mobile to Mobile 0
1000 minutes
Plus £15 per month for the ED50 contract.
£75.2
Average Price Per Minute 7.52ppm
[1] 1899 price. Not sure if Orange to Orange peak calls are cheaper than 10ppm
on ED50.
|
| Ototin replied to John R. Levine on 29 May 2005 |
For the monhtly fee you could use the telephone 24 hours a day for 30
days to make local calls - to landline or to mobile - with no
additional charges.
|
| Osmo R replied to Ototin on 29 May 2005 |
I know what you mean. I still do not consider it free, especially if the
monthly fee is significant. After all someone paying per minute could
well pay less than someone who gets the calls "free" is the base fee is
lower.
If there were such deals here I bet many would keep the lines open just
because they could. There are people who let the water run for no reason
but because they do not have a water meter. We used to have a system
where one was charged per call. Some companies abused it by keeping a
modem line constantly open so they switched to per minute billing first
on day time and then on evenings and weekends also.
When you call to a mobile do you understand that the receiver pays and
do not speak for too long? Or do you not care at all what your calls
cost to others. I personally think the caller pays is fair as the caller
then knows to speak briefly enough. Of course there are rude people who
start babbling their own when someone calls them so that the person does
not even get to say what he intended.
Osmo
|
| Osmo R replied to Osmo R on 29 May 2005 |
So you could end up babbling nonsense at the expense of the receiver. He
might be too polite to remind you of it. I think it is better that the
one who makes the call pays. Here one always knows if a number is mobile
or not. Such a system may suit better the U.S. and Canada with its
numerous local companies. In Europe the CPP is IMO better though there
are problems with international calls. It may not be easy to tell from a
foreign number if it is mobile or not.
Osmo
|
| Ivor Jones replied to Osmo R on 29 May 2005 |
If something was costing me money and I didn't want to pay it, politeness
wouldn't enter into it..!!
Ivor
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 27 May 2005 |
Which I don't call much. Most of my mobile calls are to businesses which
always have landline numbers. I'm usually only calling mobile numbers
when they other person is on the move, and the conversation is typically
not a long one.
I didn't 'forget' to mention it- just don't think it is relevant.
No- how much does it cost. It's a simple enough question.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 27 May 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
<this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in
Hmm, maybe the caller pays system is a good one. It would result in much
lower mobile phone usage, so people would pay more attention to their
driving.
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Steven M. Scharf on 27 May 2005 |
In the UK, it's illegal to use a phone while driving unless it is
completely hands-free. Doesn't stop idiots doing it, and I don't agree
with the hands-free option, but there you go. I spend a lot of time in
the US (lived there for 11 years) and have lived in the UK for the last
5 years. My impression is that mobile phone use is more prevalent here
in the UK- not least because of the more attractive PAYG market. On my
last trip to the US, I couldn't even get a GSM signal within two miles
of where I was staying, 30 miles outside NYC. That would be pretty rare
in the UK.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 27 May 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
<this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in
I agree. The problem with hands-free is that the person is still not paying
attention to driving--their hands are free, but their mind is engaged in the
call.
And it would be really rare to get a CDMA signal in the UK! The GSM network
in the U.S. is in its infancy, and coverage is still very poor once you
leave the urban core. If you're in the U.S., and you want good coverage, you
don't go the GSM route.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Steven M. Scharf on 28 May 2005 |
Good point. The whole world is moving to CDMA, too bad it couldn't be the
same standard!
|
| Joseph replied to Steven M. Scharf on 28 May 2005 |
While you are "technically" right CDMA referened here was referring to
the 2G implementation of it such as is used in the US by Verizon and
Sprint PCS and in Canada with Bell and Telus Mobility. W-CDMA or UTMS
is used in Europe in several places.
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 27 May 2005 |
<this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.com> wrote:
No- but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
The difference is that you wouldn't have mobile phone providers in
London selling you domestic packages on TDMA systems. FWIW, the TDMA
coverage seemed pretty poor too. When I was living in the US, I was
living in urban areas, where I'd expect coverage- I'd forgotten how ropy
it can get the moment you get anywhere less built up.
The caller-pays advantage is quite simple IMO. Beautifully simple in
fact. If someone wants to call me on my mobile, they have to pay to do
so, the same way they have to pay when they call my landline. I don't
want to pay to receive a call. That one system (landline vs. mobile)
costs more than another makes a certain amount of sense- but I suspect
that termination charges will eventually go down- indeed, they already
are. If it bothers someone that they have to pay so much to call me-
then I call them back. Indeed, I often insist on doing so if it will be
a long conversation. Suits me perfectly.
|
| Andy Pandy replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 28 May 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
You probably spend quite a bit less per minute than the average UK user too.
However the average UK user spends more than the average US user.
Which would mean you'd end up paying a lot more than a typical US incoming
mobile call. For me it's not so much about who pays, but how much is paid.
I would not mind at all if the premium to call a UK mobile was approximately the
same as the typical US mobile incoming call charge. But it isn't.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Andy Pandy on 28 May 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
Quite easy, given that there has been extensive study on the issue. The UK
averages about 2x the U.S. cost for peak calls. But this is misleading,
given the free nights and weekends on U.S. carriers, where neither the
caller or the receiver pays. The actual cost difference, when you take into
account all the calls, is much greater.
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Steven M. Scharf on 28 May 2005 |
<this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.com> wrote:
I didn't realise this was a competition. I've pointed out before, I
don't call mobile numbers that often. It's about showing that 'average
call' is pretty meaningless, and depends on the user's calling pattern.
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 29 May 2005 |
I don't think that's happened at all, and I don't see any evidence
that's going to convince _me_- I'm very happy with what I pay to use my
mobile phone. It's a question of whether caller pays is better or worse
for the consumer. Well, I'm a consumer too, and I've not seen any
argument so far that's convinced me I'd want to pay for incoming calls,
or that caller pays is the answer for getting UK companies to _lower_
their costs. (I'm certainly not arguing that the costs are reasonable.)
If you want to frame that as a 'US vs. Europe' argument, then that's
entirely your problem. It's certainly not my motivation.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 01 Jun 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
<this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in
The competive environment is about the same between the U.S. and U.K., with
four major carriers. The prices are largely set by the premier carrier,
Verizon, with the other three carriers trying to offer better deals in
terms of included minutes, or features such as rollover minutes (Cingular),
automatic tier pricing (Sprint), or huge numbers of included minutes
(T-Mobile).
What makes the MPP (Mobile Party Pays) more competitive is that the prices
are transparent. All the studies of European pricing conclude this.
"The crucial issue from the point of competition policy (as Oftel the UK
regulator emphasises) is that there are no market forces working to bring
the termination charge (around 20p) down. This is because the person
receiving the call does not pay for it even though he or she chooses the
network that levies the termination charge."
There have been studies in the U.S., as carriers wanted to provide a caller
pays option, but without any FCC regulation on termination charges. The FCC
was willing to allow caller pays, but only if it could regulate the
termination charges. So the whole thing went nowhere.
You've already seen that the UK wireless carriers will charge excessive
termination charges in the abscence of government regulation, and even now
these charges remain very high.
Here are some more papers on the issue:
http://www.c-t-u.org/HNI/P.%20CTU%20settlement%20%20TSTT.ppt (see page 22)
http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/presentations/2001/18%20Aug,%20FMI.PPT (see page
7)
The conclusion is always the same. Caller pays causes a failure in market
pricing. Just because you choose not to see it, does not change the reality
that it is happening.
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 29 May 2005 |
The study you're referring to didn't make the comparison- it
_referenced_ another that did. Unless I knew more about that one, why on
earth should I believe it?
I don't know how it was measured.
I'm not interested in 'finding a study' to support anyone's view. I'm
interested to know what the criterion used were.
I'm prepared to look at any study, and I'll even believe it, providing I
know what the parameters are. The study cited doesn't do that- and I
can't find the article that it references.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 29 May 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
<this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in
I think that the core of the issue is that we in the U.S. cannot figure out
why people would be willing to pay 2x the cost for mobile calls. If you look
at the big picture, you understand that incoming calls are NOT free, it's a
lie that the European carriers have convinced consumers is true. They depend
on consumers not looking at the actual total cost per call.
If incoming calls were actually free, then there would be much less of an
argument.
|
| DevilsPGD replied to Steven M. Scharf on 29 May 2005 |
I carry both. My pager can do things that no phone on the market today
can even dream of doing:
1) Standby time measured in weeks or months.
2) Run from a battery that I can pick up at any corner store for $2.
3) Receive a signal virtually anywhere. That includes elevators,
underground (basements, subbasements, etc), parkades, train tunnels,
etc.
4) Hardware cost under $50 without any contract/commitment/etc
(Important because if I break it, lose it, whatever else, I don't care
anywhere near as much as if I lose me $300 cell phone)
And not only that, my pager is smaller then any cell phone on the
market.
|
| Osmo R replied to DevilsPGD on 30 May 2005 |
Well not so important if one can get to places that have electricity
for at least twice a week.
Just how does that differ from mobile phones? Here such coverage is
expected.
Well same applies to mobiles here.
Osmo
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 29 May 2005 |
Don't you understand that the world revolves around him?
Every study reaches the same conclusion. His dismissal is lame, and he will
find irrelevant excuses for any study.
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 1 Jun 2005 |
Why? What basis does it have in reality?
Sorry, what do you mean "sample?" Do you mean average? If so, that's
incredibly cheap. So, is the average calling plan in Canada CDN$20? I'm
impressed.
|
| Ototin replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 01 Jun 2005 |
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 04:16:30 +0100, this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.com
It means that such a calling plan is being offered by a GSM provider.
It's not an average of anything or something.
|
| CharlesH replied to Steven M. Scharf on 30 May 2005 |
Another "complication" when comparing costs is that it is very common on
US plans to have calls between phones of the same mobile provider to be
free at all times in unlimited quantity to both users, even if one or
both of the phones are roaming on different networks. This is in
addition to unlimited free night/weekend calls (incoming or
outgoing)to/from any U.S. number (again, even if the phone is currently
roaming).
|
| Osmo R replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 29 May 2005 |
Not necessarily. In Finland one can get calls at 6.9 cents a minute and
66 cent monthly base fee. Alternatively one can get 500 minutes at 17,80
euros (9.9 cents/minute for extra calls). These include calls land lines
and all mobiles regardless of operator. One should note that the
termination fees operators charge from others are way higher than these
so they actually lose money on calls to other networks. They get it on
intra-netword, landline calls and received calls from other networks.
As I said it is 6.9 cents a minute to any phone. Ah I see, yuo assume
the friends have land lines. Here people do not in general have land
lines anymore. Why would they have them?
Osmo
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Osmo R on 29 May 2005 |
I have a landline because:
a) I can't get broadband on a mobile.
b) I can make unlimited off-peak calls for free to UK landlines.
c) I can make calls to anywhere in the "first world" (ie Western Europe, North
America, Australasia and other places) for far less than 6.9 cents per minute -
except to mobiles in countries where it is free to receive.
d) Family and friends can call me much more cheaply on my landline than my
mobile.
e) I'm not spending large amounts of time with an RF transmitter a few cm from
my brian.
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Andy Pandy on 29 May 2005 |
He smells.
|
| Osmo R replied to Andy Pandy on 29 May 2005 |
??? I do have ADSL but no land line phone. Are they somehow connected
where yo live? (With land line I mean the phone connection, not the
physical wire)
The rest of here does not apply here or at least I have no need for it.
Neither does many other people.
Osmo
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Osmo R on 29 May 2005 |
In the U.S., so-called "naked DSL" is just beginning to be offered, and only
a couple of phone companies are offering it. Similarly, the largest cable
television operator will not sell you just cable modem service, you must
take at least basic analog cable TV service. They do this to try to force
you to take more services than you want.
We're just beginning to see cities allowing naked, whole-city, WiFi service.
The cable TV and telephone companies are fighting this like crazy by trying
to pass laws against any government funded wireless service. The workaround
is to use a company such as MetroFi to supply the service; not free, but
cheaper than the alternatives.
|
| Osmo R replied to Steven M. Scharf on 29 May 2005 |
Here the government made a clear decision that ADSL and GSM should be
open to competition and separate from the old monopolies. So one can
choose the ADSL operator. The local company then gets a rent for the
line from the ADSL provider. As for cable I think you need to be hooked
to the cable TV which means that you get all your TV from it. It costs
nothing extra to the individual apartment owner (though one of course
pays it as part of the monthly payment of pays that covers all the
general expenses). One does not have to have pay-TV to get cable modem.
As I have understood in the U.S. it is for the individual residents to
decide to join or not join the cable. Here it is done at building basis.
Individual residents can then choose whether to get pay-TV as extra.
Osmo
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Osmo R on 29 May 2005 |
The broadband connection goes down the physical landline wire. If I didn't have
the landline I couldn't have broadband (cable is an option for some people here
but not all streets have cable - mine doesn't).
Well, if you have no need to make phone calls for much cheaper rates than you
are paying, why join in this thread?
|
| Osmo R replied to Andy Pandy on 29 May 2005 |
Here the phone connection is separate from the line. I used to have a
phone connection in it but I dropped it years ago. I then got ADSL on
it. There is no need to have phone connection to have it. In fact any
such requirement would be illegal as abuse of predominant market
position. (couping ASDL or mobile connections with landline ones is a no
no because of the local monopolies phone companies had for over a
hundred years).
If I hooked a phone in the socket, I'd get nothing. Not even a dial
tone. Therefore I do not have landline in any meaningful sense related
to phones. If I wanted it to work it would cost me 99 euros to open it
and then at least 6 euros a month as fees.
Does the BT actually rip the cables out if you close the connection?
Here cable is also an option. I first tried it then took ASDL from Elisa
and got modem as bonus. I then closed it and got a cheaper connection.
That is here known as milking.
Osmo
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Andy Pandy on 29 May 2005 |
They both go down the same wire. You get one with other, here in the UK.
My point is that you wonder why people have landlines when you can make calls
for 6.9c per minute on your mobile.
I make the vast majority of my phone calls for much cheaper rates than 6.9c per
minute (even when you factor in the monthly line rental), by virtue of having a
landline and my contacts having landlines.
|
| Osmo R replied to Andy Pandy on 30 May 2005 |
Fortunately it is not so here.
You then make plenty of calls. Basically one needs to make many long
calls for landline to be cheaper here. That 6.9 was just an example.
There are other cheap deals. Especially the package deals are cheap
compared to landlines. 500 minutes at 17.80 on mobile compared to 12.45
euros a month base fee on a landline.
Osmo
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Osmo R on 29 May 2005 |
Not really. Usually about 600 mins a month.
The other point, here in the UK, is that if you don't have a landline then you
are forcing most of your callers to pay much much more to call you, typically 10
times the cost. You may have reasonable mobile termination rates in Finland, we
don't here. As I wrote earlier, a friend of mine saw his bill sky rocket when
his wife's best friend decided to ditch her landline - their monthly bill which
was usually a few pounds went up to over £50.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Andy Pandy on 29 May 2005 |
Some phone companies are now allowing you to have DSL without landline phone
service. The motivation is that people that don't want a landline will find
another source for high-speed internet if forced to have a landline to get
DSL.
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Osmo R on 1 Jun 2005 |
Fair enough, but it's not as if Osmo's calling pattern is that unusual.
There's a good reason that offpeak kicks in at 6, 7 or 9pm of whatever
it is in someone's local market. Most people want or need to make calls
in peak time- that's why it's more expensive to call then. The companies
don't give their customers 'free' offpeak minutes because they like
them.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 01 Jun 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
<this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in
Some GSM carriers in some areas of the U.S. are very capacity constrained,
and try to encourage less peak use, and more off-peak use. The business
customers that are paying for thousands of peak minutes per month, do not
want dropped calls, or "system busy, please try later" messages.
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Steven M. Scharf on 2 Jun 2005 |
Sure, but it's not just the GSM carriers which have these peak
restrictions. All the major companies appear to encourage more off-peak
use.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 02 Jun 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
The other companies have to do it to be competitive. But at least in the
U.S., the CDMA carriers do not have the capacity issues that the GSM and
TDMA carriers are suffering with. The carriers get a lot less spectrum in
the U.S. than in Europe, and they must use the same bandwidth for both voice
and data, sonething that AT&T Wireless was struggling greatly with.
A big battle is now brewing in India, where the CDMA carriers are going to
be able to provide 3G data services that the GSM carriers have no bandwidth
for.
Eventually, everything will be CDMA, of one form or another, but that is a
ways off.
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to Osmo R on 31 May 2005 |
Sure, but in the same way you can set up your phones so you're oblivious
to people calling, it's also not unusual for some people to have a
cut-off time after which they won't call, or expect a call. I won't
usually call anyone after 10pm unless it's arranged in advance, or they
say 'call as late as you want.' I keep my various phones' ringers on all
the time when I'm at home (I switch the phone off in many work and other
situations)- not that I always answer the calls. I usually disable the
text alert sounds though- as you can expect to get email at any time,
and there have been a few times I've forgotten, and have been awoken at
2am... :)
|
| Joseph replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 27 May 2005 |
On Fri, 27 May 2005 20:11:10 +0100, this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.com
Perhaps you do. I do not see however how the constant debate on
"we're better than you" is supposed to accomplish anything at all.
Europe isn't switching to the system used in North America and North
Americans aren't switching to the system used in Europe. That's
reality. Deal with it! If you love your system fine. You have it.
If you want to come over to North America be prepared to do something
different than you do in the UK, Europe or wherever you are. I'm
prepared that things will be different in Europe as well and I'd be
just foolish to rail against what is the status quo there and likewise
you'd be silly to do likewise in North America. This old pony gets
trotted out from time-to-time, and if you haven't learned yet you need
to learn that it's *NOT GOING TO BE SETTLED* and definitely not on
usenet.
|
| harrogate2 replied to Joseph on 28 May 2005 |
this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.com
If the US systems are so much better, why is it then that a
significantly larger portion of the world is now using GSM rather than
TDMA? It's not just UK and Europe.
|
| Osmo R replied to harrogate2 on 29 May 2005 |
The reasons
That assumes that land lines are the norm and being mobile is special.
Maybe that is and will remain the case with RPP. In Finland mobile calls
are the norm. One typically pays the same regardless of the type of the
phone the receiver has.
There are some problems here regarding the pricing in Finland. Land line
to mobile calls have been very costly. A four minule mobile-landline
call could be 28 cents when reversed was 1,13 euros. But why would you
use the landline and not your mobile anyway? This has been partially
fixed so that one can choose the operator used to carry the call (with a
prefix or deal) so that now one can get it at about half the above.
Another problem is so called corporate numbers. These are cheap when
called from a land line (about the cost of a local call) but about 30
cents a minute when called from a mobile regardless of your operator.
The phone companies advertise these numbers as cheap to callers so the
companies and government agencies using them do not necessarily even
know the high price the mobile callers pay to call them. (The companies
do not get any of the money. It is divided by the operators). Lately the
high prices have become better known and this could lead to lowered
prices as it is bad publicity for the companies using them.
Osmo
|
| Joseph replied to harrogate2 on 28 May 2005 |
You really do need to pay attention. I don't give a **** that the
rest of the world has marched off and left North America in the dust.
Deal with it! And while you're at it why don't you give them
smart-alecky Japanese a tongue-lashing as well. They chose not to use
GSM as well! And I know you were too busy gloating about what you use
in Europe, but GSM is being adopted in North America. Its wholesale
adoption hasn't gone like it has in the rest of the world but
nonetheless it is happening. I supposed though that you'll whine that
it doesn't count since North Americans are using different frequencies
than are used in the majority of other world locations.
|
| chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco replied to harrogate2 on 1 Jun 2005 |
It's entirely arbitrary to divide the distribution of minutes the way
you did. Do you have evidence that people use their phones in the way
you did your breakdown?
It would help if you knew a little about how the UK market actually
works, instead of guessing. For example, most of my students are on
deals where their inclusive minutes include mobiles and landlines- they
probably call mobiles more than landlines. I have a different kind of
plan, which suits my needs- i.e. I call landlines most of the time. The
point is that there are a variety of plans available depending on what
your callin pattern is. Most people are probably better off on a PAYG
plan IMO. Recent statistics for the UK indicated that 75% of mobile
phone 'accounts' were PAYG, but I suspect a lot of those accounts are
dormant.
I'm aware of how you divided it up, and it's an entirely arbitrary
comparison. You have no evidence that this is anything like a 'typical'
(I note the word was thrown around quite liberally by yourself and
andypandy) mobile phone usage in either market.
There are also cheap plans in the UK which have large numbers of offpeak
minutes. And you can call landlines at any time of the day in the UK for
an unlimited time for as low as a 3p connection charge. It's pointless
making these kinds of comparisons unless you know how people use their
phones. If you could point me to a website which actually breaks down
such statistics, I'd love to see it. I'm mostly finding summarised
market research, most of it with some kind of agenda.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 01 Jun 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
It's irrelevant how people use their phones, both calls to and from mobiles,
from and to landlines, because how they use them is highly influenced by the
way the tariffs are set up. Just in this thread, we've seen many posts about
how people avoid calling mobiles from landlines whenever possible, due to
the termination charges.
What you want to do is to look at several different calling patterns, and
the relative costs of each. It's very hard to do, because the mobile
companies do not make all their charges public, at least not on their web
sites.
|
| Osmo R replied to Steven M. Scharf on 01 Jun 2005 |
Itr sure is not irrelevant. The price comparisons should of course be
based on the real use of phones, not some imaginary use. If people
seldom do call mobiles from landlines then I do not see how that should
be included in the comparison.
I acknowledge that there is a problem in that pricing affects behavior
(and behavior affects pricing) but that's just something one cannot
avoid. For that reason it is very hard to compare fixed prices and per
minute/per call prices as the behavior in different in those.
The problem with this is that by choosing the pattern one can choose the
result. The idea of taking costs to all parties into question is just
meaningless. I do not care what it costs to other parties (within
reasonable limits). I optimize my behavior, let the callers do that for
themselves.
|
| Osmo R replied to Osmo R on 01 Jun 2005 |
And I still do not see why the cost of calling a mobile from a a
landline is relevant when one can call with a mobile.
So? I do not care of the carriers. I care what it costs to me.
Osmo
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to harrogate2 on 28 May 2005 |
The reason for CDMA is that it doesn't drop calls as readily, due to the
elastic capacity, and that you can cover a given area with less cell towers.
The whole world is moving to CDMA technology, even the GSM countries, so
don't use the word "historical"!
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 29 May 2005 |
And of course GSM _is_ TDMA. The only reason that CDMA took hold in the U.S.
is a) because CDMA is much more spectrally efficient, (U.S. has less
spectrum available for mobile voice and data), and b) you can cover an
equivalent area with far less cells, which is important in less densely
populated areas.
|
| Miguel Cruz replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 29 May 2005 |
Yet you continue to make arguments based on the reasoning that people in
Finland don't talk on the phone very much, as if there's any reason for this
other than the fact that phone calls there are so expensive.
miguel
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Miguel Cruz on 01 Jun 2005 |
I divided the 1000 minutes that way because it represents the non-business
use of a typical user in the U.S.. There certainly are many, many business
people that use 1000 peak minutes (salespeople, real estate agents, etc.)
but they are not the majority.
It really doesn't matter how you slice it, or how many minutes you use in a
scenario, as long as you make it a fair comparison by not claiming something
like "well, I make only outgoing calls to landlines, and no one calls me due
to the termination charges." The second scenario I did, showed a much
smaller difference, when you look only at peak minutes, but this is not the
typical use of a mobile phone.
|
| Miguel Cruz replied to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco on 29 May 2005 |
What does this mean? In both the US and Europe either party is free to hang
up the phone when they are tired of the conversation. What is the relevance
of who placed the call?
miguel
|
| Joseph replied to Ivor Jones on 29 May 2005 |
Why do you want to stay away from Brian anyway?
|
| Osmo R replied to Ivor Jones on 29 May 2005 |
You do not have a mobile? Well in Finland you would be an exception. I
think it is just fair and just that everyone is responsible for the cost
of his own calls provided of course that he knows the cost.
Well if caller ID they can know. And how do they know in the U.S. if the
caller is from same carrier in which case the airtime can be free (as I
have heard)
Osmo
|
| Stuart Friedman replied to Mark on 23 May 2005 |
I cannot point you to the specific provision on the website, but I can tell
you that in the U.S. mobile numbers are on the same area codes as landlines,
that calls to mobiles are not surcharged, and that we normally pay for
incoming calls on our mobile plans. Even on contract plans, the exceptions
are few and far between. We have free mobile to mobile calls on many
contract plans (and on a small number of prepaid plans), we have free nights
and weekends, but incoming calls are come out of our bucket of minutes.
Whether the U.S. system or the European system of caller pays is a better
system has been debated extensively on various groups before. I go both
ways on this point and have no definitive answer.
"Mark" <x@unknown.com> wrote in message
news:jv9ke.11800$WQ3.9119@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
|
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} replied to Mark on 23 May 2005 |
In the USA the owner of the mobile you are calling has to pay to receive your
call or it comes out of some of their inclusive minutes, some networks may
allow for the first 30 seconds or so of an incoming call to be free. This
also means it costs the same for you to call a USA mobile as it does a USA
landline. Crazy system I know, and one I am glad never took off here in
Europe and elsewhere. It might not mention about paying for incoming calls on
some of the websites as in the USA it is common knowledge you have to pay.
|
| Mark replied to {{{{{Welcome}}}}} on 23 May 2005 |
I see. Hmm. Okay then, well, leading up to my final questions :).. Can
anyone recommend what network the cheapest Pay-as-you go mobile she
could pick up would be, that would charge the least amount to receive an
incoming call from Britain? Just some pointers would be cool, I know so
little about US mobile companies that I just need somewhere to start.
Coverage would have to be good in the Ocean City area of Maryland.
Thanks again!!
|
| Stuart Friedman replied to Mark on 23 May 2005 |
Incoming calls cost the same whether the originator is in the UK or across
the street. The cheapest pay as you go plan carries a per day usesage charge
or very short termination periods. I think the best values on whole are
Virginmobile http://www.virginmobileusa.com/ , the 7-11 offering that I
mentioned, icallplus, libertywireless.com. In a few cities there is an
interesting alternative in a few select cities called Cricket
(https://www.mycricket.com/ .
"Mark" <x@unknown.com> wrote in message
news:RC9ke.11539$X86.271@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
|
| Joseph replied to Stuart Friedman on 22 May 2005 |
Cheapest is Beyond Wireless.
|
| Mark replied to Stuart Friedman on 23 May 2005 |
Thanks...
Hmm, it looks like most of these charge around 0.10c a minute to receive
calls, looks like it's pretty much standard across the board, apart from
Cricket which doesn't cover Maryland...
Beginning to think it might actually be a lot cheaper to swap the odd
text and leave the onus on her to call me using a cheap calling card,
since that'll be far cheaper than the 10c a minute to receive an
incoming call, and then me do the same if she can get access to a landline..
Thanks for everyone's help :-)
mark.
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Mark on 23 May 2005 |
If she calls you on your UK mobile it'll almost certainly cost a hell of a lot
more than 10c per minute. It costs over 21p per minute to call a "3" mobile from
a UK (BT) landine - calling it from the US is likely to be more.
That's the other side of the coin to the US system of mobile user paying for
incoming calls. It costs a lot to terminate calls on UK mobiles so the cost of
calling them is very high.
|
| Mark replied to Andy Pandy on 23 May 2005 |
Even if she used one of the calling card /pre-dial companies that claim
massively cheap rates to call the UK?
Mark.
|
| Stuart Friedman replied to Mark on 23 May 2005 |
Yup, the cheapest rate I've got to a UK mobile is $0.15 a minute.
Stu
"Mark" <x@unknown.com> wrote in message
news:axjke.1569$RG2.1556@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Mark on 23 May 2005 |
Yes. They will have much higher rates for calling UK mobiles than for calling UK
landlines. They would lose money on calls to mobiles otherwise, since your UK
mobile operator charges them high termination fees.
It's the same calling from the UK to countries where it is free to receive
mobile calls (eg France). The cost of calling French mobiles is a hell of a lot
more than the cost of calling French landlines (on 1899 it is 15 times the
cost!). Calling US mobiles is the same price as calling US landlines because of
the US system where mobile users pay to receive.
All mobile operators have high termination fees - the difference between the US
and UK system is who pays it. In the UK the caller always pays, in the US the
mobile user pays.
Forget mobiles - use landlines wherever possible and you and your girlfriend can
gas very cheaply, or even free.
0.5p per min on 1899: http://www.call1899.co.uk/index2.php
or free using a VOIP service like Skype, if you both have broadband access:
http://www.skype.com
|
| CharlesH replied to Andy Pandy on 25 May 2005 |
1) Many (most?) post-pay plans have unlimited free airtime with free
domestic long distance on all calls placed or received during "off-peak"
(varies, often 9PM-6AM, depends on the provider), and all day Saturday
and Sunday.
2) Likewise, calls to/from other subscribers to the same provider are
often unlimited and free at all times on many post-pay plans.
3) The caller-pays system tends to gouge the caller, who is not
necessarily the mobile provider's customer; they can charge the caller
whatever they want, and their customer, the mobile user being called,
couldn't care less. The mobile-pays system takes minutes out of an
airtime bucket in which the per-minute cost decreases as the bucket size
is increased. I can see why providers like the caller-pays system!
|
| Georg Schwarz replied to Mark on 29 May 2005 |
and they do not accept any non-US credit cards, do they?
|
| wkearney99 replied to {{{{{Welcome}}}}} on 23 May 2005 |
They pay for minutes used. For in-bound it's just minutes consumed. For
outbound it's minutes plus any long-distance that might be involved. Calls
to/from phones on the same provider are often free (this varies from one
carrier to another). Free as in not consuming any minutes.
|
| Georg Schwarz replied to {{{{{Welcome}}}}} on 29 May 2005 |
I think it is the case as well with some mobile operators in India.
|
| CharlesH replied to Mark on 23 May 2005 |
\> Sorry by this do you mean that if someone from abroad calls any native
In the U.S., the user of a mobile phone always pays airtime whether
calling or receiving a call. For people on post-pay, they generally have
a fairly large bucket of included peak-time minutes per month, and many
such plans include unlimited free off-peak and weekend airtime. Also, it
is very common for all calls to other users of the same provider to be
free at all times. These free times do not apply to pre-pay users.
Furthermore, since the mobile phone user pays for incoming airtime,
there is no surcharge for the caller to call a mobile phone. Mobile
phone numbers in the U.S. cannot be identified by the number, and in
fact, a number can be moved between a landline and mobile provider.
|
| etillet replied to Mark on 23 May 2005 |
If someone anywhere (even in the USA standing right next to you using a
normal house phone in a US house) calls a US cellphone, then the
recipient pays for those minutes. US mobiles are on normal dialling
codes so cost no more to call than any other local number. The extra
cost is picked up by the recipient.
|
| Phil Thompson replied to Mark on 23 May 2005 |
using 18866 or the like could be cheaper, depending on rates offerred
by the VoIP provider for calls out to US numbers.
Prepay is far less common in th eUSA and mobiles have standard area
code numbers.
Phil
|
| Mark replied to Phil Thompson on 22 May 2005 |
Thanks for all your advice so far guys, everyone that replied to my
questions.
I do have broadband, though she won't have internet access when she's
over there I don't think.
I like the idea of something like the pre-dial service, that seems
pretty cheap, and I could call their access number using the free
landline minutes I get with my '3' mobile contract here in the UK.
You say that prepay telephones arent that common in the US, are they
available anywhere at all? She doesn't have a triband phone... She'll
be working in or around the ocean city area in maryland... can she pick
up a prepay mobile there do you think?
Cheers.
|
| Joseph replied to Mark on 22 May 2005 |
That's nonsense that prepaid are not common in the US. Most every
operator has some sort of prepaid. T-Mobile, cingular, 7-11, Virgin
Mobile, Locus Mobile, Beyond Wireless, CallPlus and others. The only
GSM prepaid in the "traditioal" sense is T-Mobile, cingular.
You can pick up a prepaid package from most any of the ones mentioned
above. To get a prepaid SIM you're likely to get a better deal by
going to eBay than you are going to a traditional store. With the
non-GSM providers you'll likely have to buy a phone from them for
their service unless you can find a used phone that was on their
service previously. This is also true with 7-11 though it is a GSM
MVNO you cannot buy just the SIM from them. It's definitely not as
convenient as it is in Europe.
|
| J B replied to Mark on 23 May 2005 |
My 2p worth
Orange PAYG works in usa - you could text her cheaply and she could receive
for nowt.
If she could get access to a land line, you could call her cheaply with 1899
from your landline, or quite cheaply from an Orange mobile with 18866.
Don't know about t'other mobile networks sorry!
|
| S Viemeister replied to J B on 23 May 2005 |
That's quite recent - I discovered it by accident. I had just installed my
Orange SIM, to check some phone numbers (I was in the US at the time) and
within seconds, a text message from a cousin in the UK arrived!
If I had to rely on the Orange website, though, I'd still think PAYG Orange
was unavailable in the US.
|
| Phil Thompson replied to Mark on 23 May 2005 |
yes they are available but watch out for things like no roaming to
other networks, no roaming outside the home city or State etc. They
aren't common like in the UK, by far the majority are on contract
phones (paying for incoming calls is a factor).
GSM coverage has improved a lot but isn't everywhere by a long chalk,
so a review of maps is called for. Their are analogue and digital
prepay options (Virgin Mobile using Sprint is digital but not GSM so
texting won't work).
http://www.virginmobileusa.com/
http://www.t-mobile.com/
Phil
|
| Jet Morgan replied to Phil Thompson on 23 May 2005 |
Are you saying that a US GSM handset can not "roam" outside
their own state (or even city) ? And why is that called "roaming" ?
Richard [in PE12]
|
| Joseph replied to Jet Morgan on 23 May 2005 |
Of course they can. It's generally called roaming when you're using
another network to complete your calls. These days many plans include
roaming on other networks so that's not even an issue.
|
| Ivor Jones replied to Joseph on 24 May 2005 |
Ah, there is the difference he might not have understood. Here in the UK
the main network operators do not allow roaming on one another's systems.
Ivor
|
| Rick Merrill replied to Ivor Jones on 24 May 2005 |
No roaming? Does everyone use public transportation too?-)
I think that 'no roaming' means that the market is not expanding fast
enough to motivate interconnection of systems. Or the technologies are
too incompatible.
|
| David Marshall replied to Rick Merrill on 24 May 2005 |
No, it means the networks all have national coverage.
Dave
|
| Ivor Jones replied to David Marshall on 24 May 2005 |
And Orange don't want you buying a phone from them and then using Vodafone
to make calls..! Or the other way round.
Ivor
|
| Rick Merrill replied to Ivor Jones on 24 May 2005 |
Well then, as long as any phone works anywhere in GB, there's no
problem, is there?
|
| Ivor Jones replied to Rick Merrill on 24 May 2005 |
There are pockets where some networks have coverage but not others, such
as in the remoter areas of Scotland etc.
Ivor
|
| Jet Morgan replied to Rick Merrill on 25 May 2005 |
"Rick Merrill" <rick0.merrill@gmailNO.SPAMcom> wrote in message
news:b5mdnWVCYtir0w7fRVn-
All the networks have holes in them where there is
minimal or no coverage. If you don't know where you're
going to be, you can't really predict which of the
networks (if any) will have no/low coverage.
When the USAns refer to "roaming", does this mean that
they can use somebody else's network, transparently, if
that is the only one available ? How does the handset
select amongst many networks, if the difference between
them is slight (but all poor) ?
Richard [in PE12]
|
| Ototin replied to Jet Morgan on 25 May 2005 |
Yes, that's correct. I'm surprised that it has a different meaning to
you. GSM World defines the term roaming here
http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/index.shtml
It only select the network which has a roaming agreement with its
native network, i.e. initial service provider. For example;
|
| Phil Thompson replied to Jet Morgan on 25 May 2005 |
it can mean using exactly the same network in the next
county/city/state (delete where not applicable). It can also mean
roaming onto analogue when falling off the digital map.
have a look/laugh at http://www.atmc.net/wireless/roaming.asp for
example.
Phil
|
| Joseph replied to Jet Morgan on 25 May 2005 |
Generally not. Roaming is (usually) when your home carrier does not
cover an area (not just poor to nil signal.) As an example if
T-Mobile and AT&T/cingular cover the same area it's highly likely that
you will only be able to register on your home network. If on the
other hand you're in an area that is not served by your home carrier
and the other carrier does serve that area you may likely be able to
use their network (with the proviso that there's a roaming agreement
in place.) In other instances roaming arrangements change such as
what's happened in Canada. There used to be two national carriers
Rogers and Microcell (Fido and other resellers.) Rogers bought the
Microcell network and now Fido customers can access either the
original Fido/Microcell network or the Rogers network. It was not
always so.
|
| Joseph replied to Rick Merrill on 24 May 2005 |
Nonsense. It's because in Europe mobile operators all build out their
own networks and for the most part don't need to rely on other
networks. An exception is th 3 network which is 3G which can roam on
Vodafone's network. That's the exception rather than the rule.
|
| Phil Thompson replied to Joseph on 24 May 2005 |
O2's network I think.
Phil
|
| Ivor Jones replied to Joseph on 24 May 2005 |
Actually it roams on O2 <g>
Ivor
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Rick Merrill on 24 May 2005 |
Roaming is much less of an issue in a densely populated country. It's not
like the U.S. where there are vast sparsely populated areas that are served
by small cellular operators, sometimes still only on analog. In the U.S., it
is very unwise to use a carrier that doesn't allow roaming off of their own
network, including roaming onto the old analog network (unless you never
leave the urban core). In Asia, usually you can't roam either, but I never
found it to be an issue in Korea or Taiwan.
|
| John R. Levine replied to Jet Morgan on 23 May 2005 |
If you have a postpaid plan, which is what's considered normal in the
US, GSM handsets roam just fine. I've used mine all over the US as
well in Canada and Argentina. Cingular tells me that if I put the SIM
in my 900/1800 phone it'll work in Europe, but their roaming rates are
so high there's no point. Most prepaid plans are from resellers who
make their own deals with the underlying carriers, and some arrange
for roaming and some don't.
That said, I agree with everyone else who says that if your goal is to
talk with someone who's in Maryland, you should forget about mobile
phones. Find out if the place she's staying has a phone and if so,
just call her on it using one of the cheap UK calling services. If
not, should should get a prepaid US calling card that charges 2
cents/min to call the UK and call you from a pay phone. Google for
"calling cards" and you'll find zillions of them, most that you can
buy over the net and are delivered virtually, just an access phone
number and a PIN.
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to John R. Levine on 24 May 2005 |
Ironically, Cingular and T-Mobile, who actually own networks, do not allow
roaming on pre-paid. But resellers of GSM prepaid all allow roaming, at high
per minute rates.
GSM is not the best choice for U.S. prepaid. The best choice is TDMA/AMPS,
the second best choice is CDMA/AMPS. This holds true even though you may
need to buy a phone.
See http://prepaiduswireless.com
If she gets one of the prepaid TDMA plans, such as from Beyond Wireless, he
can send her a free text message indicating the number where she should call
him. There is no minimum, and no activation fee on their plan; she could get
by for the whole summer without actually buying any time. She just needs to
find an old AT&T TDMA phone, but these are a dime a dozen now, on
craigslist.org.
|
| S Viemeister replied to John R. Levine on 23 May 2005 |
Last month, my usual UK SP (Orange) suffered a temporary outage, and I
switched to my Cingular/ATT SIM card - it worked just fine. It's useful as
an emergency backup, but as you say, far too expensive.
|
| jim.gm4dhj replied to Phil Thompson on 23 May 2005 |
See ?....the merrycans are not stupid.........they don't throw out the baby
with the bathwater.....our analogue TV is next...new technology squandering
the worlds resources.....
|
| Steve Terry replied to jim.gm4dhj on 23 May 2005 |
Is that why they are fast dumping Analogue AMPs phones on 850MHz
for 850MHz GSM?
Giving them dualband 850 and 1900MHz GSM, and with quad band
GSM phones, world-wide roaming.
I take it Freeview BBC3 and 4, and ITV2 and 3 are a mystery to you?
Steve Terry
|
| Steve Sobol replied to Mark on 01 Jun 2005 |
*smack*
Probably none. Why do you insist things must be the same in other countries
as in Finland? Give it a rest. The market is COMPLETELY different there than
it is here in the US. That much is not going to change unless Finland
suddenly acquires tons of land and grows to a population of 250 or 300
million people and suddenly ALSO acquires the political structure the
telecomm industry has here.
In other words, find something else to whine about.
|
| Ivor Jones replied to Steve Sobol on 2 Jun 2005 |
They did come up with the Nokia 6310i though, for which I will be
eternally grateful. Best phone I've ever had.
Ivor
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Steve Sobol on 03 Jun 2005 |
The termination charges to mobile phones in Finland are still quite high,
and CPP is almost certainly the reason. Look at a table of comparative
termination charges to mobile phones throughout the world, and you can at
least see relative costs (the U.S. carrier marks up the cost, but at least
the relative costs can be seen). Finland is slightly less than France,
Germany, Switzerland, and the UK, but not by a lot.
http://www.bellsouth.com/consumer/bsld/wireless_termination.html
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Miguel Cruz on 27 May 2005 |
<this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually you can still purchase metered local phone service in the U.S..
Pacific Bell still offers it. It's about $5 cheaper per month than umetered.
You pay for every call, including toll free calls. However it would still
probably be the best deal for many people, because so many calls are
intra-LATA, and are paid for seperately anyway.
|
| Miguel Cruz replied to Miguel Cruz on 27 May 2005 |
Maybe I'm missing something. You ruled out Singapore because its population
density and size were too different from the other countries under
discussion. China's population density and size are nothing like
Singapore's. And yet China's mobile phone termination charges are very low.
miguel
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Miguel Cruz on 27 May 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
Yes, and 10p per minute for calls to most mobiles. And you forget to mention
that's not part of your mobile deal, that is using a separate discount telco,
and probably the best value one in the UK. I'm sure similar things are available
in the US, eg calling cards etc.
Based on the cheapest calling card/indirect access telco rates?
|
| Steven M. Scharf replied to Andy Pandy on 31 May 2005 |
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
Not arbitrary at all. I wanted to show the difference in prices if calling
patterns that are shaped by people avoiding making calls to mobiles are NOT
factored in. What happens with caller pays, is that everyone tries to avoid
calling mobile phones.
I did two comparisons.
I compared the 1000 minutes divided up as stated in the previous post, then
I did peak-only, with 100 minutes mobile to off-network mobile, 100 minutes
of termination charges from off-peak mobile to mobile, 100 minutes of mobile
to landline, and 100 minutes of landline to mobile.
For 1000 minutes:
100 Peak Outgoing, In-Network Mobile to Mobile
100 Peak Incoming, In-Network Mobile to Mobile
100 Peak Outoging, Mobile to Landline
100 Peak Incoming, Landline to Mobile
100 Peak Outoging, Mobile to Out-of-Network Mobile
100 Peak Incoming, Out-of-Network Mobile to Mobile
100 Off-Peak Outgoing, Mobile to Landline
100 Off-Peak Incoming, Landline to Mobile
100 Off-Peak Outgoing, In-Network Mobile to Mobile
100 Off-Peak Incoming, In-Network Mobile to Mobile
Verizon Wireless in the U.S. had an average price of $.06/minute
T-mobile in the UK had an average price of $0.19/minute
For:
100 Peak Outoging, Mobile to Landline
100 Peak Incoming, Landline to Mobile
100 Peak Outoging, Mobile to Out-of-Network Mobile
100 Peak Incoming, Out-of-Network Mobile to Mobile
Verizon Wireless in the U.S. had an average price of $0.15/minute
T-mobile in the UK had an average price of $0.19/minute
Where the termination charges really hurt UK users is in off-peak received
calls, and off-peak calls made to off-network mobiles. For a U.S. user, all
these calls would be free. Mobile phones are used extensively as a
replacement for long distance service, since you can make calls of virtually
any length, anywhere in the country, at no charge, nights and weekends.
Also, Verizin is the most expensive U.S. carrier. A similar plan on T-Mobile
gives you 1000 peak minutes, but T-Mobile's coverage in the U.S. is not very
good.
|
| Joseph replied to Mark on 25 May 2005 |
Or what your home operator has as a preferred roaming partner or the
strongest network that has a roaming agreement.
|
| Phil Thompson replied to Mark on 28 May 2005 |
price parity or call it what you like, IME something costing $5 in the
states is very likely to cost £5 here.
its a business input cost. If you want someone to go dig a trench in
the UK it will cost you a lot more for the labour and a lot more for
the fuel to get the labour on site and fuel the plant. This is the
start of the escalating cost base.
indeed, but its not refundable and its an input cost our businesses
have to pay that US ones do not. If all the inputs cost more we can
hardly be surprised if the output costs more.
Vodafone - "But after these costs it made a loss of £4.7bn"
There are practically no trains in the US to compare and I haven't
noticed meals and drinks being more expensive. I pay for a decent
hotel less than I would pay for a Travelodge etc etc.
Phil
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Phil Thompson on 28 May 2005 |
You can do the same in the UK - after all VOIP will work the same anywhere in
the world if you've got broadband.
Yup - termination premiums do go some way towards subsiding phones.
That's calls *from* mobiles. It's calls *to* mobiles which are much more
expensive in the UK.
|
| Phil Thompson replied to Andy Pandy on 28 May 2005 |
indeed
Calls *to* mobiles *from* landlines. On the Virgin US tariff you'll be
paying 25 cents/minute for the first incoming :-(
10 years ago we had a cost saving team at work and figured out "if you
want to call a mobile, use a mobile".
Phil
|
| Andy Pandy replied to Phil Thompson on 28 May 2005 |
And to mobiles from other mobile operators. The UK Virgin tariff you quoted
won't include calls to Vodafones/Orange etc. These will be much more expensive.
But calling other mobiles will be the standard price.
Preferably one on the same network. That's why I think mobile operators
shouldn't be allow to have restrictive T&C's, so any tariff available to the
public is also available to other telcos. So discount telcos like 1899 could buy
lots of high user tariffs and use them to route calls - thereby avoiding the
rip-off termination premiums.
|
| Sekhar replied to Mark on 4 Jun 2005 |
It really amazes me. India is the cheapest place for cellular plans.
For $4.00 a month they give you unlimited incoming minutes and $0.20
per minute for calling anywhere within India (with unlimited in-network
minutes from few carriers).
A prepaid can go upto a month long with free incoming for $4.00 as
well. I don't believe any other country beats this.
If I were you, I would buy a XDA and present it to my girlfriend
configured with www.skype.com or www.freeworlddialup.com softphones. If
I have a VOIP phone here, she will call me anytime. If not, she can
signal me with two/three rings and I will call her back with a local UK
number on her XDA.
FYI: there are several Hot-Spots in coffee shops, malls and work places
where XDA will work great.
Sekhar.
www.sekhar.net/call
|
| Miguel Cruz replied to Sekhar on 04 Jun 2005 |
Not everything - the phones themselves (as well as computers and other large
electronic devices) are more expensive here. So is Newman's Own spaghetti
sauce and beer in the supermarket.
I suppose it depends on how much these things are inputs into the mobile
phone service business. Electronics, probably quite a lot. Beer, somewhat.
Spaghetti sauce, not that much at all.
miguel
|
| Miguel Cruz replied to Sekhar on 05 Jun 2005 |
It is indeed calling party pays, I just wanted to play along.
Overall termination charges here are pretty low, but mobile is still about
twice landline (so typical rates to call Malaysia from the USA are 3c/min
landline, 6c/min mobile).
miguel
|
|
