|
|
|
| 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 ch | |