Results 1 to 15 of 15
- 09-04-2008, 05:20 AM #1LennyGuest
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...le_assessment/
"paying to receive calls - is the more likely conclusion."
› See More: Ofcom considers termination charges
- 09-04-2008, 06:01 AM #2ChrisMGuest
Re: Ofcom considers termination charges
In message [email protected],
Lenny <[email protected]> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...le_assessment/
>
> "paying to receive calls - is the more likely conclusion."
"In general, the assessment finds competition is driving prices down and
services up - 40 per cent of punters have changed networks at some point,
despite the fact that only one in five could name more than one network
operator when challenged."
I'm not sure if I believe that...
I'd have thought that more than 2 in 5 people would have changed operators
in their lifetime, and SURELY more than 1 in 5 would be able to name more
than one network.
--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
- 09-04-2008, 07:16 AM #3Chris DentGuest
Re: Ofcom considers termination charges
> From: ChrisM [mailto:[email protected]]
> I'd have thought that more than 2 in 5 people would have
> changed operators in their lifetime, and SURELY more than 1
> in 5 would be able to name more than one network.
As someone with some experience of market research I'd say its a normal
result but, of course, the absolute value of the numbers do need to be
taken with a small pinch of salt: generally these sorts of stats are
best seen in a tracking context. The operator change figure has a lot
more validity for me than does the one in five (remember not all users
are seasoned). There is confusion out there about phone make and
operator and why risk making a fool of yourself by volunteering more
(possibly incorrect) information that you need to?
- 09-04-2008, 11:56 AM #4Dennis FergusonGuest
Re: Ofcom considers termination charges
On 2008-09-04, Lenny <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...le_assessment/
>
> "paying to receive calls - is the more likely conclusion."
I think they are confusing wholesale costs with retail prices.
One of the references in that document has some paragraphs I like.
Here's one:
This CPNP [Calling Party's Network Pays] system tends to create
perverse economic incentives. Carriers tend to be motivated to
set termination rates vastly in excess of real costs, because in
doing so they raise, not their own costs, but rather the costs of
their rivals. To the extent that these costs are reflected in
retail prices, they are reflected in the prices of their
competitors, and not in their own prices.
Here's another:
The presumption of symmetry has important consequences. In most
European countries, large asymmetries in termination rates exist
between wired carriers (who are typically subject to termination
rate regulation) and mobile operators (who historically have not
been subject to termination rate regulation). Rates often differ
by an order of magnitude. This asymmetry has effectively
transferred billions of dollars from fixed operators to mobile,
creating an irrational subsidy.
I don't care so much about the CPNP thing, one way or the other, but
I do think the mobile companies are rich enough now that they can
give BT a break from the subsidies it has had to hand over. I think
they should maybe just insist that the call termination rates for BT
and the mobile operators be symmetric, and let the carriers agree
among themselves whether those rates should be high or low.
Dennis Ferguson
- 09-04-2008, 12:45 PM #5Brian AGuest
Re: Ofcom considers termination charges
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:20:33 +0100, Lenny <[email protected]>
wrote:
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...le_assessment/
>
>"paying to receive calls - is the more likely conclusion."
>
My first reaction is that I DEFINITELY do not want to see a charge for
incoming calls to mobiles. There is already good competition in
providing calls to mobile phones from landlines. That means that, even
if on BT, or cable, other operators are available to you. On mobile
tariffs the operators do whatever they can to stifle any competition.
This suggestion of charging for incoming calls seems to stem from the
drive to reduce termination charges. Something definitely needs to
happen in regard to roaming charges. For example '3' do '3 like home'.
I see no reason why all the European operators can't work together to
operate a similar system. If you pay for inclusive minutes on a
contract you should be able to use them whilst abroad.
However, I don't think that those who rarely, if ever, travel from our
shores will want to subsidise a reduction in roaming charges by paying
for incoming calls at home. Then there are the spam calls wanting to
sell a new mobile contract. Who wants to pay to receive unwanted
calls!
A charge for incoming calls will be as much a fiasco as the changes to
0870 numbers. What do companies do but get other premium call numbers!
I'd like ot see an end to the subsidised mobile phone though. Far
better to let the market decide on a price for a mobile phone and let
the operators compete on tariffs.
So, I vote NO to incoming call charges - what do others think?
---
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
---
- 09-04-2008, 03:13 PM #6LennyGuest
Re: Ofcom considers termination charges
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:45:57 +0000, Brian A wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:20:33 +0100, Lenny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...le_assessment/
>>
>
> So, I vote NO to incoming call charges - what do others think?
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Remove 'no_spam_' from email address. ---
I think the ofcom site has a questionnaire which you can fill in
and register your thoughts with them. Looks similar to the thing they did
with radio hams a few years back - if I'm not mistaken.
- 09-05-2008, 07:12 AM #7Guest
Re: Ofcom considers termination charges
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:45:57 GMT, Brian A
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:20:33 +0100, Lenny <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...le_assessment/
>>
>>"paying to receive calls - is the more likely conclusion."
>>
>My first reaction is that I DEFINITELY do not want to see a charge for
>incoming calls to mobiles. There is already good competition in
>providing calls to mobile phones from landlines. That means that, even
>if on BT, or cable, other operators are available to you. On mobile
>tariffs the operators do whatever they can to stifle any competition.
>
>This suggestion of charging for incoming calls seems to stem from the
>drive to reduce termination charges. Something definitely needs to
>happen in regard to roaming charges. For example '3' do '3 like home'.
>I see no reason why all the European operators can't work together to
>operate a similar system. If you pay for inclusive minutes on a
>contract you should be able to use them whilst abroad.
>
>However, I don't think that those who rarely, if ever, travel from our
>shores will want to subsidise a reduction in roaming charges by paying
>for incoming calls at home. Then there are the spam calls wanting to
>sell a new mobile contract. Who wants to pay to receive unwanted
>calls!
>
>A charge for incoming calls will be as much a fiasco as the changes to
>0870 numbers. What do companies do but get other premium call numbers!
>
>I'd like ot see an end to the subsidised mobile phone though. Far
>better to let the market decide on a price for a mobile phone and let
>the operators compete on tariffs.
>
>So, I vote NO to incoming call charges - what do others think?
>
I'd definitely agree with rejecting any idea of charges for incoming
calls .
As for subsidised phones I'd be sympathetic to binning that as
well..If other folk are like me they probably have several phones and
the only reason they have them is because the phone was part of the
package to get a new contract that didn't cost them any more when the
current one ran out . I've three or four phones here that came with
Chargeback Deals and I really didn't need them as my existing phone
was perfectly adequate for my needs but I had to take them ..I could
sell them on Ebay of course ..
- 09-05-2008, 10:01 AM #8alexdGuest
Re: Ofcom considers termination charges
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:45:57 +0000, Brian A wrote:
> My first reaction is that I DEFINITELY do not want to see a charge for
> incoming calls to mobiles. There is already good competition in
> providing calls to mobile phones from landlines. That means that, even
> if on BT, or cable, other operators are available to you. On mobile
> tariffs the operators do whatever they can to stifle any competition.
By such competition-stifling actions as letting virtuals [ASDA] resell
your service for less than you charge [Vodafone] at retail? I'm no
apologist for the mobile phone industry, but I do think competition is
alive and well.
> This suggestion of charging for incoming calls seems to stem from the
> drive to reduce termination charges.
There's no 'seem' about it - it's a direct consequence.
> I'd like ot see an end to the subsidised mobile phone though. Far better
> to let the market decide on a price for a mobile phone and let the
> operators compete on tariffs.
You can get SIM-only tariffs with 1-month contract, so I think we're
already there. Although it does seem that the market has already decided:
the simpler, less expensive handset with less subsidy lost out to the big
expensive handset with lots of subsidy.
> So, I vote NO to incoming call charges - what do others think?
I vote yes and no :-) Seriously, keep the 07x range as caller-pays-
premium, and create a new range [say 04] or reuse 01-03 for callee-pays-
premium. That way everybody's happy, and given that the GSM spec allows
for multiple lines per handset [eg Orange Line 2], those who want to can
have one of each.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ([email protected])
16:52:55 up 55 days, 19:31, 3 users, load average: 0.21, 0.13, 0.07
They call me titless because I have no tits
- 09-06-2008, 02:16 PM #9Ivor JonesGuest
Re: Ofcom considers termination charges
In news:[email protected],
Brian A <[email protected]> typed, for some strange, unexplained
reason:
[snip]
: I'd like ot see an end to the subsidised mobile phone though. Far
: better to let the market decide on a price for a mobile phone and let
: the operators compete on tariffs.
:
: So, I vote NO to incoming call charges - what do others think?
I'd go for it if we could have the American system. Mobile numbers and
fixed line numbers from the same numbering pool and no difference in
charges to call them. Yes you do often (but *not* always) pay for incoming
calls on mobiles but they're taken from inclusive contract minutes or PAYG
credit and many tariffs have so many inclusive minutes that using some for
incoming calls is almost inconsequential. For example my friends in San
Francisco have 2000 minutes for $40 or so a month. I could live with a
tariff like that.
Ivor
- 09-07-2008, 06:04 AM #10D MacGuest
Re: Ofcom considers termination charges
>For example my friends in San
> Francisco have 2000 minutes for $40 or so a month. I could live with a
> tariff like that.
that sounds good in theory until they introduce a minimum call duration of a
minute - or charge in minute chunks
so a call lasting 1.01" uses two minutes up.
Think you'd find you burn the minutes very quickly.
So even telling cold-callers where to go wastes a minute of talk time
- 09-09-2008, 09:27 AM #11Theo MarkettosGuest
Re: Ofcom considers termination charges
Ivor Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd go for it if we could have the American system. Mobile numbers and
> fixed line numbers from the same numbering pool and no difference in
> charges to call them.
I wouldn't think that the same numbering pool is a good idea, for several
reasons:
1) People tend to rely on geo numbers to give some idea of location. VOIP
dilutes this, but it's still useful - for example look at ads in the Yellow
Pages. Calling out the plumber or taxi next door is going to be cheaper
than one from 100 miles away, but often the ads don't tell you specifically
where they are. If the taxi has gone to the bother of having a local code
by VOIP then they might have an office in my area and still be of relevance.
2) People move around. If I moved from Glasgow to London I wouldn't want to
have to explain to all my new London contacts why I have a Glasgow number.
I could change my number to a London code, but it'd be a pain. It's this
what happens in the US system? I could have multiple numbers, but what if I
moved several times? Also what number would I present on my outbound calls?
This strikes me as precisely the thing that 03 was invented for. Callers to
03 (should) know that a) it costs the same as 01/02 so there's no unexpected
charges and b) the destination could be anywhere. Sounds exactly what's
required here. Maybe make it a separate range of 038 or 039 so it's not
confused with ex-0845/0870 'call centre' numbers.
Theo
- 09-10-2008, 11:52 AM #12Ivor JonesGuest
Re: Ofcom considers termination charges
In news:4rPwk.122454$f%[email protected],
D Mac <[email protected]> typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: >For example my friends in San
: > Francisco have 2000 minutes for $40 or so a month. I could live
: > with a tariff like that.
:
: that sounds good in theory until they introduce a minimum call
: duration of a minute - or charge in minute chunks
: so a call lasting 1.01" uses two minutes up.
: Think you'd find you burn the minutes very quickly.
: So even telling cold-callers where to go wastes a minute of talk time
Depends how many cold callers you get. In 10+ years of owning a mobile I
think I've had two. Not many more on the landlines either. Perhaps I've
been lucky..?
Ivor
- 09-10-2008, 11:55 AM #13Ivor JonesGuest
Re: Ofcom considers termination charges
In news:78p*[email protected],
Theo Markettos <[email protected]> typed, for some
strange, unexplained reason:
: Ivor Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
: > I'd go for it if we could have the American system. Mobile numbers
: > and fixed line numbers from the same numbering pool and no
: > difference in charges to call them.
:
: I wouldn't think that the same numbering pool is a good idea, for
: several reasons:
:
: 1) People tend to rely on geo numbers to give some idea of location.
: VOIP dilutes this, but it's still useful - for example look at ads in
: the Yellow Pages. Calling out the plumber or taxi next door is going
: to be cheaper than one from 100 miles away, but often the ads don't
: tell you specifically where they are. If the taxi has gone to the
: bother of having a local code by VOIP then they might have an office
: in my area and still be of relevance.
So what..? My friend's San Francisco number starts with area code 415 the
same as his landline. Doesn't seem to cause any problems.
: 2) People move around. If I moved from Glasgow to London I wouldn't
: want to have to explain to all my new London contacts why I have a
: Glasgow number. I could change my number to a London code, but it'd
: be a pain. It's this what happens in the US system? I could have
: multiple numbers, but what if I moved several times? Also what
: number would I present on my outbound calls?
Again not a problem in the US. If you move house from one area code to
another you simply get the number changed (if you want to, that is). This
is AFAIK free (well it is on my T-Mobile PAYG SIM anyway).
: This strikes me as precisely the thing that 03 was invented for.
: Callers to 03 (should) know that a) it costs the same as 01/02 so
: there's no unexpected charges and b) the destination could be
: anywhere. Sounds exactly what's required here. Maybe make it a
: separate range of 038 or 039 so it's not confused with ex-0845/0870
: 'call centre' numbers.
Hmm, ok I'd go for mobiles on 03. I'd be happy with them as they are as
long as they weren't charged more than a call to a landline.
Ivor
- 09-10-2008, 12:08 PM #14Harry StottleGuest
Re: Ofcom considers termination charges
"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In news:4rPwk.122454$f%[email protected],
> D Mac <[email protected]> typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
> : >For example my friends in San
> : > Francisco have 2000 minutes for $40 or so a month. I could live
> : > with a tariff like that.
> :
> : that sounds good in theory until they introduce a minimum call
> : duration of a minute - or charge in minute chunks
> : so a call lasting 1.01" uses two minutes up.
> : Think you'd find you burn the minutes very quickly.
> : So even telling cold-callers where to go wastes a minute of talk
> time
>
> Depends how many cold callers you get. In 10+ years of owning a mobile
> I
> think I've had two. Not many more on the landlines either. Perhaps
> I've
> been lucky..?
>
There would probably be a few more if they thought it would cost them
less ;-)
But the TPS now seems to be working well, which reminds me, I must get
my new mobile number listed.
- 09-18-2008, 05:44 AM #15Ivor JonesGuest
Re: Ofcom considers termination charges
In news:[email protected],
alexd <[email protected]> typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:27:27 +0100, Theo Markettos wrote:
:
: > This strikes me as precisely the thing that 03 was invented for.
: > Callers to 03 (should) know that a) it costs the same as 01/02 so
: > there's no unexpected charges and b) the destination could be
: > anywhere. Sounds exactly what's required here. Maybe make it a
: > separate range of 038 or 039 so it's not confused with ex-0845/0870
: > 'call centre' numbers.
:
: This is why I suggested [elsethread] 04, as there could easily be a
: 1:1 mapping of old 07 to new 04 numbers. And mobile numbers used to
: be 04.
Mine didn't, it used to be 09..!
Ivor
Similar Threads
- uk.telecom.mobile
- General Service Provider Forum
- Sony Ericsson
- Computers
¿Quién edita la foto?
in Chit Chat