Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Lenny
    Guest
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...le_assessment/

    "paying to receive calls - is the more likely conclusion."





    See More: Ofcom considers termination charges




  2. #2
    ChrisM
    Guest

    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)





  3. #3
    Chris Dent
    Guest

    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?




  4. #4
    Dennis Ferguson
    Guest

    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



  5. #5
    Brian A
    Guest

    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.
    ---



  6. #6
    Lenny
    Guest

    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.





  7. #7

    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 ..



  8. #8
    alexd
    Guest

    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



  9. #9
    Ivor Jones
    Guest

    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




  10. #10
    D Mac
    Guest

    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




  11. #11
    Theo Markettos
    Guest

    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



  12. #12
    Ivor Jones
    Guest

    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




  13. #13
    Ivor Jones
    Guest

    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




  14. #14
    Harry Stottle
    Guest

    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.





  15. #15
    Ivor Jones
    Guest

    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