Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?

Osmo R wrote:

> Funny how I get messages like it is wrong to force others to pay for my
> mobility. If one says that our system is wrong and theirs is right then
> I see that as pushing.

You're the one saying our system is wrong. You have a problem; not us. I
don't care what Europe or Asia uses. I live in North America. I'm not
arguing that anyone should replace anything.


--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

---

› See More: Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?

Osmo R wrote:

> There is no forwarding. It is just a call between two phones and the
> caller should pay the cost it takes to make the connection.

STOP RIGHT THERE.

Why are you whining about us forcing our opinions on you? Right there you
say the caller should pay. That's not the way it works over here. You don't
have to like it, but that's the way it is, and it works for people over here.

Stop whining about us forcing our system on you. You're the one that wants
to force CPP on us.

> I do understand your system and I am not saying it is a wrong one for
> you.

You *are* saying it's wrong for us. You said "the caller should pay the cost."

> Almost everyone has a mobile phone by now. The main exception are old
> people who might not necessarily have one.

Guess what: Finland has a higher concentration of wireless phones than any
other country in the world. Stop assuming the way Finland works should be
the way the rest of the world works.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Osmo R <[email protected]> wrote:
> Joseph wrote:
>> Osmo R <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I never call someone after 9 pm unless that was
>>> agreed beforehand.
>>
>> 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.
>
> I just consider it polite not to call others at night. If that is an
> expression of me me me then so be it.

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
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan

Steve Sobol wrote:
> Osmo R wrote:
>
>> There is no forwarding. It is just a call between two phones and
>> the caller should pay the cost it takes to make the connection.
>
>
> STOP RIGHT THERE.
>
> Why are you whining about us forcing our opinions on you? Right there
> you say the caller should pay.

I am not saying that you should change your system. I am defending the
system we have here.

> That's not the way it works over here. You don't have to like it, but
> that's the way it is, and it works for people over here.
>
> Stop whining about us forcing our system on you. You're the one that
> wants to force CPP on us.
>
>> I do understand your system and I am not saying it is a wrong one
>> for you.
>
>
> You *are* saying it's wrong for us. You said "the caller should pay
> the cost."
>
>> Almost everyone has a mobile phone by now. The main exception are
>> old people who might not necessarily have one.
>
>
> Guess what: Finland has a higher concentration of wireless phones
> than any other country in the world.

Actually that's not the case anymore. And that was in defense of
the system we have here. I am not interested in changing your
system.

Osmo

Ivor Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

[]
> 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..!

Sure, but in the same way you can set up your phones so you're oblivious
to people calling, it's also not unusual for some people to have a
cut-off time after which they won't call, or expect a call. I won't
usually call anyone after 10pm unless it's arranged in advance, or they
say 'call as late as you want.' I keep my various phones' ringers on all
the time when I'm at home (I switch the phone off in many work and other
situations)- not that I always answer the calls. I usually disable the
text alert sounds though- as you can expect to get email at any time,
and there have been a few times I've forgotten, and have been awoken at
2am...

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:

> "chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1gxemzu.4b4vx69r1rphN%[email protected]...
[]
> > Except the criteria you used are incredibly arbitrary, and even by any
> > stretch of the imagination not realistic.
>
> Not arbitrary at all.

It's entirely arbitrary to divide the distribution of minutes the way
you did. Do you have evidence that people use their phones in the way
you did your breakdown?

> I wanted to show the difference in prices if calling
> patterns that are shaped by people avoiding making calls to mobiles are NOT
> factored in. What happens with caller pays, is that everyone tries to avoid
> calling mobile phones.

It would help if you knew a little about how the UK market actually
works, instead of guessing. For example, most of my students are on
deals where their inclusive minutes include mobiles and landlines- they
probably call mobiles more than landlines. I have a different kind of
plan, which suits my needs- i.e. I call landlines most of the time. The
point is that there are a variety of plans available depending on what
your callin pattern is. Most people are probably better off on a PAYG
plan IMO. Recent statistics for the UK indicated that 75% of mobile
phone 'accounts' were PAYG, but I suspect a lot of those accounts are
dormant.

> I did two comparisons.
>
> I compared the 1000 minutes divided up as stated in the previous post, then
> I did peak-only, with 100 minutes mobile to off-network mobile, 100 minutes
> of termination charges from off-peak mobile to mobile, 100 minutes of mobile
> to landline, and 100 minutes of landline to mobile.

I'm aware of how you divided it up, and it's an entirely arbitrary
comparison. You have no evidence that this is anything like a 'typical'
(I note the word was thrown around quite liberally by yourself and
andypandy) mobile phone usage in either market.

[]
> Where the termination charges really hurt UK users is in off-peak received
> calls, and off-peak calls made to off-network mobiles. For a U.S. user, all
> these calls would be free. Mobile phones are used extensively as a
> replacement for long distance service, since you can make calls of virtually
> any length, anywhere in the country, at no charge, nights and weekends.

There are also cheap plans in the UK which have large numbers of offpeak
minutes. And you can call landlines at any time of the day in the UK for
an unlimited time for as low as a 3p connection charge. It's pointless
making these kinds of comparisons unless you know how people use their
phones. If you could point me to a website which actually breaks down
such statistics, I'd love to see it. I'm mostly finding summarised
market research, most of it with some kind of agenda.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote:

> Osmo R <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Joseph wrote:
> >> Osmo R <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> I never call someone after 9 pm unless that was
> >>> agreed beforehand.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > I just consider it polite not to call others at night. If that is an
> > expression of me me me then so be it.
>
> 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.

Fair enough, but it's not as if Osmo's calling pattern is that unusual.
There's a good reason that offpeak kicks in at 6, 7 or 9pm of whatever
it is in someone's local market. Most people want or need to make calls
in peak time- that's why it's more expensive to call then. The companies
don't give their customers 'free' offpeak minutes because they like
them.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:

> "chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
>
> > I don't think that's happened at all, and I don't see any evidence
> > that's going to convince _me_- I'm very happy with what I pay to use my
> > mobile phone. It's a question of whether caller pays is better or worse
> > for the consumer.
>
> In terms of cost, there is no real question about that. Caller pays has
> resulted in much higher overall costs.

Which has not actually been proved here, no matter how many times you
repeat it. There are no verifiable statistics I can find which actually
demonstrate this. I keep on getting told that study after study confirms
this. Which study? I'm honestly quite agnostic on this.

> >Well, I'm a consumer too, and I've not seen any
> > argument so far that's convinced me I'd want to pay for incoming calls,
> > or that caller pays is the answer for getting UK companies to _lower_
> > their costs.
>
> It would almost certainly have that effect, as it would spur real
> competition among carriers. The system as it stands, stifles competition.

I'm not without my criticisms of the UK mobile market, but I've not seen
anything here which makes me think it's the 'caller pays' system which
contributes to it.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Ototin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 03:21:28 +0100, [email protected]
> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
> wrote:
>
> >Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> "chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>
> >> > I don't think that's happened at all, and I don't see any evidence
> >> > that's going to convince _me_- I'm very happy with what I pay to use my
> >> > mobile phone. It's a question of whether caller pays is better or worse
> >> > for the consumer.
> >>
> >> In terms of cost, there is no real question about that. Caller pays has
> >> resulted in much higher overall costs.
> >
> >Which has not actually been proved here, no matter how many times you
> >repeat it. There are no verifiable statistics I can find which actually
> >demonstrate this. I keep on getting told that study after study confirms
> >this. Which study? I'm honestly quite agnostic on this.
>
> Let's try this comparison.

Why? What basis does it have in reality?

[]
> In Canada a sample calling plan for a mobile account is $20.00 per
> month that includes 200 minutes.

Sorry, what do you mean "sample?" Do you mean average? If so, that's
incredibly cheap. So, is the average calling plan in Canada CDN$20? I'm
impressed.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gxggjb.1q56c9otzhhpN%[email protected]...
> Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:1gxemzu.4b4vx69r1rphN%[email protected]...
> []
> > > Except the criteria you used are incredibly arbitrary, and even by any
> > > stretch of the imagination not realistic.
> >
> > Not arbitrary at all.
>
> It's entirely arbitrary to divide the distribution of minutes the way
> you did. Do you have evidence that people use their phones in the way
> you did your breakdown?
>
> > I wanted to show the difference in prices if calling
> > patterns that are shaped by people avoiding making calls to mobiles are
NOT
> > factored in. What happens with caller pays, is that everyone tries to
avoid
> > calling mobile phones.
>
> It would help if you knew a little about how the UK market actually
> works, instead of guessing. For example, most of my students are on
> deals where their inclusive minutes include mobiles and landlines- they
> probably call mobiles more than landlines. I have a different kind of
> plan, which suits my needs- i.e. I call landlines most of the time. The
> point is that there are a variety of plans available depending on what
> your callin pattern is. Most people are probably better off on a PAYG
> plan IMO. Recent statistics for the UK indicated that 75% of mobile
> phone 'accounts' were PAYG, but I suspect a lot of those accounts are
> dormant.
>
> > I did two comparisons.
> >
> > I compared the 1000 minutes divided up as stated in the previous post,
then
> > I did peak-only, with 100 minutes mobile to off-network mobile, 100
minutes
> > of termination charges from off-peak mobile to mobile, 100 minutes of
mobile
> > to landline, and 100 minutes of landline to mobile.
>
> I'm aware of how you divided it up, and it's an entirely arbitrary
> comparison. You have no evidence that this is anything like a 'typical'
> (I note the word was thrown around quite liberally by yourself and
> andypandy) mobile phone usage in either market.
>
> []
> > Where the termination charges really hurt UK users is in off-peak
received
> > calls, and off-peak calls made to off-network mobiles. For a U.S. user,
all
> > these calls would be free. Mobile phones are used extensively as a
> > replacement for long distance service, since you can make calls of
virtually
> > any length, anywhere in the country, at no charge, nights and weekends.
>
> There are also cheap plans in the UK which have large numbers of offpeak
> minutes. And you can call landlines at any time of the day in the UK for
> an unlimited time for as low as a 3p connection charge. It's pointless
> making these kinds of comparisons unless you know how people use their
> phones.

It's irrelevant how people use their phones, both calls to and from mobiles,
from and to landlines, because how they use them is highly influenced by the
way the tariffs are set up. Just in this thread, we've seen many posts about
how people avoid calling mobiles from landlines whenever possible, due to
the termination charges.

What you want to do is to look at several different calling patterns, and
the relative costs of each. It's very hard to do, because the mobile
companies do not make all their charges public, at least not on their web
sites.

Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:

[]
> It's irrelevant how people use their phones, both calls to and from mobiles,
> from and to landlines, because how they use them is highly influenced by the
> way the tariffs are set up. Just in this thread, we've seen many posts about
> how people avoid calling mobiles from landlines whenever possible, due to
> the termination charges.

True- it's surely not irrelevant how people use their phones, because
the issue at hand is how much people pay for their calls. So, if someone
has a mobile with inclusive minutes to other mobiles, then the cost
isn't the same factor.

> What you want to do is to look at several different calling patterns, and
> the relative costs of each. It's very hard to do, because the mobile
> companies do not make all their charges public, at least not on their web
> sites.

You can usually figure out the costs of calls if you delve deep enough
into the web sites, but of more interest to me would be how people use
their phones. If someone has 1,000 minutes on a plan, but only averages
using 500 of them, then it doesn't make sense to divide the plan's cost
by a 1,000 to get the per minute cost.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gxh46a.ojo6fc13eqhisN%[email protected]...
> Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> []
>> It's irrelevant how people use their phones, both calls to and from
>> mobiles,
>> from and to landlines, because how they use them is highly influenced
>> by the
>> way the tariffs are set up. Just in this thread, we've seen many posts
>> about
>> how people avoid calling mobiles from landlines whenever possible, due
>> to
>> the termination charges.
>
> True- it's surely not irrelevant how people use their phones, because
> the issue at hand is how much people pay for their calls. So, if someone
> has a mobile with inclusive minutes to other mobiles, then the cost
> isn't the same factor.

It is in a way, because people will, consciously or unconsciously, tailor
their phone usage to fit the tariff they're using. When I was on pay as
you go, I made hardly any calls on it, using mainly the landline. Now I
have a contract with hundreds of inclusive minutes, I make almost all my
calls on the mobile. I use the normal landline hardly at all, but I use
VoIP to call other people also on it, for free.

Ivor

Miguel Cruz wrote:
> Osmo R <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> They might if they knew it would result in the cost of their outgoing calls
> dropping to half or less.

They do not. I surely do not.

Osmo

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> It's irrelevant how people use their phones, both calls to and from mobiles,
> from and to landlines, because how they use them is highly influenced by the
> way the tariffs are set up. Just in this thread, we've seen many posts about
> how people avoid calling mobiles from landlines whenever possible, due to
> the termination charges.


Itr sure is not irrelevant. The price comparisons should of course be
based on the real use of phones, not some imaginary use. If people
seldom do call mobiles from landlines then I do not see how that should
be included in the comparison.

I acknowledge that there is a problem in that pricing affects behavior
(and behavior affects pricing) but that's just something one cannot
avoid. For that reason it is very hard to compare fixed prices and per
minute/per call prices as the behavior in different in those.

> What you want to do is to look at several different calling patterns, and
> the relative costs of each. It's very hard to do, because the mobile
> companies do not make all their charges public, at least not on their web
> sites.

The problem with this is that by choosing the pattern one can choose the
result. The idea of taking costs to all parties into question is just
meaningless. I do not care what it costs to other parties (within
reasonable limits). I optimize my behavior, let the callers do that for
themselves.

>
>

Ototin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:44:46 +0100, [email protected]
> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
> wrote:
>
> >You can usually figure out the costs of calls if you delve deep enough
> >into the web sites, but of more interest to me would be how people use
> >their phones. If someone has 1,000 minutes on a plan, but only averages
> >using 500 of them, then it doesn't make sense to divide the plan's cost
> >by a 1,000 to get the per minute cost.
>
> So, for the sake of comparison assume that the 1,000 minutes is used
> up. And also assumed a usage during a specific time period, for
> example, from 07:00 to 20:00 everyday.

I'd bother doing so if I thought that most mobile users were using their
phone between 0700 and 2000 and using a 1,000 minutes a month.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk