Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?

{{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
....
> Yes, but if you have your phone not on a contract, how long will it work for,

In the US the phone will "work" for 911 until the battery fails.

> and also you would have to ignore all incoming calls so not as to get charged,

If one has no plan, one has no number, and therefor there are no
incoming calls at all! Pretty convenient!

> as you phone is really only for emergencies, how do you know whether an
> incoming call is an emergency or not,

There are NO incoming calls. See above.

> and to whether to answer the call and
> then end up getting charged for a useless call.

There are no charges.

>
> No thank you very much.
>

You would look a gift horse in the mouth?

---

› See More: Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?

Ivor Jones wrote:

> "Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:54:18 +0100, "Jet Morgan"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Are you saying that a US GSM handset can not "roam" outside
>>>their own state (or even city) ? And why is that called "roaming" ?
>>
>>Of course they can. It's generally called roaming when you're using
>>another network to complete your calls. These days many plans include
>>roaming on other networks so that's not even an issue.
>
>
> Ah, there is the difference he might not have understood. Here in the UK
> the main network operators do not allow roaming on one another's systems.
>
> Ivor
>
>

No roaming? Does everyone use public transportation too?-)

I think that 'no roaming' means that the market is not expanding fast
enough to motivate interconnection of systems. Or the technologies are
too incompatible.

Andy Pandy wrote:

> "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Thus spaketh Andy Pandy:
>>
>>>>Thankfully we never went down the crazy route of paying for incoming
>>>>calls.
>>>
>>>No? Ever used your phone abroad?
>>
>>Yes, many many times, but that is roaming, and things are changing in that
>>area too.
>
>
> So presumably you've paid for incoming calls. Are you crazy?
>
> --
> Andy
>
>

Can y'all stop cross-posting to the Voice-over-IP group? Thanks.

In article <[email protected]>,
Rick Merrill <[email protected]> wrote:
>I think that 'no roaming' means that the market is not expanding fast
>enough to motivate interconnection of systems. Or the technologies are
>too incompatible.

No, it means the networks all have national coverage.

Dave
--
Email: [email protected] MSN Messenger: [email protected]

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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 09:12:24 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 23 May 2005 22:39:40 +0100, "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>> 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!*
>>
>>Hey, I've been arguing *in favour* of the US system..! I'd like to see it
>>at least available as an alternative.
>
> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

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'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.

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

"Rick Merrill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> {{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
> ...
>> Yes, but if you have your phone not on a contract, how long will it
>> work for,
>
> In the US the phone will "work" for 911 until the battery fails.
>
>> and also you would have to ignore all incoming calls so not as to get
>> charged,
>
> If one has no plan, one has no number, and therefor there are no
> incoming calls at all! Pretty convenient!
>
>> as you phone is really only for emergencies, how do you know whether an
>> incoming call is an emergency or not,
>
> There are NO incoming calls. See above.
>
>> and to whether to answer the call and then end up getting charged for
>> a useless call.
>
> There are no charges.
>
>>
>> No thank you very much.
>
> You would look a gift horse in the mouth?

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

"David Marshall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Rick Merrill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>I think that 'no roaming' means that the market is not expanding fast
>>enough to motivate interconnection of systems. Or the technologies are
>>too incompatible.
>
> No, it means the networks all have national coverage.

And Orange don't want you buying a phone from them and then using Vodafone
to make calls..! Or the other way round.

Ivor

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]lid
says...
> 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'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.

--
Hedgehog

"Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

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...

--
Andy

Ivor Jones wrote:
> "David Marshall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Rick Merrill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>I think that 'no roaming' means that the market is not expanding fast
>>>enough to motivate interconnection of systems. Or the technologies are
>>>too incompatible.
>>
>>No, it means the networks all have national coverage.
>
>
> And Orange don't want you buying a phone from them and then using Vodafone
> to make calls..! Or the other way round.
>
> Ivor
>
>

Well then, as long as any phone works anywhere in GB, there's no
problem, is there?

"Rick Merrill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>> "David Marshall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>Rick Merrill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think that 'no roaming' means that the market is not expanding fast
>>>>enough to motivate interconnection of systems. Or the technologies are
>>>>too incompatible.
>>>
>>>No, it means the networks all have national coverage.
>>
>>
>> And Orange don't want you buying a phone from them and then using
>> Vodafone to make calls..! Or the other way round.
>>
>> Ivor
>>
>>
>
> Well then, as long as any phone works anywhere in GB, there's no
> problem, is there?

There are pockets where some networks have coverage but not others, such
as in the remoter areas of Scotland etc.

Ivor

On Tue, 24 May 2005 13:12:28 GMT, "Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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

You can also get 0800 or 0845 or 0870 numbers that terminate at a
mobile.


--
Visit the Hairydog Guide to Mobile Phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html - maintainers of
http://www.mobileshop.org - the on-line mobile phone guide
sponsored by http://www.mobileshop.com - the online store

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 13:12:28 GMT, "Stuart Friedman" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>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
>
> You can also get 0800 or 0845 or 0870 numbers that terminate at a
> mobile.

Which isn't the point under discussion.

Ivor

Thus spaketh Andy Pandy:
> "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Thus spaketh Andy Pandy:
>>>> Thankfully we never went down the crazy route of paying for
>>>> incoming calls.
>>>
>>> No? Ever used your phone abroad?
>>
>> Yes, many many times, but that is roaming, and things are changing
>> in that area too.
>
> So presumably you've paid for incoming calls. Are you crazy?

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.