Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?

Miguel Cruz wrote:

>
> 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.

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

---

› See More: Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?

"Osmo R" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

Whose needs you have to account for. There is no way I'd ever give up my
landline while the vast majority of people who phone me do so from a landline -
it'd cost them about 10 times as much to call me.

> Why should receiver pays not apply to long distance and international
> calls also?

Because the receiver may not know it is long distance/international till they
answer, or even then.

--
Andy

Andy Pandy wrote:
> "Osmo R" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Whose needs you have to account for. There is no way I'd ever give up
> my landline while the vast majority of people who phone me do so from
> a landline - it'd cost them about 10 times as much to call me.

You do not have a mobile? Well in Finland you would be an exception. I
think it is just fair and just that everyone is responsible for the cost
of his own calls provided of course that he knows the cost.

>> Why should receiver pays not apply to long distance and
>> international calls also?
>
>
> Because the receiver may not know it is long distance/international
> till they answer, or even then.

Well if caller ID they can know. And how do they know in the U.S. if the
caller is from same carrier in which case the airtime can be free (as I
have heard)

Osmo

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> 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.

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 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.

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

Andy Pandy wrote:
> "Osmo R" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:Nl8me.515$Z%[email protected]...
>
>>> And I don't want to make my friends pay 5 times as much to call
>>> me.
>>
>> As I said it is 6.9 cents a minute to any phone. Ah I see, yuo
>> assume the friends have land lines. Here people do not in general
>> have land lines anymore. Why would they have them?
>
>
> I have a landline because:
>
> a) I can't get broadband on a mobile.

??? I do have ADSL but no land line phone. Are they somehow connected
where yo live? (With land line I mean the phone connection, not the
physical wire)

The rest of here does not apply here or at least I have no need for it.
Neither does many other people.

Osmo

"Osmo R" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> > Whose needs you have to account for. There is no way I'd ever give up
> > my landline while the vast majority of people who phone me do so from
> > a landline - it'd cost them about 10 times as much to call me.
>
> You do not have a mobile? Well in Finland you would be an exception.

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 it is just fair and just that everyone is responsible for the cost
> of his own calls provided of course that he knows the cost.

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 receiver pays not apply to long distance and
> >> international calls also?
> >
> >
> > Because the receiver may not know it is long distance/international
> > till they answer, or even then.
>
> Well if caller ID they can know.

Why should they have to check every time?

> And how do they know in the U.S. if the
> caller is from same carrier in which case the airtime can be free (as I
> have heard)

Nearly all mobiles have caller ID. In the UK most landlines don't.

--
Andy

"Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >I didn't realise this was a competition. I've pointed out before, I
> >don't call mobile numbers that often. It's about showing that 'average
> >call' is pretty meaningless, and depends on the user's calling pattern.
>
> It clearly seems to be. It's a case of my mobile standard is better
> than your standard so I must be right and you must be wrong.

Yup, it's turning into a typical rec.travel.europe thread where as soon anyone
claims that something is better in the US, some Europeans seem to get extremely
defensive and you end up with a "we're better than you na-na-na-na-na" thread
where nobody is prepared to admit they were wrong whatever evidence is put in
front of them.

--
Andy

Why should I have to pay more if the caller calls me from long distance
instead of from local? It is the caller that is choosing to be far from
me. A wireless phone only pays for the part of the call handled by the
wireless company. It does not pay for the land line part of the call.
The calling party pays for that.

Andy Pandy <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > >I didn't realise this was a competition. I've pointed out before, I
> > >don't call mobile numbers that often. It's about showing that 'average
> > >call' is pretty meaningless, and depends on the user's calling pattern.
> >
> > It clearly seems to be. It's a case of my mobile standard is better
> > than your standard so I must be right and you must be wrong.
>
> Yup, it's turning into a typical rec.travel.europe thread where as soon
> anyone claims that something is better in the US, some Europeans seem to
> get extremely defensive and you end up with a "we're better than you
> na-na-na-na-na" thread where nobody is prepared to admit they were wrong
> whatever evidence is put in front of them.

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. 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. (I'm certainly not arguing that the costs are reasonable.)
If you want to frame that as a 'US vs. Europe' argument, then that's
entirely your problem. It's certainly not my motivation.

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

"Osmo R" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >> As I said it is 6.9 cents a minute to any phone. Ah I see, yuo
> >> assume the friends have land lines. Here people do not in general
> >> have land lines anymore. Why would they have them?
> >
> >
> > I have a landline because:
> >
> > a) I can't get broadband on a mobile.
>
> ??? I do have ADSL but no land line phone. Are they somehow connected
> where yo live? (With land line I mean the phone connection, not the
> physical wire)

The broadband connection goes down the physical landline wire. If I didn't have
the landline I couldn't have broadband (cable is an option for some people here
but not all streets have cable - mine doesn't).

> The rest of here does not apply here or at least I have no need for it.
> Neither does many other people.

Well, if you have no need to make phone calls for much cheaper rates than you
are paying, why join in this thread?

--
Andy

It is just and fair that everyone here is responsible for the cost of
his own calls. Of course he knows the cost. The cost of every local
call is the same. He is only paying his cost of completing a land line
call. The wireless part of the call, if there is one, is paid for by
the person who is choosing to be mobile. If he is using his wireless
phone to make a call, he should pay for making his wireless part of the
call. He should not have to pay for the wireless part, if there is one,
of the recipient. The cost and the benefit are directly linked. If
someone over there wants me to call them and does not give me a land
line number, I will either not call or make it a collect call.

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> 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.

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

If it is from the same carrier, and one has that feature added to their
plan, so it is not all that free. That is a good question. Because
caller id is part of the service and I have all my friends and relatives
in my phone's book, and I know which ones are on the same carrier, then
I know which ones are "free". If the call is from a number I do not
recognize, then not knowing if they are calling from the same service
does not matter, because I don't answer unknown calls anyway.

Most children do not have mobile phones.
If I make a call to a mobile number, I am making a land line call to a
wireless carrier, yes I should pay for that call. The wireless carrier
forwards the call via it's wireless service to it's customer. The
customer is the one who should pay for his wireless service.
I think I will call Pete and Bill to tell them the good news. I won't
call Tom or Fred because they don't have a land line and their wireless
operators charge to call them.

Maybe I will call Walt and Joe because their wireless provider only
charges half as much as Tom and Fred's.