Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?

On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:53:33 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The GSM network
>in the U.S. is in its infancy, and coverage is still very poor once you
>leave the urban core.

that was the case 4 years ago but it has come on massively since then.
I have been working with a US colleague where I had GSM and GPRS but
his steam phone had switched to analog mode !

Phil
--
spamcop.net address commissioned 18/06/04
Come on down !

---

› See More: Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?

On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:53:33 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>And it would be really rare to get a CDMA signal in the UK!

No, there is quite a lot of 3G coverage in the UK.

--
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

chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco
wrote:

[snip]

> Define overall. I'm very happy with what I get for my 15 quid a
> month, and I can't offhand think of any plan I'd rather have- other
> than it being free. I'm happy to pay 10p a minute to call a UK
> mobile- even happier with the 6p I currently pay (for a limited
> time.)

Wouldn't you be happier paying the same to call a mobile as a landline..?
One reason I *never* call a mobile from a landline is the sheer ripoff
charges. It's not so bad from my mobile but it's still a hell of a lot
worse than the US system IMHO.

Ivor

"Phil Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > For low use
> >I could pay $19/mo for 50 minutes.
>
> about the same as here using the "real world" exchange rate of £1=$1.

That is not the "real world" exchange rate.

> We usually include tax in prices. The US market is 5 times bigger than
> the UK has a minimum wage that is 40% lower and hasn't changed for
> several years

Why is the minimum wage relavent? That's an amount per hour and doesn't even
correlate with a minimum income.

The average income is far more relevant, and that's about the same in the US and
UK - using the *actual* exchange rate.

> and has gasoline/petrol at 1/3 the price.

Which is down to tax.

> So getting
> stuff at the same price or less in the UK is somewhat unlikely.

It's not. I can drink in a bar/pub cheaper in the UK. I can get a train cheaper
in the UK. I can make a long distance/international landline call for the same
sort of price in the UK as the US.

Why should mobile calls be more expensive in the UK, particularly as our
population density is much greater?

> As for "excessive" charges, can someone tell me which phone company is
> making a huge profit %sales or %capital so I can go and buy some of
> their shares :-)

Vodafone were in the news this week. Profits before writedowns of £10.3bn on a
turnover of £34.13bn. Dividends doubled.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4574437.stm

--
Andy

"Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 27 May 2005 20:11:10 +0100,
[email protected]
> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
> wrote:
>
> >They pay more to call mobiles, and they have the choice as to
whether or
> >not they call them. I'm quite satisfied with what I pay for phone
calls,
> >and I reckon I probably spend quite a bit less on a per minute
basis
> >than the average user in a country like the US, where the receiver
pays.
>
> Perhaps you do. I do not see however how the constant debate on
> "we're better than you" is supposed to accomplish anything at all.
> Europe isn't switching to the system used in North America and North
> Americans aren't switching to the system used in Europe. That's
> reality. Deal with it! If you love your system fine. You have it.
> If you want to come over to North America be prepared to do
something
> different than you do in the UK, Europe or wherever you are. I'm
> prepared that things will be different in Europe as well and I'd be
> just foolish to rail against what is the status quo there and
likewise
> you'd be silly to do likewise in North America. This old pony gets
> trotted out from time-to-time, and if you haven't learned yet you
need
> to learn that it's *NOT GOING TO BE SETTLED* and definitely not on
> usenet.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>

If the US systems are so much better, why is it then that a
significantly larger portion of the world is now using GSM rather than
TDMA? It's not just UK and Europe.


--
Woody

harrogate2 at ntlworld dot com

harrogate2 wrote:

[snip]

> If the US systems are so much better, why is it then that a
> significantly larger portion of the world is now using GSM rather
> than TDMA? It's not just UK and Europe.

We're talking about the way calls are charged for, not what type of system
they use. The reasons for the US still using TDMA/CDMA and analogue are
historical and also based on the gepgraphy of that country. The reasons
for them using callee pays is largely due to the argument that the caller
should not pay a premium due to the callee deciding they want to be
reachable while mobile. You want to go mobile, *you* pay the cost of doing
so..! Sounds reasonable to me.

Ivor

Ivor Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

> chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Define overall. I'm very happy with what I get for my 15 quid a
> > month, and I can't offhand think of any plan I'd rather have- other
> > than it being free. I'm happy to pay 10p a minute to call a UK
> > mobile- even happier with the 6p I currently pay (for a limited
> > time.)
>
> Wouldn't you be happier paying the same to call a mobile as a landline..?

I wouldn't complain about it, but not if it meant having to pay for
incoming calls. One problem is that the cost of landlines has plummeted,
so the difference seems even greater. Another thing to remember is that
the cost of calling mobiles, while high, is not an exact reflection of
the termination charges- as the wide range of pricing illustrates.

> One reason I *never* call a mobile from a landline is the sheer ripoff
> charges.

Good- that's one way of forcing the prices down.

> It's not so bad from my mobile but it's still a hell of a lot
> worse than the US system IMHO.

The US system seems great until you exhaust your daytime minutes, and
start having to pay 25 to 40 cents a minute. Frankly, when I'm getting
called on my mobile- it's on business- and the businesses calling me are
a) usually getting good rates on calling a mobile and b) not going to be
on the phone for long. If a friend calls me- I'll call them on a
landline. If none of your friends had access to a landline, I could
understand why you'd want a US system, but for my uses, the current
system works very well for me.

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

On Sat, 28 May 2005 01:19:17 +0100, "Andy Pandy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>That is not the "real world" exchange rate.

price parity or call it what you like, IME something costing $5 in the
states is very likely to cost £5 here.

>> We usually include tax in prices. The US market is 5 times bigger than
>> the UK has a minimum wage that is 40% lower and hasn't changed for
>> several years
>
>Why is the minimum wage relavent? That's an amount per hour and doesn't even
>correlate with a minimum income.

its a business input cost. If you want someone to go dig a trench in
the UK it will cost you a lot more for the labour and a lot more for
the fuel to get the labour on site and fuel the plant. This is the
start of the escalating cost base.

>The average income is far more relevant, and that's about the same in the US and
>UK - using the *actual* exchange rate.
>
>> and has gasoline/petrol at 1/3 the price.
>Which is down to tax.

indeed, but its not refundable and its an input cost our businesses
have to pay that US ones do not. If all the inputs cost more we can
hardly be surprised if the output costs more.

Vodafone - "But after these costs it made a loss of £4.7bn"

There are practically no trains in the US to compare and I haven't
noticed meals and drinks being more expensive. I pay for a decent
hotel less than I would pay for a Travelodge etc etc.

Phil
--
spamcop.net address commissioned 18/06/04
Come on down !

"Phil Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Why is the minimum wage relavent? That's an amount per hour and doesn't even
> >correlate with a minimum income.
>
> its a business input cost. If you want someone to go dig a trench in
> the UK it will cost you a lot more for the labour and a lot more for
> the fuel to get the labour on site and fuel the plant. This is the
> start of the escalating cost base.

Until a few years ago the UK didn't even *have* a minimum wage - and the price
differential was about the same as it is now. It's got nothing to do with the
minimum wage.

> >The average income is far more relevant, and that's about the same in the US
and
> >UK - using the *actual* exchange rate.
> >
> >> and has gasoline/petrol at 1/3 the price.
> >Which is down to tax.
>
> indeed, but its not refundable and its an input cost our businesses
> have to pay that US ones do not. If all the inputs cost more we can
> hardly be surprised if the output costs more.
>
> Vodafone - "But after these costs it made a loss of £4.7bn"

Yeah - after "writedowns". They made a massive profits on ongoing business -
about 30% of their revenue.

> There are practically no trains in the US to compare and I haven't
> noticed meals and drinks being more expensive. I pay for a decent
> hotel less than I would pay for a Travelodge etc etc.

I didn't say meals were more expensive. They are cheaper. Drinking in pubs/bars
is usually much more expensive in the US.

But we're talking telecoms - it's much more relavent to compare telecom prices.
Landline costs are about the same in the UK as the US, possibly even a bit
cheaper in the UK. Mobile prices are much more expensive in the UK, despite
geography, and research shows this *is* down to the caller pays system.

--
Andy

"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gx8l4r.g3qcep1740z0qN%[email protected]...
> > The caller-pays disadvantage is quite simple IMO. Beautifully simple in
> > fact. Consumers pay more for phone calls.
>
> They pay more to call mobiles, and they have the choice as to whether or
> not they call them. I'm quite satisfied with what I pay for phone calls,
> and I reckon I probably spend quite a bit less on a per minute basis
> than the average user in a country like the US, where the receiver pays.

You probably spend quite a bit less per minute than the average UK user too.

However the average UK user spends more than the average US user.

> > And I don't want to make my friends pay 5 times as much to call me.
>
> I would call mine back, and I don't know anyone who doesn't have a
> landline. If you care that much about what your friends have to pay,
> then you have a simple solution. Rent a landline number and divert calls
> from that to your mobile.

Which would mean you'd end up paying a lot more than a typical US incoming
mobile call. For me it's not so much about who pays, but how much is paid.

I would not mind at all if the premium to call a UK mobile was approximately the
same as the typical US mobile incoming call charge. But it isn't.

--
Andy

"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gx89dq.1ngpw1jcyw79cN%[email protected]...
> > > I can call someone in Australia using inclusive minutes, but I won't be
> > > able to call a mobile in Sydney for that- nor will you- so make sure
> > > you've got your comparisons straight.
> >
> > I have! I'm comparing the cost of calling *landlines* with calling mobiles
(in
> > the UK and other countries where it is free to receive).
>
> It's not a straight comparison, because you compared the cost of calling
> a UK mobile to an Australian landline- compare a UK mobile to an
> Australian mobile for a better comparison.

What for? That's just comparing UK mobile termination premiums with Australian
mobile termination premiums, both countries use the same system with the same
problem.

A better comparison would be cost of calling a US mobile (including the charge
paid by the recipient) with the cost of calling a European/Australian mobile.

--
Andy

Andy Pandy <[email protected]> wrote:

[]
> A better comparison would be cost of calling a US mobile (including the charge
> paid by the recipient) with the cost of calling a European/Australian mobile.

It would be pretty tough to figure that out though, given the variation
in what you pay for incoming in the US.

Besides, I hardly ever call US cell phones- I call people on their
landlines.

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

Andy Pandy <[email protected]> wrote:

[]
> I would not mind at all if the premium to call a UK mobile was
> approximately the same as the typical US mobile incoming call charge. But
> it isn't.

You would need to find the average price for both- given how wide the
variation can be in calling plans and patterns, no easy task I imagine.

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

On Sat, 28 May 2005 10:14:18 +0100, "Andy Pandy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>But we're talking telecoms - it's much more relavent to compare telecom prices.
>Landline costs are about the same in the UK as the US

my mate took his $40/month landline out and now only has VoIP over his
cable broadband. Transferred the same number to the VoIP.

>, possibly even a bit
>cheaper in the UK. Mobile prices are much more expensive in the UK, despite
>geography, and research shows this *is* down to the caller pays system.

depends what you include in "mobile prices". My mate couldn't get the
phone I have for free (from Orange on a 120 minute tariff) without
paying about $400 for it. So that's about $35/month to add on.

I couldn't be doing with their ****ed up "you can only have this plan
in this ZIP code" mentality either.

Virgin mobile comparison:-
Calls cost 15p a minute for the first five minutes of calls each day
and 5p after that
Calls are 25 cents a minute for the first ten minutes each day, and
then just 10 cents a minute for the rest of the day.

doesn't suggest any massive discepancy.

Phil
--
spamcop.net address commissioned 18/06/04
Come on down !

"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gx9rki.576m9j5smnimN%[email protected]...
> Andy Pandy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> []
> > A better comparison would be cost of calling a US mobile (including the
charge
> > paid by the recipient) with the cost of calling a European/Australian
mobile.
>
> It would be pretty tough to figure that out though, given the variation
> in what you pay for incoming in the US.

Typical 10c per minute, about 5.5p.

1899 and 18866 typically charge a 13-14ppm premium (above the landline rate) to
call mobiles in countries were it is free to receive. So nearly 3 times the
cost, and that's probably best value. BT charge a 25ppm premium.

--
Andy