Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> Quite easy, given that there has been extensive study on the issue. The UK
> averages about 2x the U.S. cost for peak calls. But this is misleading,
> given the free nights and weekends on U.S. carriers, where neither the
> caller or the receiver pays. The actual cost difference, when you take into
> account all the calls, is much greater.

Another "complication" when comparing costs is that it is very common on
US plans to have calls between phones of the same mobile provider to be
free at all times in unlimited quantity to both users, even if one or
both of the phones are roaming on different networks. This is in
addition to unlimited free night/weekend calls (incoming or
outgoing)to/from any U.S. number (again, even if the phone is currently
roaming).

---

› See More: Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?

With respect to geographic coverage, is it fair to compare European
plans to the (now dwindling) "local" plans in the US, which typically
covered a single state and offered thousands of minutes at a cheap
price, rather than the now much more common plans which include the
entire U.S. as "local"? I understand that due to cultural differences, a
European is not as likely to make a call to Paris from Frankfurt as a
person in the U.S. is to make a call to New York from Chicago, so the
more "local" nature of European plans is not such an issue.

"Ototin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:56:48 +0300, Osmo R <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >John R. Levine wrote:
> >>>> In the US I was paying about US$25/month (19 euro) for unlimited
> >>>> calls to local landlines and mobiles. As you can imagine, calling
> >>>> patterns in that environment are quite different - people stay
> >>>> on the phone for hours.
> >>>
> >>> Well one can hope the other party does not have a mobile.
> >> Depends when. A lot of US plans now offer either unlimited night and
> >> weekend minutes or a large enough number that it might as well be
> >> unlimited, e.g., I get 3500/mo. This works fine for me, since during
> >> the day I tend to be in the office with my landline at hand, and
> >> nights and weekends I'm more likely to be out.
> >
> >With nights do you mean something like after 5 pm or after 9 pm. That
> >makes a huge difference.
>
> The most common is 19:00 to 08:00

Actually it's 21:00-0:700.

Joseph <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 May 2005 12:38:53 +0100, [email protected]
> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> But one wonders *why* you feel you must have the last word that yours
> is superior when the true fact remains that things are as they are and
> you're not going to change them so why rant and holler that you're so
> superior.

Funny, you seem to be the one popping in to have the 'last word', and
I'm genuinely interested in a discussion on the differences in pricing.
Oddly, I'd assumed I'd be able to have a decent discussion on this
issue. Instead, creepy accusations over superiority etc. seem to seep
in, a lot of it from you. I don't know what your problem is, but it's
getting really tiring.

<plonk>

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

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

> "Andy Pandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Maybe a UK person, can post what the total costs would be for a typical
> plan
> > > as outlined below, including the termination charges, as I did for the
> most
> > > expensive U.S. carrier:
>
> <snip>
>
> That's about what the studies showed as well, about 2x the cost in Europe
> per call. CPP termination fees really drives up the price.

Except the criteria you used are incredibly arbitrary, and even by any
stretch of the imagination not realistic. Depending on the distribution
of who calls whom, and how they pay for it, you'd get drastrically
different results. Who knows what the average mobile usage (or calls to
mobiles) is in either system. I admit that finding objective concrete
data on mobile usage is really difficult. I've certainly tried, and I
get very vague results. Given that you seem to know where it all is, I'd
kind of hoped you might offer more links to real data other than a
footnote in a document.

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

>>Actually it's 21:00-0:700.
>
>That is terrible. The 19:00 to 08:00 is offered by Fido, a GSM service
>provider in Canada.

If you have friends who go to bed early, there's an extra cost option
that makes your free nights start at 1900. I haven't bothered since I
don't use up my minutes as it is.

"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gxemzu.4b4vx69r1rphN%[email protected]...
> Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Andy Pandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Maybe a UK person, can post what the total costs would be for a
typical
> > plan
> > > > as outlined below, including the termination charges, as I did for
the
> > most
> > > > expensive U.S. carrier:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > That's about what the studies showed as well, about 2x the cost in
Europe
> > per call. CPP termination fees really drives up the price.
>
> Except the criteria you used are incredibly arbitrary, and even by any
> stretch of the imagination not realistic.

Not arbitrary at all. 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.

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.

For 1000 minutes:

100 Peak Outgoing, In-Network Mobile to Mobile
100 Peak Incoming, In-Network Mobile to Mobile
100 Peak Outoging, Mobile to Landline
100 Peak Incoming, Landline to Mobile
100 Peak Outoging, Mobile to Out-of-Network Mobile
100 Peak Incoming, Out-of-Network Mobile to Mobile
100 Off-Peak Outgoing, Mobile to Landline
100 Off-Peak Incoming, Landline to Mobile
100 Off-Peak Outgoing, In-Network Mobile to Mobile
100 Off-Peak Incoming, In-Network Mobile to Mobile

Verizon Wireless in the U.S. had an average price of $.06/minute
T-mobile in the UK had an average price of $0.19/minute

For:

100 Peak Outoging, Mobile to Landline
100 Peak Incoming, Landline to Mobile
100 Peak Outoging, Mobile to Out-of-Network Mobile
100 Peak Incoming, Out-of-Network Mobile to Mobile

Verizon Wireless in the U.S. had an average price of $0.15/minute
T-mobile in the UK had an average price of $0.19/minute

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.

Also, Verizin is the most expensive U.S. carrier. A similar plan on T-Mobile
gives you 1000 peak minutes, but T-Mobile's coverage in the U.S. is not very
good.

"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.

>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.

Steve Sobol wrote:
> Osmo R wrote:
>
>>> And the way kids abuse and lose things, 55 euros or whatever that
>>> is in dollars, is more than many families have to waste.
>>
>>
>> A mobile phone is not waste. Kids need mobile phones nowadays just
>> as adults need them. Without one the child will be a lonely one as
>> their friends cannot reach him.
>
>
> There are valid reasons to give a child a phone (e.g. for
> emergencies). Being able to chat all the time is not a valid reason.
>
Says who? And I was not talking about chatting all the time. They use
the mobiles to organize meetings etc. SMS use is very popular among kids
here.

> My teenage daughter talks a lot on our landline already, although
> granted, she is pretty good about only using the time we allow her to
> use... If we got her a cell phone it would end up costing us a ton
> of money...

One can put a limit on the use. Also one can teach her to use if
sparingly.

>
> And it *is* a waste if the kid ends up losing the phone.
>

Osmo

Steve Sobol wrote:
> Osmo R wrote:
>
>> That is simply not true. I expect no such thing. You can keep your
>> system. Just do not try to push it here.
>
>
> No one is trying to push it. Don't you have anything better to do than
> complain about a system you don't even use?
>
>

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. I do not see either as wrong just different and I
prefer the one we have here.

Osmo

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Is that L-M call 17-29 cents per minute on top of the 12 cents per
> call on top of the 18 euros?

That was per minute on a five minute call. (i.e. the total cost of the
call is five times that). The base fee is of course added but it is more
like 12 euros.

> My land line bill is $16 which is less than 16 euros and I do not pay
> any cents per call or cents per minute to call either a land line or
> a wireless phone. The 17-29 is from over 5 to over 7 times the cost
> of the 3-4.

Well $16 is less than 16 euros just because dollar happens to be so weak
now. A few years ago it was much more. It is true that landlines are
here expensive. The main reason is lack of competition as landlines
typically have had regional monopolies. I think things are starting to
change in this.

But as I have so often stated landline to mobile call is not an issue
as people do not make such calls (unless from work in which case they do
not care of the cost).

Osmo

This discussion seems to go nowhere. You keep on just telling how other
countries should do their business and how we are wrong.

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Yes the call is not complete and the billing should not start until
> the recipient phone answers. But if that land line call is not
> converted by the wireless company to a radio-phone call and sent to
> the recipient phone, which is forwarding, then the call can not be
> completed.

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. In some
cases when one makes calls the other phone is in the same local network.
In that case it is a local call. In some cases it is in other network so
it is a long-distance call. In some cases it is abroad when it is an
international call. And in some cases it is a mobile call in which case
it is a mobile call. In all cases the caller pays the whole thing. I do
not see what's the problem.

I do understand your system and I am not saying it is a wrong one for
you. I just would not want it here.

> Yes you should not pay the cost of others to call you, but the cost
> of the others is only to reach your wireless company.

They are calling me, not my wireless company.

> You should pay the cost of your wireless company to send the call to
> you, because you are the one who chose to mobile.

That "sending the call to me" is an integral part of the call.


> Yes land line customers do search out the optimal solution for them
> for regular local phone service and especially for long distance.

Here they do that by becoming mobile customers.


> People with credit bad enough that they can not get a post-pay home
> phone, can get a wireless phone here too, but just not with a
> post-pay plan. It has to be pre-pay. Which is not cheap, and a
> hassle to maintain. You can even get pre-pay home phones.

Here prepay is only for mobiles and it is not that expensive anymore.
The cheapest are IIRC 8.5 cents a minute. Depending on the operator one
can use ATM or Internet or both to recharge it.

> Your description of Helsinki rates was a little confusing, but it is
> plain that you have little idea what your phone bill will be from
> month to month.

I have a very good idea as my operator provides almost real time log on
the Internet. Other operators use different methods like query of the
balance on an SMS. It also is possible to get automatic warnings or
limits but they cost a monthly fee.


> I still do not see why you are so willing to pay for someone else's
> mobility.

I am not paying for anyone else's mobility. I am paying for the calls I
make and I pay same no matter whether I call a mobile or a landline. I
have much better control on the calls that I make than those I receive
and I do not want to pay for something I do not have control over. Nor
do I want to pay for a huge bucket of minutes just to satisfy the need
of others to call me.

> Several carriers here have a mobile to mobile option also, but the
> called party does not have to have that option for the caller to
> benefit. I don't see why he would have to. Also if someone on your
> carrier calls you, you get that benefit, even if the caller does not
> have that option themselves.

When someone calls you how do you know if he is from same carrier? Here
such a system would be illegal because the customer would not know the
price. When one makes a call one can check the operator and price if one
wants but in receiving calls that would not be the case.

> How can you divide it when you do not know the number to divide it
> by.

People here typically pay same price no matter where they call.

> I don't think they are "special" either.


What "they"?

> It was you who introduced
> that term. They do have the specialness of enabling the user to be
> mobile, and the specialness of, at least over there, it costing a lot
> more to call them. Yup, it is the same principle. If satellite
> phones had cpp, then I would not pay extra to call a satellite phone,
> if there were land line phones they could be reached on.

The point is that if a system is very rare the person calling it might
not be aware of the high costs. However, in a common system like mobile
phones the caller is or should be aware of the high cost. In anyway
arguing about satellite phones was not my point. So I'll drop it here.

> Everyone has one, are you sure?!

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



> They use their wireless phone to call land lines, even when using
> their own land line would be less expensive? Here it does not matter
> as the cost is the same.

Yes, many people use mobiles because they are simpler to use. For
example they can store the number. Also short calls are cheaper from a
mobile than from a landline.

"John R. Levine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >>Actually it's 21:00-0:700.
> >
> >That is terrible. The 19:00 to 08:00 is offered by Fido, a GSM service
> >provider in Canada.
>
> If you have friends who go to bed early, there's an extra cost option
> that makes your free nights start at 1900. I haven't bothered since I
> don't use up my minutes as it is.

On some carriers this is an option, i.e. Sprint charges $5 per line for the
better hours for N&W. Those of us that have earlier N&W as a result of
having signed up before the carriers worsened N&W, cannot make many changes
to our service without losing the earlier start time.

Joseph wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:56:48 +0300, 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.

Osmo

"Osmo R" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Joseph wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:56:48 +0300, 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.
>
> Osmo

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..!

Ivor