Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?

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

[snip]

> There is no reason whatsoever for being charged for incoming calls when
> in your own country, that is just plainly a stupid idea.

Haven't you got it yet..? The idea is that callers pay the same whether
they're calling a landline or a mobile. You can port numbers freely
between landlines and mobiles in the same way you can between mobile
operators. You have so many inclusive minutes it *doesn't matter* if some
are used for incoming calls..!

Wouldn't *you* like to be able to call someone's mobile and not pay
through the nose..? *So what* if it costs a few minutes a month out of
your allowance to receive calls..? Paying ridiculous charges to call
mobiles costs far more than paying for a few incoming calls.

Ivor

---

› See More: Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?

Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
> "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

This idea is only good if you are happy to waste £25+ a month on a contract
phone, that you don't really need, when you can spend a few pennies a month on
a PAYG phone, that doesn't cost you any thing to receive calls.

No point in keep arguing, as said before changing to the poorer USA system is
unlikely. I just don't see the point of being forced to pay to receive calls,
all this will do is penalise those people who do not want to waste money each
month on a contract phone, and are happy to let £5 last them months, as the
phone is only really used for emergencies or maybe if they are out and someone
needs to get in touch.

I used to have a contract since 1996, about 18 months ago I ditched it, best
decision made, no longer need to waste almost £30 a month on the phone, and
just pay for the odd call I make, and it doesn't cost me a penny if someone
rings me, why should I pay when it is them who want to get in contact with me!

I make calls on my landline for free and via VoIP, I always try an call people
on their landlines first, second or third, only if it is really important do I
try a mobile, and then it is only a short call.

So again for someone who only wants the phone to use in an emergency, and that
includes those emergencies when someone need to reach them, why should they be
penalised.

If Europe had gone down the USA route of callee pays, then there wouldn't be
anywhere near the amount of mobile users as there is. Whether that is good or
bad.

Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
> "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

Yes, that is my meaning of emergencies.

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.

"Rick Merrill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?-)

Roaming is much less of an issue in a densely populated country. It's not
like the U.S. where there are vast sparsely populated areas that are served
by small cellular operators, sometimes still only on analog. In the U.S., it
is very unwise to use a carrier that doesn't allow roaming off of their own
network, including roaming onto the old analog network (unless you never
leave the urban core). In Asia, usually you can't roam either, but I never
found it to be an issue in Korea or Taiwan.

"GlintingHedgehog" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> with the North American system, the person receiving (and
> paying for) the call doesn't have any choice in the matter.

Of course they do. They can choose not to answer the call. Caller ID is
standard, and the phone displays who is calling if the name is in your
phone's phonebook.

"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Wouldn't *you* like to be able to call someone's mobile and not pay
> through the nose..? *So what* if it costs a few minutes a month out of
> your allowance to receive calls..? Paying ridiculous charges to call
> mobiles costs far more than paying for a few incoming calls.

This is true. I'd hate to see a system where I have to pay to call someones
mobile phone. If I choose to answer an incoming call from an unknown person,
at most I've wasted one minute out of more minutes per month than I ever
use. Especially since nearly everyone I ever call is on the same mobile
carrier, and these calls are free.

"{{{{{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.

The pay as you go mobile phones have caller-ID. If you don't want to pay for
an incoming call, you just ignore it. Or you ante up the 10¢ to risk
answering a call from an unknown or blocked caller-ID number.

Free incoming calls would be great, but not if the caller has to pay. Some
carriers used to offer FIMF (first incoming minute free) but AFAIK, none of
the major U.S. carriers still have this (some smaller carriers still include
it).

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.

"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
>> "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
>
> This idea is only good if you are happy to waste £25+ a month on a
> contract phone, that you don't really need, when you can spend a few
> pennies a month on a PAYG phone, that doesn't cost you any thing to
> receive calls.

I have a contract anyway, the money isn't wasted for me. So why can't I
choose to use my inclusive minutes for receiving calls..?

> No point in keep arguing, as said before changing to the poorer USA
> system is unlikely. I just don't see the point of being forced to pay
> to receive calls, all this will do is penalise those people who do not
> want to waste money each month on a contract phone, and are happy to let
> £5 last them months, as the phone is only really used for emergencies or
> maybe if they are out and someone needs to get in touch.

You must realise that not everybody is like you and only has a PAYG phone
which they rarely use. My contract phone is used for both work and
personal use and is used daily. There is a system I would like to use (the
US one) that I cannot have due to the way the mobile companies think I
ought to be using my phone. I am paying them money for a service, why
can't I have the service I want..? I agree not everyone wants the system I
want, but that's no reason it can't be provided as an option for those
that do want it. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

> I used to have a contract since 1996, about 18 months ago I ditched it,
> best decision made, no longer need to waste almost £30 a month on the
> phone, and just pay for the odd call I make, and it doesn't cost me a
> penny if someone rings me, why should I pay when it is them who want to
> get in contact with me!

If you're already paying for inclusive minutes, as I am, then it doesn't
cost you any extra. For a PAYG emergency phone, where a tenner credit
could theoretically last years, does it really matter that much..?

> I make calls on my landline for free and via VoIP, I always try an call
> people on their landlines first, second or third, only if it is really
> important do I try a mobile, and then it is only a short call.

But if you only had to pay the same as for a landline, it wouldn't
matter..!

> So again for someone who only wants the phone to use in an emergency,
> and that includes those emergencies when someone need to reach them, why
> should they be penalised.

Like I said, for such a few (presumably) short calls, is it really that
much of a problem..? I know someone whose mother has a PAYG phone that
only sees one or two calls a year. What difference would a few pence for
the odd incoming call make to her when a tenner credit lasts years..?
Answer nothing.

Ivor

"Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:36:49 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"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.
>
> On TDMA (IS-136) phones that's very possible as well. You just have
> to program the phone for 123-456-7890 and it will go to the "American
> Roaming Network" any time you attempt to make a chargeable call. If
> American Roaming Network places a call for you it's $2.99 to set up
> the call and $1.99 per minute. If you absolutely have to make a call
> you can. It's one way. No one can call you. For emergencies it will
> fill the bill. In fact there's a concern called "Emergency Cell
> Phones" which basically jus instructs you on how to program your
> phone to use the American Roaming Network. On Nokia phones it's quite
> a simple matter.

With Beyond Wireless (http://gobeyondwireless.com) you may as well activate
the TDMA phone, since there is no monthly or yearly minimum (other than
having to make one call every sixty days to keep the number active). Calls
are between 10¢ and 14¢ per minute, depending on how much time you buy, and
you can buy as little as $5 (it comes with 35 minutes when you activate, and
there is no charge to activate).

"Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 08:49:14 -0400, Rick Merrill
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Nonsense. It's because in Europe mobile operators all build out their
> own networks and for the most part don't need to rely on other
> networks. An exception is th 3 network which is 3G which can roam on
> Vodafone's network. That's the exception rather than the rule.

Actually it roams on O2 <g>

Ivor

On Tue, 24 May 2005 20:33:05 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> You can also get 0800 or 0845 or 0870 numbers that terminate at a
>> mobile.
>
>Which isn't the point under discussion.

Yes it is. It is a way that user of the mobile phone can pay for the
mobile leg of the call, so that callers don't have to pay a premium to
call 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

On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:13:21 -0700, Joseph <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Likewise if Europeans don't like the way
>we do things here too bad.

Many europeans would not go to the US on principle, because of the
over-intrusive personal data demanded nowadays.

Pariahs of the world, in the view of some.

--
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

On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:21:34 -0700, Joseph <[email protected]>
wrote:

> An exception is th 3 network which is 3G which can roam on
>Vodafone's network.

O2's network I think.

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

Thus spaketh Joseph:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 20:49:06 +0100, "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> No point in keep arguing, as said before changing to the poorer USA
>> system is unlikely.
>
> And you lied! You said no point in arguing but you come right out and
> say that the USA system is poorer. You have made the decision for
> everyone haven't you?! Somehow you think you have "won" the argument
> when in fact you haven't done any such thing! They are different
> systems and likely will remain so. Why you feel you need to put in
> your feelings of your system's superiority is quite beyond me.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There are no winners or losers to the argument. I think the USA system is
crazy, the odd few think it is a good idea. Arguing ain't going to change it
anytime soon.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:13:21 -0700, Joseph <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Likewise if Europeans don't like the way
> >we do things here too bad.
>
> Many europeans would not go to the US on principle, because of the
> over-intrusive personal data demanded nowadays.

This is true, but at least the prepaid wireless is cheap in the U.S., if you
stay away from GSM. You'd think that the weak dollar would help U.S.
tourism, but this is not the case.

At least Europeans should be willing to visit the blue states. There's
nothing much to see in the red states (aka dumb****istan).