Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?

"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gxbpdc.gio8omlbqrk8N%[email protected]...
> Andy Pandy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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.

So you keep saying. You also say you don't make many calls to mobiles - so you
don't get ripped off too much by high termination charges - which is the
problem. Outgoing calls from mobiles aren't the problem. It's a bit like arguing
petrol isn't expensive here and when the price is pointed out, saying "oh well I
don't drive much".

> It's a question of whether caller pays is better or worse
> for the consumer.

Exactly. You dismiss a Cambridge University study by making assumptions about
what it may have not accounted for (itemised billing charges...please). If you
think it's flawed, find a study from a respected institution that supports your
view. There are plently of studies into mobile charges on the internet if you
google. If you're not prepared to find evidence to back up your argument, and
just nit pick others, then what's the point? I could point you at three others
that support the Cambridge study view, but why should I, you'll just do the same
with them as the Cambridge one.

--
Andy

---

› See More: Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?

The caller is already paying for a land line call to the wireless
service provider, just like when they call your land line. You don't
want to pay your wireless service provider for the service they are
providing to you? The caller should not have to pay for your wireless
service in addition to paying for a regular phone call. You can't call
them back if they don't call you. I don't know what "termination
charges" are.

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> 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.

Choosing to go mobile? Everyone has a mobile phone here. There is no
special choice to be made. And if someone calls my mobile I expect him
to pay the full charge, not just some part of it. I am not willing to
pay for other people's calls.

> 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.

There are no separate fees for different wireless parts. The carge is
same whether one calls a land line ot a mobile phone.

> 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.

Well I do not expect anyone to call me. I have a reason to talk to
someone I call them. If they want my number it probably is because they
have something to tell me in which case they pay the bill. Well as I
have said so often it costs here same to call mobiles and land lines.

Osmo

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> 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.

Or are you choosing to be far from him?

> 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.

Osmo

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Most children do not have mobile phones.

In Finland they do!

> 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.

No, here you are making a call to a mobile phone which has a number that
is clearly identifiable as a mobile number. You get two charges for
that. First your operator charges so called local network fee. Then the
mobile operator charges its fee. Recently you also have had an option of
making a deal ion which you choose the carrier for the phone (or use
suitable prefix). In this case the call is same to any mobile and
typically cheaper than what the actual mobile operator charges from callers.

> The wireless carrier forwards the call via it's wireless service to
> it's customer.


No, there is no call forward in normal case. Your whole thinking is
based on assumption that mobile phones are special. They are not.If a
user chooses to set a call forward then he pays for it. Typically
forwarding to same operator or voice mail is free and forwarding to
other mobile operators costs same as calling them.

> The customer is the one who should pay for his wireless service.

I sure pay the calls and the base fee. If someone chooses to call me he
of course should pay for that call.

> 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.

Osmo

Yes you choose to have a mobile phone or not. I was under the
impression that all of europe was the same, but are you saying that in
Finland, a land line call to a wireless phone costs the same as a land
line call to a land line? If someone gets on a land line and makes a
local call, that is all they should have to pay for. They should not
have to pay for the wireless provider they have reached to wirelessly
forward the call to one of the carrier's customers. The wireless
customer should have to pay for the service the customer has chosen to
have. The land line customer should be willing to pay for it's land
line part of the call, and the wireless customer should be willing to
pay for it's wireless part of the call.

Andy Pandy wrote:

> 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).

Sure the connection goes throuhg the physical wire but that's not same
as having a land line. I have ADSL for which I pay its fee. I do not pay
anything for any land line as I do no have one.

>> 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?

I do not get your point?

Osmo

Ototin wrote:

>
> For the monhtly fee you could use the telephone 24 hours a day for 30
> days to make local calls - to landline or to mobile - with no
> additional charges.
>

I know what you mean. I still do not consider it free, especially if the
monthly fee is significant. After all someone paying per minute could
well pay less than someone who gets the calls "free" is the base fee is
lower.

If there were such deals here I bet many would keep the lines open just
because they could. There are people who let the water run for no reason
but because they do not have a water meter. We used to have a system
where one was charged per call. Some companies abused it by keeping a
modem line constantly open so they switched to per minute billing first
on day time and then on evenings and weekends also.

When you call to a mobile do you understand that the receiver pays and
do not speak for too long? Or do you not care at all what your calls
cost to others. I personally think the caller pays is fair as the caller
then knows to speak briefly enough. Of course there are rude people who
start babbling their own when someone calls them so that the person does
not even get to say what he intended.

Osmo

It is the caller choosing to call me when it will be a long distance
call. I am not forcing him to call me. Therefore the caller should pay
for the long distance part of the call. Unless time is of the essence,
he could wait until I call him or when I am scheduled to be in a
location he can call that is local to him.
Whether I am distancing myself from him on purpose or not, is another
kettle of fish entirely. hihi

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Yes you choose to have a mobile phone or not. I was under the
> impression that all of europe was the same, but are you saying that
> in Finland, a land line call to a wireless phone costs the same as a
> land line call to a land line?

Of course but that is not so relevant as few people use land lines to
call mobiles.

> If someone gets on a land line and makes a local call, that is all
> they should have to pay for.

Yes when they make a local call but a call to a mobile phone is not a
local call. For one mobile numbers are all national.

> They should not have to pay for the wireless provider they have
> reached to wirelessly forward the call to one of the carrier's
> customers.

There is no call forward involved.

> The wireless customer should have to pay for the service the customer
> has chosen to have. The land line customer should be willing to pay
> for it's land line part of the call, and the wireless customer should
> be willing to pay for it's wireless part of the call.

You can shout that nonsense all you wish. It makes no more sense no
matter how much you repeat it.

Let me repeat. If someone want to call me I expect them to pay the cost
just as I expect myself to pay when I call. It the cost is too high then
I do bot make the call. There are some special cases like if I get
billed wrongly by my operator I do not expect to get billed for telling
them to fix it. (Of course in the end the customer pays everything)

Osmo

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> It is the caller choosing to call me when it will be a long distance
> call. I am not forcing him to call me.

Neither am I forcing anyone to call me either.

> Therefore the caller should pay for the long distance part of the
> call. Unless time is of the essence, he could wait until I call him
> or when I am scheduled to be in a location he can call that is local
> to him. Whether I am distancing myself from him on purpose or not, is
> another kettle of fish entirely. hihi

Osmo

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

> ??? 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)

In the U.S., so-called "naked DSL" is just beginning to be offered, and only
a couple of phone companies are offering it. Similarly, the largest cable
television operator will not sell you just cable modem service, you must
take at least basic analog cable TV service. They do this to try to force
you to take more services than you want.

We're just beginning to see cities allowing naked, whole-city, WiFi service.
The cable TV and telephone companies are fighting this like crazy by trying
to pass laws against any government funded wireless service. The workaround
is to use a company such as MetroFi to supply the service; not free, but
cheaper than the alternatives.

"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
<[email protected]> wrote in

> If you want to frame that as a 'US vs. Europe' argument, then that's
> entirely your problem. It's certainly not my motivation.

I think that the core of the issue is that we in the U.S. cannot figure out
why people would be willing to pay 2x the cost for mobile calls. If you look
at the big picture, you understand that incoming calls are NOT free, it's a
lie that the European carriers have convinced consumers is true. They depend
on consumers not looking at the actual total cost per call.

If incoming calls were actually free, then there would be much less of an
argument.

"Andy Pandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 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).

Some phone companies are now allowing you to have DSL without landline phone
service. The motivation is that people that don't want a landline will find
another source for high-speed internet if forced to have a landline to get
DSL.

Osmo R wrote:
> Steven M. Scharf wrote:

[snip]

> 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.

Speak for yourself. I know which system I prefer.

Ivor