Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?

Andy Pandy <[email protected]> wrote:

> "chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1gx86nx.4ni1j210gtk4xN%[email protected]...
[]
> > And calls to practically all the landlines I'm likely to call abroad.
>
> Yes, because you're not paying mobile termination premiums.

I know- but that's not the factor- the point is, I can call them.

> > > To call other mobiles you pay 3p + 10ppm during the week, 2ppm at > >
> > > 10ppm is a rip-off. I can call someone in Sydney for a tenth of that
> price > > (1ppm with Telediscount to Australia).
> >
> > 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.

> My point was that the
> premium to call a mobile (both here and to other countries where it is free to
> receive) is massive and 10 times the cost of sending the call to a landline on
> the other side of the world.

You also have to remember that the cost of calling landlines has fallen
dramatically. I remember in the 90s, when I lived in the US, thinking
that 10 cents a minute to call the UK was a great deal. Now, I'd think
it was too expensive.

> > > You might be happy paying £3 for a half hour chat, but I'm not.
> >
> > I don't chat for half an hour when I'm calling someone's mobile. Most of
> > the calls I do make to mobiles are relatively short- and it's not
> > something that bothers me. The caller pays system has distinct
> > advantages for me as the consumer.
>
> I'm in favour of it too but without rip-off termination charges. It should
> cost about the same to call a mobile from a landline as it does to call a
> landline from a mobile - exactly the same resources are being used in both
> cases.

Ah- but on some plans, it does cost the same. Look at the rip-off Orange
'Your Plan' jokes. It works out around 10p a minute to call a landline.

> > If I wanted to cover their costs, I
> > could always divert my landline to my mobile, but of course I wouldn't.
> > The current system suits me very well- I certainly prefer it to the US
> > system, and I used to live there.
>
> I think it is possible to get lower charges while retaining caller pays - as I
> described.

I'm all for lowering the charges, and trying to lower them- though I
think that consumer choice has a lot to do with it- i.e. they shouldn't
use the more expensive services. Problem is, consumers here are often
wowed by signing up for a contract to get a silly new phone that they
don't need.

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

---

› See More: Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?

Andy Pandy <[email protected]> wrote:

> "chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1gx8935.1cxyejr1x64cjyN%[email protected]...
> > > >> The US has a much lower population density than the UK, yet lower
> > > >> mobile charges overall.
> > > >
> > > >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.)
> > >
> > > Well, let's see. That's about USD 27. For $29/mo (plus tax) I get
> > > 250 daytime minutes and several thousand weekend minutes.
> >
> > That doesn't strike me as a very good deal, based on my usage pattern-
> > remember, during the day, I'm charged 3p per landline call-
>
> Yes, and 10p per minute for calls to most mobiles.

Which I don't call much. Most of my mobile calls are to businesses which
always have landline numbers. I'm usually only calling mobile numbers
when they other person is on the move, and the conversation is typically
not a long one.

> And you forget to mention
> that's not part of your mobile deal, that is using a separate discount telco,

I didn't 'forget' to mention it- just don't think it is relevant.

> and probably the best value one in the UK. I'm sure similar things are
> available in the US, eg calling cards etc.
>
> > it's then
> > untimed after that. How much does an an out of bundle daytime minute
> > cost?
>
> Based on the cheapest calling card/indirect access telco rates?

No- how much does it cost. It's a simple enough question.

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

On 27 May 2005 10:36:12 -0400, [email protected] (John R. Levine) wrote:

> 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.

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 and has gasoline/petrol at 1/3 the price. So getting
stuff at the same price or less in the UK is somewhat unlikely.

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 :-)

Phil

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

> Which I don't call much. Most of my mobile calls are to businesses which
> always have landline numbers. I'm usually only calling mobile numbers
> when they other person is on the move, and the conversation is typically
> not a long one.

Hmm, maybe the caller pays system is a good one. It would result in much
lower mobile phone usage, so people would pay more attention to their
driving.

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

> "chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
>
> > Which I don't call much. Most of my mobile calls are to businesses which
> > always have landline numbers. I'm usually only calling mobile numbers
> > when they other person is on the move, and the conversation is typically
> > not a long one.
>
> Hmm, maybe the caller pays system is a good one. It would result in much
> lower mobile phone usage, so people would pay more attention to their
> driving.

In the UK, it's illegal to use a phone while driving unless it is
completely hands-free. Doesn't stop idiots doing it, and I don't agree
with the hands-free option, but there you go. I spend a lot of time in
the US (lived there for 11 years) and have lived in the UK for the last
5 years. My impression is that mobile phone use is more prevalent here
in the UK- not least because of the more attractive PAYG market. On my
last trip to the US, I couldn't even get a GSM signal within two miles
of where I was staying, 30 miles outside NYC. That would be pretty rare
in the UK.

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

chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco <[email protected]> wrote:
> Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco
>> <[email protected]> wrote: > Miguel Cruz <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>> Now someone figure out how Singapore manages to have caller-pays phones but
>>>> still keeps termination charges about the same as those for landlines.
>>>
>>> Given the population density and size of Singapore, it's apples and
>>> oranges.
>>
>> Um, okay, how about China?
>
> How about it? I'm sure you could get a suit hand tailored there for a
> lot less too...

Maybe I'm missing something. You ruled out Singapore because its population
density and size were too different from the other countries under
discussion. China's population density and size are nothing like
Singapore's. And yet China's mobile phone termination charges are very low.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan

chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco <[email protected]> wrote:
> In the UK, it's illegal to use a phone while driving unless it is
> completely hands-free. Doesn't stop idiots doing it, and I don't agree
> with the hands-free option, but there you go. I spend a lot of time in
> the US (lived there for 11 years) and have lived in the UK for the last
> 5 years. My impression is that mobile phone use is more prevalent here
> in the UK- not least because of the more attractive PAYG market. On my
> last trip to the US, I couldn't even get a GSM signal within two miles
> of where I was staying, 30 miles outside NYC. That would be pretty rare
> in the UK.

That's really neither here nor there in a discussion of caller-pays vs
called-pays, isn't it? What sort of TDMA signal can you get 30 miles outside
of London, and what does that say about the advantages or disadvantages of
caller-pays?

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan

Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote:

> chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco
> >> <[email protected]> wrote: > Miguel Cruz <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> Now someone figure out how Singapore manages to have caller-pays
> >>>> phones but still keeps termination charges about the same as those
> >>>> for landlines.
> >>>
> >>> Given the population density and size of Singapore, it's apples and
> >>> oranges.
> >>
> >> Um, okay, how about China?
> >
> > How about it? I'm sure you could get a suit hand tailored there for a
> > lot less too...
>
> Maybe I'm missing something. You ruled out Singapore because its population
> density and size were too different from the other countries under
> discussion.

Yes.

> China's population density and size are nothing like
> Singapore's. And yet China's mobile phone termination charges are very low.

And China's mobile phone coverage is nothing like anything you'd expect
in Western Europe.

There are many factors that affect pricing, and I'm not even arguing
that the UK's is reasonable. I don't know if it is or isn't frankly- but
just comparing it to other countries isn't useful in determining that.

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

Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote:

> chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > In the UK, it's illegal to use a phone while driving unless it is
> > completely hands-free. Doesn't stop idiots doing it, and I don't agree
> > with the hands-free option, but there you go. I spend a lot of time in
> > the US (lived there for 11 years) and have lived in the UK for the last
> > 5 years. My impression is that mobile phone use is more prevalent here
> > in the UK- not least because of the more attractive PAYG market. On my
> > last trip to the US, I couldn't even get a GSM signal within two miles
> > of where I was staying, 30 miles outside NYC. That would be pretty rare
> > in the UK.
>
> That's really neither here nor there in a discussion of caller-pays vs
> called-pays, isn't it?

No- but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

> What sort of TDMA signal can you get 30 miles outside
> of London, and what does that say about the advantages or disadvantages of
> caller-pays?

The difference is that you wouldn't have mobile phone providers in
London selling you domestic packages on TDMA systems. FWIW, the TDMA
coverage seemed pretty poor too. When I was living in the US, I was
living in urban areas, where I'd expect coverage- I'd forgotten how ropy
it can get the moment you get anywhere less built up.

The caller-pays advantage is quite simple IMO. Beautifully simple in
fact. If someone wants to call me on my mobile, they have to pay to do
so, the same way they have to pay when they call my landline. I don't
want to pay to receive a call. That one system (landline vs. mobile)
costs more than another makes a certain amount of sense- but I suspect
that termination charges will eventually go down- indeed, they already
are. If it bothers someone that they have to pay so much to call me-
then I call them back. Indeed, I often insist on doing so if it will be
a long conversation. Suits me perfectly.

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

chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco <[email protected]> wrote:
> The caller-pays advantage is quite simple IMO. Beautifully simple in
> fact. If someone wants to call me on my mobile, they have to pay to do
> so, the same way they have to pay when they call my landline.

The caller-pays disadvantage is quite simple IMO. Beautifully simple in
fact. Consumers pay more for phone calls.

> I don't want to pay to receive a call.

And I don't want to make my friends pay 5 times as much to call me.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan

Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote:

> chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > The caller-pays advantage is quite simple IMO. Beautifully simple in
> > fact. If someone wants to call me on my mobile, they have to pay to do
> > so, the same way they have to pay when they call my landline.
>
> 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.

>
> > I don't want to pay to receive a call.
>
> 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.

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

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

> > Hmm, maybe the caller pays system is a good one. It would result in much
> > lower mobile phone usage, so people would pay more attention to their
> > driving.
>
> In the UK, it's illegal to use a phone while driving unless it is
> completely hands-free. Doesn't stop idiots doing it, and I don't agree
> with the hands-free option, but there you go.

I agree. The problem with hands-free is that the person is still not paying
attention to driving--their hands are free, but their mind is engaged in the
call.

> I spend a lot of time in
> the US (lived there for 11 years) and have lived in the UK for the last
> 5 years. My impression is that mobile phone use is more prevalent here
> in the UK- not least because of the more attractive PAYG market. On my
> last trip to the US, I couldn't even get a GSM signal within two miles
> of where I was staying, 30 miles outside NYC. That would be pretty rare
> in the UK.

And it would be really rare to get a CDMA signal in the UK! The GSM network
in the U.S. is in its infancy, and coverage is still very poor once you
leave the urban core. If you're in the U.S., and you want good coverage, you
don't go the GSM route.

"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gx8g07.15pkdfzvv6nxnN%[email protected]...
> Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > In the UK, it's illegal to use a phone while driving unless it is
> > > completely hands-free. Doesn't stop idiots doing it, and I don't agree
> > > with the hands-free option, but there you go. I spend a lot of time in
> > > the US (lived there for 11 years) and have lived in the UK for the
last
> > > 5 years. My impression is that mobile phone use is more prevalent here
> > > in the UK- not least because of the more attractive PAYG market. On my
> > > last trip to the US, I couldn't even get a GSM signal within two miles
> > > of where I was staying, 30 miles outside NYC. That would be pretty
rare
> > > in the UK.
> >
> > That's really neither here nor there in a discussion of caller-pays vs
> > called-pays, isn't it?
>
> No- but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
>
> > What sort of TDMA signal can you get 30 miles outside
> > of London, and what does that say about the advantages or disadvantages
of
> > caller-pays?
>
> The difference is that you wouldn't have mobile phone providers in
> London selling you domestic packages on TDMA systems.

This is a good point. Most people that went the GSM route in the U.S., did
so being unaware that their coverage would be much worse than they had under
TDMA/Analog.

> FWIW, the TDMA
> coverage seemed pretty poor too. When I was living in the US, I was
> living in urban areas, where I'd expect coverage- I'd forgotten how ropy
> it can get the moment you get anywhere less built up.

Don't know where you were, but TDMA still has the most digital coverage of
any network in the U.S., with CDMA a close second, and GSM far, far behind.
Visitors to the U.S. are better off getting an old TDMA phone on prepay,
than to buy an overpriced SIM card, for reasons of both coverage and cost.

> The caller-pays advantage is quite simple IMO. Beautifully simple in
> fact. If someone wants to call me on my mobile, they have to pay to do
> so, the same way they have to pay when they call my landline. I don't
> want to pay to receive a call.

With WPP, if you don't want to pay to receive a call, you choose not to
receive the call.

The biggest problem with caller pays, is not that the caller pays, it's that
it has made the cost per call very high compared to other places such as the
U.S..The carriers have deluded people into believeing the mantra of
"incoming calls are free," so people will not demand less expensive WPP.

On Fri, 27 May 2005 16:18:14 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Hmm, maybe the caller pays system is a good one. It would result in much
>lower mobile phone usage, so people would pay more attention to their
>driving.

Doesn't seem to be true. There are more active mobile phones in the UK
than there are people.

The number of calls and text messages is staggering.


--
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

"Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 27 May 2005 14:39:27 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Actually you can still purchase metered local phone service in the U.S..
> >Pacific Bell still offers it. It's about $5 cheaper per month than
umetered.
> >You pay for every call, including toll free calls. However it would still
> >probably be the best deal for many people, because so many calls are
> >intra-LATA, and are paid for seperately anyway.
>
> Sorry, but you do not pay for toll-free calls. Those are the only
> calls you don't pay for on metered service besides emergency calls.

I called SBC (Pacific Bell) because I was thinking of switching to metered
service since we rarely use the landline (but they won't let you get DSL
without a landline). They told me that I would be charged for everything
except 911. I explicitly asked about toll free calls, and they said that
these were counted the same as local calls.

However I called back just now and checked again, and was told the opposite,
toll free numbers are not included in the per minute rate. So I owe you a
beer.