Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?

Are you saying that, in Finland, a land line call to a mobile phone
costs the same as a land line call to another land line or not?
Are you saying that in Finland, all wireless numbers are Long Distance?
When a land line number calls a wireless number, what happens? The
land line phone company sends the call on wires to the wireless carrier.
What the land line customer has paid the land line company for is
done. Then the wireless carrier sends (forwards) the call on the air
waves to the wireless phone. The person who has chosen to have the
mobility advantages of a wireless phone should be the one to pay for
that service.
Shout? Was I typing in ALL CAPS? I don't think so. If someone
receives a service that they have chosen to have, then they, not someone
else, should pay for it. That is not nonsense. If someone wants to
call me they should pay for a regular call. They should not pay extra
just because I want to still get my calls when I am out and about.
If the cost is too high? Yes there are some who can not afford having
a home phone, but we are not talking about Long Distance, just local
calls, so all calls should cost the same. Whether they are to a land
line or to a wireless phone.
If you are calling someone, you say that, there, you can usually tell
by the number if it is to a wireless phone. How do you know which
wireless carrier that person has and how much that carrier is going to
charge your phone bill? How do you know which size plan they are on,
what are their carriers peak and off peak periods, are they paying for
the earlier nights and weekends, has their carrier bumped the rates up
recently? How do you know how long you can afford to talk?
If I call someone, I should not have to pay for his convenience of
having a wireless phone, even if he has picked the least expensive
carrier/plan around.

---

› See More: Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?

True, no one is forced to call you. But, are you giving out a land
line number so they don't have to pay extra to reach you?

Well I guess things are different there. Here it is not legal for
children to sign up for wireless phones, or any contract. Nor do
children usually have the money to pay for it.
Whether it is clearly a mobile number or not, where do those wires from
your land line to mobile call go? They go to a wireless operator's
equipment/network. The wireless operator then transmits the call to the
mobile phone. If the call is not transmitted (forwarded) via rf waves,
how is it going to get there? You should not get two charges. The
mobile operator should charge the mobile customer. I will not pay money
to someone when I am not their customer. I am not getting anything from
them. Their customer is getting something from them, mobility. Why
should I give them money for nothing.
We are talking about local calls. Choosing your long distance carrier
has nothing to do with it.
The specialness of wireless phones is that they are mobile. The
wireless operator has to keep track of where you are in the wireless
network and send (forward) the call to you. That is one of the things
that makes wireless phone service so expensive.
If someone chooses to call you he of course should pay for the leg of
the call to the wireless company. The leg of the call from the company
to you should be paid by you.

My comment was in regard to your response to schools possibly not
letting someone use the schools phone to call a wireless number. You
said they should/could use their wireless phones. Most children can't
afford even pre-paid phone service, much less buy the phone itself.

"Miguel Cruz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> >> I think we can assume from this that people would prefer to spend
> >> more time on the phone and find more value in doing so, but in the
> >> high-cost European telecoms market they cannot afford to.
> >
> > I doubt that. If they wanted to stay much longer on phone they'd get
> > land lines.
>
> Unlimited local service is a very recent phenomenon in the few places in
> Europe where it exists, so there hasn't really been an alternative. Just bad
> vs worse.

In the UK the distinction between local and national has virtually disappeared,
you pay the same to call the other end of the country as next door.

Also prices have plummetted, I pay nothing for off peak landline calls to
anywhere in the UK, and peak rate there are indirect access services which
charge a flat fee (2-3p) to call any UK landline for as long as you like.

So I don't think there's any danger of us going down the Finnish route...yet.

--
Andy

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:

Verizon
Americas Choice UK Plan
100 Peak Outgoing, In-Network Mobile to Mobile: 0
100 Peak Incoming, In-Network Mobile to Mobile: 0
100 Peak Outoging, Mobile to Landline: $10
100 Peak Incoming, Landline to Mobile: $10
100 Peak Outoging, Mobile to Out-of-Network Mobile $20
100 Peak Incoming, Out-of-Network Mobile to Mobile $20
100 Off-Peak Outgoing, Mobile to Landline 0
100 Off-Peak Incoming, Landline to Mobile 0
100 Off-Peak Outgoing, In-Network Mobile to Mobile 0
100 Off-Peak Incoming, In-Network Mobile to Mobile 0
1000 minutes
$60
Average Price Per Minute $0.06

The monthly plan is $40, and I added $20 for the cost to the calling party
to/from an out-of-network mobile phone, at $0.10 per minute, since we are
trying to find the total cost.

I tried doing this for a UK plan, and came up with £105.00, using the OFCOM
termination fee limit, but I'm sure that this is too high.

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Are you saying that, in Finland, a land line call to a mobile phone
> costs the same as a land line call to another land line or not?

Of course not. I was talking about calls from mobiles.

> Are you saying that in Finland, all wireless numbers are Long
> Distance?

Well they are national so they are comparable to LD. When one calls a
mobile one always uses the full number. Similarly if one calls from a
mobile one always uses the full number.

> When a land line number calls a wireless number, what happens? The
> land line phone company sends the call on wires to the wireless
> carrier. What the land line customer has paid the land line company
> for is done. Then the wireless carrier sends (forwards) the call on
> the air waves to the wireless phone. The person who has chosen to
> have the mobility advantages of a wireless phone should be the one to
> pay for that service.

You are playing with words. The person calls a specific phone. The call
is not complete until that phone is reached. There is no call forward
involved. The person calling knows that he is calling a mobile phone and
he knows it is expensive even though he might not easily know the exact
price (because of number portability and because the prices are listed
in the price lists of the mobile operators and not of the land line
operators). If he does not want to pay the extra price then he has the
choice of not calling. I do not see why I should pay for the costs
others have when they call me. I think it is for them to find optimal
solutions for themselves.

Now there of course are cases where people expect calls like businesses.
These need to make their own decisions what suits their and their
customer's needs best. In many cases small companies work on basis of
mobile phones. This does not scare customers who also use mobiles. Maybe
you just do not get how common mobiles are here.

> Shout? Was I typing in ALL CAPS? I don't think so. If someone
> receives a service that they have chosen to have, then they, not
> someone else, should pay for it. That is not nonsense. If someone
> wants to call me they should pay for a regular call.

But here regular call is a call from mobile to mobile. Get it? Your
whole point is based on same assumptions that I do not share or even get.

> They should not pay extra just because I want to still get my calls
> when I am out and about. If the cost is too high? Yes there are some
> who can not afford having a home phone, but we are not talking about
> Long Distance, just local calls, so all calls should cost the same.
> Whether they are to a land line or to a wireless phone.

In general here if you are poor you often cannot get landline as poor
people have lost their credit. They can have a mobile though. There are
no local calls to mobiles in Finland as all mobiles are national.

Land line numbers are typically expressed as (09) 1234567 where 09 is
the area code. In this case for Helsinki. For a local call one leaves it
out. In many cases the area code is left out even in the print. Mobile
numbers are in the form of 050 1234567 or 04x 1234567. It is clear at a
glance whether a number is local or mobile. The general rule here is
that is the number begins with 0 (or 9) land line callers should prepare
for a special price. That may be higher than normal or even zero. When
you make a local call the phone company charges you local call charge.
In Helsinki that is typically 12 cents/call + 1 cent/minute. If you call
outside the local network (LD, international, mobile, service number),
the local company charges you local network fee which in Helsinki is
typically 9 cents/call + 0.9 cents/min. In addition the LD,
international, mobile carrier or service provider charges you (on your
normal phone bill) its own charge.

Basically calling mobiles is comparable to calling phone sex numbers
when it comes to billing. :-) The mobile owner however never gets any
money and seldom gets any free airtime as result.

> If you are calling someone, you say that, there, you can usually tell
> by the number if it is to a wireless phone. How do you know which
> wireless carrier that person has and how much that carrier is going
> to charge your phone bill?

There is a 0800 (i.e. free) number that one can use to check it or
one can use web: http://www.siirretytnumerot.fi/index_s.html . Most
people want to avoid the hassle and use mobile connections with same
number regardless of the carrier the receiver has. The exception is
those who want cheapest possible calls to few friends. A mobile user
gets the prices from the price list his carrier has provided him or from
the net. A land line user has to seek the price lists of the mobile
operator.

The problem has been traditionally that the mobile operator has had free
hands to set the price so the prices have been high. Few people make the
price an issue when they choose the operator. Nowadays they have to
sell the connection to other operators at regulated price (IIRC same
price they charge from other mobile operators) so the user can make a
deal with some operator to provide calls to mobiles. (often this also
includes local calls and LD also). This has reduced the price quite
significantly. The problem still is that one needs to be aware of it to
benefit from it.

> How do you know which size plan they are on, what are their carriers
> peak and off peak periods, are they paying for the earlier nights and
> weekends, has their carrier bumped the rates up recently?

The charge depends only on the operator the receiver has, not on the
plan. Sometimes operators have tried to introduce plans with for example
free calls between mobiles of same plan. These are illegal here as the
caller cannot know if a mobile is in the same plan.

> How do you know how long you can afford to talk?

Well you check your bank account and divide it by the per minute charge.

> If I call someone, I should not have to pay for his convenience of
> having a wireless phone, even if he has picked the least expensive
> carrier/plan around.

Well if you do not want to pay then do not call. If one so chooses one
can block calls to mobile phones with no charge. I just do not get why
you think mobiles are somehow special.

I do understand that for example with satellite phone CPP might not be a
good idea as the caller does not know even the magnitude of the call but
when mobile connections outnumber fixed ones by 2:1 one cannot see how
they would be special.

Osmo

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> True, no one is forced to call you. But, are you giving out a land
> line number so they don't have to pay extra to reach you?

I do not have a landline. In anyway everyone here has a mobile and use
it for their calls - even to landlines.

Osmo

Andy Pandy wrote:
> "Osmo R" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>
>>> My point is that you wonder why people have landlines when you
>>> can make calls for 6.9c per minute on your mobile.
>>>
>>> I make the vast majority of my phone calls for much cheaper rates
>>> than 6.9c per minute (even when you factor in the monthly line
>>> rental), by virtue of having a landline and my contacts having
>>> landlines.
>>
>> You then make plenty of calls.
>
>
> Not really. Usually about 600 mins a month.

Here 600 minutes from a landline costs 18 euros + 12 cents/call.

> The other point, here in the UK, is that if you don't have a landline
> then you are forcing most of your callers to pay much much more to
> call you, typically 10 times the cost. You may have reasonable mobile
> termination rates in Finland, we don't here.

The calls from landlines to mobiles are expensive here also. If one
views a five minute call then the charge _per minute_ is

Mobile->anything ca. 7-9
Land->Mobile ca. 17-29
Local call: ca. 3-4
LD: ca. 5-9

The longer the call the greater the difference between local and mobile
calls is. However, as most people use mobiles anyway that's not an issue.


> As I wrote earlier, a friend of mine saw his bill sky rocket when his
> wife's best friend decided to ditch her landline - their monthly bill
> which was usually a few pounds went up to over £50.

Well the problem was with his wife, not with her friend. She should have
used her mobile. Ditching the landlibe avoids such problems.

Osmo

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> My comment was in regard to your response to schools possibly not
> letting someone use the schools phone to call a wireless number. You
> said they should/could use their wireless phones. Most children
> can't afford even pre-paid phone service, much less buy the phone
> itself.

Here most kids do have phones. Of course that's paid by their parents. A
cheap phone is about 55 euros and with 20 euros a month one can get up
to 200 minutes. In anyway I do not see it as an issue. If a child has
emergency you do not worry about a few cents. Of course one could use
also an SMS: "Your kid broke his arm. Call xxxxxx" if one wants to be
really cheap.

Osmo

Joseph wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 00:44:37 +0300, Osmo R <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> The issue here was not driving on the left or right side. The issue
>> was mobile phones. I consider it advanced that kids do have mobile
>> phones. Of course one can argue the merits of mobile phones on kids
>> or in general. However, if one proposes that system X is better
>> than we have then the it is strange to use arguments like that most
>> kids do not have mobile phones.
>
>
> I told you just what to do so you won't have to concern yourself with
> it. Just stay in Finland and you'll be happy.
>
> We're quite happy with the way things are over here in North America
> thank you very much.

I am not trying to get you to change the system. I am arguing against
claims that we somehow have a wrong system. Just because something is
different than in the U.S. does not make it wrong.

Osmo

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Well I guess things are different there. Here it is not legal for
> children to sign up for wireless phones, or any contract. Nor do
> children usually have the money to pay for it.

Same here. The parents sign the contracts or buy them prepaid. When the
kid reaches 18 then connection is switched to his name.

> Whether it is clearly a mobile number or not, where do those wires
> from your land line to mobile call go? They go to a wireless
> operator's equipment/network. The wireless operator then transmits
> the call to the mobile phone. If the call is not transmitted
> (forwarded) via rf waves, how is it going to get there? You should
> not get two charges. The mobile operator should charge the mobile
> customer.

You can state this as many times as you wish. It makes no more sense.
The call was ordered by the caller just as a LD call is ordered by him.

> I will not pay money to someone when I am not their customer.

You pay for LD and international carriers even though you might not be
their customer in anymore meaningful sense.

> I am not getting anything from them.

You are getting your call through and you can then say what you have to say.

> Their customer is getting something from them, mobility. Why should
> I give them money for nothing. We are talking about local calls.
> Choosing your long distance carrier has nothing to do with it.

You are talking about local calls. Calls to mobile calls are not local
calls. They are comparable to long distance calls. Nowadays one can even
choose the carrier for them just as with LD.

> The specialness of wireless phones is that they are mobile.

You may think they are special. Here they are the norm.

> The wireless operator has to keep track of where you are in the
> wireless network and send (forward) the call to you. That is one of
> the things that makes wireless phone service so expensive.

The fact that yo call it forwarding does not make it a fact. The call is
between the caller and the receiver and there is no call forward
involved.

> If someone chooses to call you he of course should pay for the leg of
> the call to the wireless company. The leg of the call from the
> company to you should be paid by you.

They are calling me, not the wireless company so they should pay the
full price. What you say could just as well be said about LD calls.
There is no right just to pay a local call when one makes another type
of call.


Osmo

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. I never call someone after 9 pm unless that was
agreed beforehand. Weekends have never had cheaper prices here. As I
understand those pricings are result of mobile use still being mainly a
business use.

>
>> Well in some sense it is true. If all your friends get mobile
>> phones you need to get one too.
>
>
> Finland seems to be kind of a special case, just about the only place
> I know where there are more mobiles than landlines. It sounds like
> the landline service wasn't so grat, and the telco decided (not
> altogether unreasonably) to make mobiles irresistable rather than
> investing in landlines.

Sure they decided around 1990 that mobiles are the place where growth
is. They did not expect people to close landlines. In fact they
predicted a few hundred thousand mobile users by 2000. They got over
three million.

> In the US, pretty much everyone had a phone by 1960. Other countries
> took a lot longer to catch up, and if they waited long enough,
> mobiles could be a good alternative. I gather that everyone in
> Hungary has a mobile, too, because it was faster to build a new
> mobile network after the communists left than to fix the decrepit
> fixed network.

I hope you are not implying that Finland has been some developing
country when it comes to landlines. Nothing could be further from the
truth. The first telephone exchange in Helsinki opened in 1882 (the
first in the U.S. and the world opened in 1878). Unlike most of Europe
telephone was here mainly a private venture and not state operation so
it spread relatively rapidly. The above dates should be viewed in the
perspective that in the standard of living Finland was about 50 years
behind the U.S. By 1978 Finland was 8th on the word on phone density
(41/100 people compared to 72/100 in the leading U.S.). The number of
landlines peaked in 1997 at 2.85 million or 55.4 / 100 people. Since then
it has dropped to about 2.5 million. The number of mobile connections
was 4.7 million in 2003. That's about 90 / 100 people. note the above
makes no difference between corporate and home phones. In 1994 94% of
households had a mobile phone. Only 64% had landline.

Sources: Immonen: Sillat Sielujen ja Ihmismieleen (History of HPY/Elisa)
Statistics Finland: Statistical yearbook of Finland 2003
http://www.stat.fi/ajk/tiedotteet/v2004/046tuls.pdf

Simply put the fixed network has little to offer especially because of
the constantly increasing prices. The companies witched from
co-operative model to listed companies in the 1990's. This with lack of
competition increased prices as the higher the price the larger the
dividend on stockholders. A major reason for the drop has been because
broadband makes landline unnecessary for Internet use.

Osmo

I imagine your friend's wife calls her friend a lot less often now.

Joseph wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 00:47:07 +0300, Osmo R <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Joseph wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking. Did you not see
>>> "the receiver pays and I will have a conversation as long as both
>>> parties are willing." That implies that the party who is paying
>>> for the call is not as you say "babbling" but is having a
>>> conversation for as long as is mutually agreed by both parties.
>>> You really do need to pay attention!
>>
>> The other party might be too polite to interrupt you.
>
>
> Osmo, if you don't have an answer it's really better to not say
> anything rather than appear foolish. You're grasping for straws and
> they ain't there.

There are people who are too polite to hand up on a telemarketer so they
buy what he sells just to get rid of him. Hanging up is a big no no to
some people.


Osmo