Buying SIM card in the UK

Thus spaketh news.rcn.com:
> Hoping this isn't too OT but I am coming to the UK next week and
> wanted to use my American mobile phone
>
> Not sure if there have been changes in UK service charges but last
> time I tried this, I was charged about fifty times what I had ever
> been charged before to do this. Learned my lesson on receiving my
> phone bill.
> I cant (or haven't yet) found a cellular phone which will let me use
> my VOIP service, nor do I think there are any open networks near me I
> can log on to and I have no broadband access in the UK as far as I
> know.
> Are there any places I should look in particular for a UK (presumably
> pre-paid?) SIM card or are they all about the same price? (or do I
> mean are all the call charges about the same price?) I have
> T-Mobile, a Vonage account, and a VoipFone account. Is there any
> service I should avoid?


If you had been using your own mobile account, as in your USA SIM card
when in the UK, then yes, like everywhere else in the world, you will
get stung by high roaming charges, same as when people in the UK go to
the USA we get hit by high roaming charges, not quite so high in other
parts of Europe.

Tesco Mobile and Virgin mobile seem to have fairly low costs to call the
USA, if you use a UK SIM the good thing here like virtually everywhere
else in the world you are not charged for receiving calls, so you can
save plenty of money there. There are some call through providers you
can use to get the calls back to the USA cheaper.

There are one or two phones I believe that let you use VoIP, I know
T-Mobile here has blocked VoIP access.

If you could access the website:
http://www.webcalldirect.com/en/index.php on your mobile, you could use
a public phone box for example, enter that number and your destination
number in the USA and then the system will call you and then your
destination, and the entire call back to the USA will only cost 3 (Euro)
cents per call.

I'm sure someone else will be able to help you further.

Also uk.telecom.mobile maybe able to help.


--
DVD rental: www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk/dvd
PAYG Mobile Offers: www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk/payg
Items for sale: www.dodgy-dealer.co.uk

---

› See More: Buying SIM card in the UK

BTW Thanks for posting my question for me: (I didnt know about the NG)

Trying to use voip doesnt seem to have many advantages, especially if there
are no open networks near my home!

"news.rcn.com" <news.rnc.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> BTW Thanks for posting my question for me: (I didnt know
> about the NG)
> Trying to use voip doesnt seem to have many advantages,
> especially if there are no open networks near my home!

Especially as using someone else's network (open or not, other than a
genuine hotspot) without their permission is an offence.

Ivor

You will have NO trouble buying a prepaid/prepay/pay as you go SIM in
the UK particularly London, in fact you could probably buy one at the
airport and certainly in London's Oxford Street (Madame Tussaud's,
Baker St etc), between the cheap and nasty plastic souvenir policeman
helmet stalls virtually every second shop is selling mobiles, SIM's
etc.

Dual band 900/1800 GSM is standard, you can pick phones up anywhere for
as little as £30 or so with credit, you can get it unlocked for future
travel for about £10, virtually any mobile shop on Oxford street will
do that as you wait but go for Nokia or Motorola as they are easier to
unlock. A dual band will function in Europe, Africa, the Middle East,
the Far East and Australasia.

Triband phone, as above but you can also use it back in the US (quad
band would be better but not all that common in low end phones). A
Motorola Triband V220 is cheap and cheerful, say about £40 or so.

You can top up credit at many ATM's, post offices, petrol stations,
newsagents, shops, supermarkets etc.

All incoming calls are free on UK networks.

I would suggest TalkMobile World if you can buy instore
http://www.carphonewarehouse.com/com...ILE.HOME.FRESH

Essentialy a 'virtual network' from carphonewarehouse
www.carphonewarehouse.co.uk
Calls to standard landlines and all networks 15p minute, calls to USA
5p minute thereby obviating any need to go through access numbers

I think you can buy instore from Carphonewarehouse but not sure, check
out the link and email for confirmation and also locations of their
stores relative to your itinerary

My next suggestion would be Virgin or T Mobile as you can pick those up
from anywhere:
Virgin
http://www.virginmobile.com/mobile/t.../shop_menu.jsp
15p minute first 5 minutes of each day, then 5p to standard landlines
and Virgin mobiles, 35p to other networks, voicemail free. Calls to US
20p minute


T Mobile
http://www.t-mobile.co.uk/Dispatcher...mid=pas_pp_pla...


Everyone tariff, all calls to standard landlines and mobiles are 12p
minute, voicemail 10p, Calls to US 70p minute, pricey!

My own opinion is that Orange, O2 and Vodafone are pricey for visitors
so haven't bothered to list them.

The cool thing about pay as you go mobiles in the UK is that the credit
generally does not expire, so you can keep it for a future visit. You
will probably have to make a chargeable call every six months so make a
5 second phone call back in the US every 4 or 5 months and your number
is safe.

Regards

I would suggest TalkMobile World if you can buy instore
http://www.carphonewarehouse.com/com...ILE.HOME.FRESH

Essentialy a 'virtual network' from carphonewarehouse
www.carphonewarehouse.co.uk
Calls to standard landlines and all networks 15p minute, calls to USA
5p minute thereby obviating any need to go through access numbers


Many thanks: I had thought htat Vodaphone was the cheapest so long as you
arent sure to whom you are going to be able to call AND that most calls
woudl be to land lines? But I DO have a TalkTalkOnetel account and wonder
if this woudl be of assistance or put me on some better plan?

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:40:26 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"news.rcn.com" <news.rnc.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> BTW Thanks for posting my question for me: (I didnt know
>> about the NG)
>> Trying to use voip doesnt seem to have many advantages,
>> especially if there are no open networks near my home!
>
>Especially as using someone else's network (open or not, other than a
>genuine hotspot) without their permission is an offence.

Is it? What specific law is it that makes that illegal?

Chris

Thus spaketh Chris Blunt:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:40:26 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "news.rcn.com" <news.rnc.com> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> BTW Thanks for posting my question for me: (I didnt know
>>> about the NG)
>>> Trying to use voip doesnt seem to have many advantages,
>>> especially if there are no open networks near my home!
>>
>> Especially as using someone else's network (open or not, other than a
>> genuine hotspot) without their permission is an offence.
>
> Is it? What specific law is it that makes that illegal?
>
> Chris


*Communications Act 2003*

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030021.htm


See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm - A recent court
case, which saw a West London man fined £500 and sentenced to 12 months'
conditional discharge for hijacking a wireless broadband connection, has
repercussions for almost every user of wi-fi networks.


--
DVD rental: www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk/dvd
Use 07962461234 referral +£5: www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk/payg
Caller Display Units for sale: www.dodgy-dealer.co.uk

{{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:

> Thus spaketh Chris Blunt:
>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:40:26 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "news.rcn.com" <news.rnc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> BTW Thanks for posting my question for me: (I didnt know
>>>> about the NG)
>>>> Trying to use voip doesnt seem to have many advantages,
>>>> especially if there are no open networks near my home!
>>>
>>> Especially as using someone else's network (open or not, other than a
>>> genuine hotspot) without their permission is an offence.

What's the definition of a "genuine" hotspot?

>> Is it? What specific law is it that makes that illegal?

> *Communications Act 2003*
>
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030021.htm

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30021--c.htm#125

in case anyone was struggling to wade through all the legalese. Presumably
that Act only covers access to paid-for services. So changing your MAC
address every day to get free Wifi on GNER trains could land you in prison.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ([email protected])
15:21:30 up 19 days, 20:43, 3 users, load average: 1.07, 0.88, 0.44
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK

{{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
> Thus spaketh Chris Blunt:
> > On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:40:26 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
.......
> >> Especially as using someone else's network (open or not, other than a
> >> genuine hotspot) without their permission is an offence.
> >
> > Is it? What specific law is it that makes that illegal?
> >
> > Chris
>
>
> *Communications Act 2003*
>
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030021.htm
>
>
> See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm - A recent court
> case, which saw a West London man fined £500 and sentenced to 12 months'
> conditional discharge for hijacking a wireless broadband connection, has
> repercussions for almost every user of wi-fi networks.
>

Interesting. The relevant part of the Communications Act seems to be in
Section 125: Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications
services

(1) A person who-
(a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and
(b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable
to the provision of that service,
is guilty of an offence.

So it has to be *dishonestly* obtaining. I can see that if someone has
secured their wi-fi network, then this makes it clear that they want to
restrict access -- like locking the garden gate. If someone breaks the
security, like picking the lock on the gate, that starts to look
dishonest to me.

But if they have not bothered to secure the network, just as if they
had left the garden gate open, it does not seem *dishonest* to wander
in. OK -- if the owner says you are trespassing, it is only polite to
leave quietly. But they might just be nice people, happy to give open
access within reason.

I wonder what arguments a lawyer can think up.

Inman Harvey

"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk>
wrote in message
news[email protected]
> Thus spaketh Chris Blunt:
> > On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:40:26 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

> > > Especially as using someone else's network (open or
> > > not, other than a genuine hotspot) without their
> > > permission is an offence.
> >
> > Is it? What specific law is it that makes that illegal?
>
> *Communications Act 2003*
>
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030021.htm
>
> See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm -
> A recent court case, which saw a West London man fined
> £500 and sentenced to 12 months' conditional discharge
> for hijacking a wireless broadband connection, has
> repercussions for almost every user of wi-fi networks.

I think the Computer Misuse Act comes into it somewhere as well.

Ivor

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

[snip]

> But if they have not bothered to secure the network, just
> as if they had left the garden gate open, it does not
> seem *dishonest* to wander in. OK -- if the owner says
> you are trespassing, it is only polite to leave quietly.
> But they might just be nice people, happy to give open
> access within reason.
>
> I wonder what arguments a lawyer can think up.

Enough, probably. I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that just
because someone leaves their front door open it's still not ok to walk in
and help yourself to stuff.

The house owner would be a fool, but it's still not legal to steal, even
from fools.

Ivor

"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "news.rcn.com" <news.rnc.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> BTW Thanks for posting my question for me: (I didnt know
>> about the NG)
>> Trying to use voip doesnt seem to have many advantages,
>> especially if there are no open networks near my home!
>
> Especially as using someone else's network (open or not, other than a
> genuine hotspot) without their permission is an offence.

I suppose this means that using a Vonage VoIP handset phone must
therefore, - almost always, - be illegal in the UK as you can never have
the netwrok administrator's permission to log into their network?

Has Vonage publicised this point or is it just not true?

[email protected] wrote:

> {{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
>> Thus spaketh Chris Blunt:

> Interesting. The relevant part of the Communications Act seems to be in
> Section 125: Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications
> services
>
> (1) A person who-
> (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and
> (b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable
> to the provision of that service,
> is guilty of an offence.
>
> So it has to be *dishonestly* obtaining.

Is there a legal definition of dishonest? I noticed that last time I
searched for wireless networks, there wasn't an 'Honest' checkbox for me to
tick when connecting.

> I can see that if someone has
> secured their wi-fi network, then this makes it clear that they want to
> restrict access -- like locking the garden gate. If someone breaks the
> security, like picking the lock on the gate, that starts to look
> dishonest to me.
>
> But if they have not bothered to secure the network, just as if they
> had left the garden gate open, it does not seem *dishonest* to wander
> in. OK -- if the owner says you are trespassing, it is only polite to
> leave quietly. But they might just be nice people, happy to give open
> access within reason.

The problem with that analogy is that someone using your access point
doesn't necessarily deprive you of the use of it, whereas someone stealing
your TV does.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ([email protected])
21:40:06 up 21 days, 3:02, 4 users, load average: 0.65, 0.69, 0.54
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK

> The Vonage phone would be on your broadband or one someones broadband
> who has given you permission to use.

No, that is the whole point of those phones: You wander around the world and
it looks to see if there is an open WiFi HotSpot within range and logs on to
it automatically to let you make calls.

In the US these are common: There are even maps published which show where
they are and tend to suggest that they are everywhere, which is presumably
how these phones get sold. Actually if a building is more than 150 ft high
and the router is more than 150 ft above ground I cant see how much you
could actually pick up from it but the maps don't tell you that. But
certain municipalities have set up their whole towns for wifi access.

Are these 'public' HotSpots unknown in England? (I have only come across
slightly hot spots around coffee shops which you have to pay to get onto.)

Was the guy who was done for logging into people's networks done for using
some program to break into WEP enabled networks? In this detail-less story,
THAT may be what made it illegal?

There has just been published a whole book on this subject, Geeks Vs Suits
called The Geek Gap by Bill Pfleging & Minda Zeitlin, Prometheus Books,
ISBN -N-1-50102-415-3.

It is a hilarious book all about what this thread speaks to. How the
designers of the Internet, called Geeks think that it should be open and out
there for all to use; whereas the companies which make money out of it are
run by accountants (The Suits) who think that it should be out there for
people to make money out of it. It is about the conflict between the two
both of whom rely on each other to keep it going but whose aims in doing
this must be completely at odds with each other.

Of course, problems crop up when the government steps in and take the Suits'
side and make some civil wrong a totally unfathomable crime which is so
obscure that even the BBC cant write about it in vaguely easily
comprehensible form and the guy's solicitor apparently doesn't understand
what the background is all about because they haven't read the book?

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Jono wrote:
>> "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "alexd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]
>> >> [email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >> > But if they have not bothered to secure the network,
>> >> > just as if they had left the garden gate open, it does
>> >> > not seem *dishonest* to wander in. OK -- if the owner
>> >> > says you are trespassing, it is only polite to leave
>> >> > quietly. But they might just be nice people, happy to
>> >> > give open access within reason.
>> >
>> > That's ok if you've asked and been given permission. Which unless it's
>> > in
>> > writing will be difficult to prove in court.
>> >
>> >> The problem with that analogy is that someone using your
>> >> access point doesn't necessarily deprive you of the use
>> >> of it, whereas someone stealing your TV does.
>> >
>> > They may not deprive you of the use of it, but they may well slow you
>> > down, making it more difficult for you to use it, causing problems if
>> > you're on a VoIP call for example. They may also end up costing you
>> > more
>> > if they take you over any download cap your ISP might have, for
>> > example.
>> >
>> > If you've asked and been given (written) permission, fine. If not then
>> > you're guilty (of something, not sure what..!) in my view.
>> >
>> > Ivor
>> >
>>
>> Surely, one of the two should apply:
>>
>> Open Access Point = "Come on in, take your shoes off & make yourself at
>> home"
>>
>> Secured Access Point: "Go Away"
>
> I reckon the guy had a lousy solicitor to defend him. My defence in
> court would have been something like:
>
> (1) The person with the wi-fi acess point had initiated the dialogue
> with the guy passing by with the laptop, not the other way round --
> because the access point is broadcasting its SSID via "beacon" packets
> every 100ms (source: wikipedia)
>
> (2) This is universally recognised, as an IEEE standard, as an
> advertisement of the existence of a wi-fi access point using the wi-fi
> protocol.
>
> (3) The wi-fi access may or may not have restrictions placed on it by
> its administrator.
>
> (4) Many wi-fi access points deliberately have no restrictions placed
> on them. Sometimes for commercial (or part-commercial) reasons -- my
> nearest pub has such a free wi-fi hotspot, and as well as being a nice
> pub wanting to provide a service, I guess they reckon it might also
> bring in more customers. Sometimes for non-commercial reasons -- they
> just reckon the world would be a nicer place if this low-cost facility
> was made freely available to neighbours and passers-by. They don't
> limit this to those who can show written permission. Both the pub and
> my neighbours also have flower-baskets they are happy for people to
> appreciate.
>
> (5) It seems likely that the *vast majority* of accesses to unsecured
> wi-fi networks by people are welcomed by, approved of by, the access
> point owners -- and indeed that is why they deliberately chose to keep
> it as an *unsecured* network when they could have fenced it off.
>
> (6) But here is some mean-spirited guy, who advertises his wi-fi access
> point to passers by 10 times a second, when he finds somebody
> responding to his advertisement tells them "yes this is unsecured" --
> like all those other free wi-fi hotspots -- and then calls the police
> when the person uses it!
>
> (7) This isn't like complaining about someone walking in and stealing
> the TV. This is like planting a pretty flower-basket in view of
> passers-by, putting up a beacon that flashes 10 times a second saying
> "look over here" -- and then saying to passers-by who stop and benefit
> from enjoying it "hey you are dishonest, you did not pay for planting
> it!"
>
> I reckon the guy who complained should be taken to court for causing a
> nuisance, falsely advertising a service he did not want to supply!
>
> Inman Harvey
>