|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cell Phone Tech > June 2005 > Re: mobile network design, was Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: mobile network design, was Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?
|
|
| John R. Levine 2005-05-28, 4:55 pm |
| >> If the US systems are so much better, why is it then that a
quote:
Aw, c'mon. GSM has nothing to do with who pays for the call. Cingular
and T-Mobile both use GSM in the US, and it's charged the same way as
any other US phone. In fact, my phone is AMPS/TDMA/GSM (one of the
few ever made) and I pay the same regardless of the network I use.
[vbcol=darkred]
> The reasons for them using callee pays is largely due to the
> argument that the caller should not pay a premium due to the callee
> deciding they want to be reachable while mobile.
As the paper cited earlier in this argument noted, since the mobile
customer pays all of the mobile charges here, the customer cares what
the cost is. As a result, the actual average cost per minute of
mobile service, counting subscription fees and all per call charges,is
much lower in the US than it is in Europe, about 10 cents/min here vs
about twice that in Europe.
There are two other reasons that the US went with mobile customer
pays. One is that US phone users expect local calls to be free or
close to it. In many areas of the country, even if a number is in the
same area code, you dial 1+area code+number if it's a six cent toll
call, just so you shouldn't make a toll call by mistake. We've had a
bunch of attempts at caller-pays, all of which vanished without a
trace as the people who thought that they were so important that their
friends and business contacts would pay extra to call them turned out
to be mistaken.
The last is that the US phone system uses a fixed ten-digit numbering
scheme with a three digit area code and seven digit number, and that's
not going to change. (Before someone asks why we don't use variable
length numbers like in Europe, we designed our long distance switching
system first, in the late 1940s when there were probably more phones
in North America than in the rest of the world combined. It made our
mechanical and relay switches much more flexible. The real question
is why when AT&T offered the fixed-length scheme to European PTTs,
they didn't take it, and they are now crawling toward fixed length
numbers 40 years later.) If we were doing caller-pays, we'd have had
to allocate new area codes for mobile numbers in each area of the US
and Canada, and there weren't enough unused area codes to do that.
A positive result of the combined numbering is that the US mobile and
landline networks are much more integrated than the European ones are.
We can port phone numbers not just from one mobile carrier to another,
but from mobile to landline and back, with landline also including
VoIP. If I decide that I like my mobile and I want to dump my
landline, I can port my landline number so that callers don't even
know that I've switched and I don't have to give out a new number. Is
that ever going to happen in Europe? Unlikely.
R's,
John
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-28, 4:55 pm |
| John R. Levine wrote:
[snip]
quote:
> A positive result of the combined numbering is that the US mobile
> and landline networks are much more integrated than the European
> ones are. We can port phone numbers not just from one mobile
> carrier to another, but from mobile to landline and back, with
> landline also including VoIP. If I decide that I like my mobile
> and I want to dump my landline, I can port my landline number so
> that callers don't even know that I've switched and I don't have to
> give out a new number. Is that ever going to happen in Europe?
> Unlikely.
Another reason I like the US system.
I seem to be in a huge minority here in the UK though.
Ivor
| |
| Osmo R 2005-05-29, 6:55 am |
| John R. Levine wrote:
quote:
>
> As the paper cited earlier in this argument noted, since the mobile
> customer pays all of the mobile charges here, the customer cares what
> the cost is. As a result, the actual average cost per minute of
> mobile service, counting subscription fees and all per call
> charges,is much lower in the US than it is in Europe, about 10
> cents/min here vs about twice that in Europe.
What? In Finland if you call 100 minutes you pay as low as 7,56 cents a
minute. With 1000 minutes it is as low as 3,58 cents a minute. That's to
land lines or to any mobiles and at any time. We typically do not have
cheaper calls on nights and weekends. Those are typical in countries
where mobiles are still associated into business use and in off hours
there is more free capacity. The network operators charge same
regardless of the time so if cheaper calls on evenings are provided it
is for the service operator to pay the difference and hope one gets it
back on the more expensive daytime calls.
So could you give what someone making 100 minutes of calls would pay in
the U.S.? More than 7,56 a month?
quote:
>
> There are two other reasons that the US went with mobile customer
> pays. One is that US phone users expect local calls to be free or
> close to it.
You mean free with no monthly fee? That's a good deal. In Finland we are
talking about 10 cents a call + 1 cent a minute. The monthly fee is
around 10 euros.
quote:
> In many areas of the country, even if a number is in the same area
> code, you dial 1+area code+number if it's a six cent toll call, just
> so you shouldn't make a toll call by mistake. We've had a bunch of
> attempts at caller-pays, all of which vanished without a trace as the
> people who thought that they were so important that their friends and
> business contacts would pay extra to call them turned out to be
> mistaken.
In general it is hard to mix the systems. One had to choose either one
for a country.
quote:
> A positive result of the combined numbering is that the US mobile and
> landline networks are much more integrated than the European ones
> are. We can port phone numbers not just from one mobile carrier to
> another, but from mobile to landline and back, with landline also
> including VoIP. If I decide that I like my mobile and I want to dump
> my landline, I can port my landline number so that callers don't even
> know that I've switched and I don't have to give out a new number.
> Is that ever going to happen in Europe? Unlikely.
In Finland one operator tried such a scheme but the land line operators
refused to give the numbers to the mobile operator as the law did not
force them to do so. Well it was not a true porting but one got two
numbers, the old land line and a mobile number. One could receive calls
through either (at predictable costs to the caller) but the receiver saw
only the mobile number. (so basically it was an call forward done by the
operator at no cost to you)
Also we used to have so called city phones with land line numbers. They
could only be used locally in the particular city. They have since been
discontinued. (At least in Helsinki). Those had a problem of very
expensive calls to mobile phones.
Osmo
| |
| John R. Levine 2005-05-29, 6:55 am |
| >> mobile service, counting subscription fees and all per call
quote:
>
>What? In Finland if you call 100 minutes you pay as low as 7,56 cents a
>minute. ...
We're talking about the real price, counting inbound as well as outbound
calls and line rental. Looking at the price difference for me to call
a Finnish landline and a Finnish mobile, it looks like callers are
charged about 15 cpm for calls to mobiles.
quote:
> With 1000 minutes it is as low as 3,58 cents a minute.
Whoopee. I pay $30/mo for a bundle of 3750 minutes. That's 0.8 cpm
if I used them all.
quote:
>
>You mean free with no monthly fee?
Landline phones all have a monthly fee, but the local calls are free.
People talk for hours.
quote:
>Also we used to have so called city phones with land line numbers. They
>could only be used locally in the particular city. They have since been
>discontinued. (At least in Helsinki). Those had a problem of very
>expensive calls to mobile phones.
See what I mean?
R's,
John
| |
| Osmo R 2005-05-29, 9:55 am |
| John R. Levine wrote:
quote:
>
>
> We're talking about the real price, counting inbound as well as
> outbound calls and line rental. Looking at the price difference for
> me to call a Finnish landline and a Finnish mobile, it looks like
> callers are charged about 15 cpm for calls to mobiles.
No they are charged 6.9-8.9 cents a minute. Finnish callers use mobiles
to call mobiles. If one wantrs to call from a land line then typical
cost is about 17 cents a minute on evenings and wekends and about 27
cents on day time. In addition there is about 10 cents a call.
quote:
>
>
>
> Whoopee. I pay $30/mo for a bundle of 3750 minutes. That's 0.8 cpm
> if I used them all.
If you use when all. Do you?
quote:
>
>
> Landline phones all have a monthly fee, but the local calls are free.
>
Well to me that is oxymoron if there is a fee it is not free. At leasst
it would be illegal here to advertise so. It is clerer to say that they
are included in the base fee.
quote:
> People talk for hours.
Here they seldom do and it they do there are deals for it.
quote:
>
>
>
>
> See what I mean?
For that very reason those were not very popular and they have been
discontinued. Mobile to mobile calls are cheap.
Osmo
| |
| Ototin 2005-05-29, 4:55 pm |
| On Sun, 29 May 2005 13:32:19 +0300, Osmo R <okaro@hotmail.com> wrote:
quote:
[vbcol=darkred]
>Well to me that is oxymoron if there is a fee it is not free. At leasst
>it would be illegal here to advertise so. It is clerer to say that they
>are included in the base fee.
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.
| |
| Osmo R 2005-05-29, 4:55 pm |
| Ototin wrote:
quote:
>
> 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
| |
| Ototin 2005-05-29, 4:55 pm |
| On Sun, 29 May 2005 17:26:35 +0300, Osmo R <okaro@hotmail.com> wrote:
quote:
>Ototin wrote:
[vbcol=darkred]
>I know what you mean. I still do not consider it free, especially if the
>monthly fee is significant.
In my part of Canada the monthly fee is $26.00 with taxes included.
This is for a plain subscription, i.e. there is no caller ID or any
other calling features.
quote:
>When you call to a mobile do you understand that the receiver pays and
>do not speak for too long?
When I dial a telephone number I don't know whether it is a mobile or
land line number. When people give me a telephone number I don't ask
if it is a mobile or not. I understand that the receiver pays and I
will have a conversation as long as me and the called party are
willing.
| |
| Osmo R 2005-05-29, 4:55 pm |
| Ototin wrote:
quote:
>
> When I dial a telephone number I don't know whether it is a mobile or
> land line number. When people give me a telephone number I don't ask
> if it is a mobile or not. I understand that the receiver pays and I
> will have a conversation as long as me and the called party are
> willing.
So you could end up babbling nonsense at the expense of the receiver. He
might be too polite to remind you of it. I think it is better that the
one who makes the call pays. Here one always knows if a number is mobile
or not. Such a system may suit better the U.S. and Canada with its
numerous local companies. In Europe the CPP is IMO better though there
are problems with international calls. It may not be easy to tell from a
foreign number if it is mobile or not.
Osmo
| |
| Miguel Cruz 2005-05-29, 4:55 pm |
| Osmo R <okaro@hotmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> 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.
What does this mean? In both the US and Europe either party is free to hang
up the phone when they are tired of the conversation. What is the relevance
of who placed the call?
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 2005-05-29, 4:55 pm |
| Osmo R <okaro@hotmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> John R. Levine wrote:
>
> No they are charged 6.9-8.9 cents a minute. Finnish callers use mobiles
> to call mobiles. If one wantrs to call from a land line then typical
> cost is about 17 cents a minute on evenings and wekends and about 27
> cents on day time. In addition there is about 10 cents a call.
>
>
> If you use when all. Do you?
Doesn't matter - he's ahead of you way before 3750 minutes.
At "6.9-8.9" (which I'll just call 7.9), he's paying less than you after as
little as than 10 minutes of calling per day. With each additional minute of
calling he pays less and less than you do.
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
| |
| Joseph 2005-05-29, 4:55 pm |
| On Sun, 29 May 2005 20:39:20 +0300, Osmo R <okaro@hotmail.com> wrote:
quote:
>
>So you could end up babbling nonsense at the expense of the receiver.
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!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| Osmo R 2005-05-29, 10:55 pm |
| Joseph wrote:
quote:
> 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
| |
| Osmo R 2005-05-29, 10:55 pm |
| Miguel Cruz wrote:
quote:
>
> What does this mean? In both the US and Europe either party is free
> to hang up the phone when they are tired of the conversation. What is
> the relevance of who placed the call?
It is when one considers the etiquette. In general it is the caller who
has something to say and it is polite to listen what he has to say. Of
course there is no law that says one cannot just hang up and in some
cases one actually might have better things to do.
Osmo
| |
| Osmo R 2005-05-29, 10:55 pm |
| Miguel Cruz wrote:
quote:
>
> Doesn't matter - he's ahead of you way before 3750 minutes.
>
> At "6.9-8.9" (which I'll just call 7.9), he's paying less than you
> after as little as than 10 minutes of calling per day. With each
> additional minute of calling he pays less and less than you do.
With 300 minutes a month it is better get here a plan that gives 500
minutes at 17.80 a month. Also do no forget received calls. 10 minutes a
day is pretty much. Average use here has been about 150 minutes a month
though it has been increasing somewhat recently as prices dropped.
Osmo
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-29, 10:55 pm |
|
"Osmo R" <okaro@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KOqme.734$6o2.71@reader1.news.jippii.net...
quote:
> Joseph wrote:
>
>
> The other party might be too polite to interrupt you.
>
> Osmo
If something was costing me money and I didn't want to pay it, politeness
wouldn't enter into it..!!
Ivor
| |
| Steven M. Scharf 2005-05-29, 10:55 pm |
|
"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote in message
news:d7a9v4$iru$1@xu
xa.iecc.com...
quote:
>
> Aw, c'mon. GSM has nothing to do with who pays for the call.
And of course GSM _is_ TDMA. The only reason that CDMA took hold in the U.S.
is a) because CDMA is much more spectrally efficient, (U.S. has less
spectrum available for mobile voice and data), and b) you can cover an
equivalent area with far less cells, which is important in less densely
populated areas.
| |
| Joseph 2005-05-29, 10:55 pm |
| On Mon, 30 May 2005 00:47:07 +0300, Osmo R <okaro@hotmail.com> wrote:
quote:
>Joseph wrote:
>
>
>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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| Miguel Cruz 2005-05-30, 6:55 am |
| Osmo R <okaro@hotmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> Miguel Cruz wrote:
>
> With 300 minutes a month it is better get here a plan that gives 500
> minutes at 17.80 a month. Also do no forget received calls. 10 minutes a
> day is pretty much. Average use here has been about 150 minutes a month
> though it has been increasing somewhat recently as prices dropped.
Yet you continue to make arguments based on the reasoning that people in
Finland don't talk on the phone very much, as if there's any reason for this
other than the fact that phone calls there are so expensive.
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
| |
| Steven M. Scharf 2005-05-30, 4:55 pm |
| 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 $0.10 per minute, since we are
trying to find the total cost.
I tried doing this for a UK plan, and came up with £105.00, using the OFCOM
termination fee limit, but I'm sure that this is too high.
| |
| Osmo R 2005-05-30, 4:55 pm |
| Joseph wrote:
quote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 00:47:07 +0300, Osmo R <okaro@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Osmo, if you don't have an answer it's really better to not say
> anything rather than appear foolish. You're grasping for straws and
> they ain't there.
There are people who are too polite to hand up on a telemarketer so they
buy what he sells just to get rid of him. Hanging up is a big no no to
some people.
Osmo
| |
| Andy Pandy 2005-05-30, 4:55 pm |
|
"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:VpHme.10679$M36.4277@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
quote:
> 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.
It'll depend so much on what plan the incoming caller uses. Also it is possible
to be a "phone tart" and get a very cheap contract and phone, by switching
contracts every year. The networks are so desperate to sign people up that they
offer retailers big bonuses for every new customer, which some retailers use to
offer cashback to the customer.
I'll have a go using Orange ED50 plus 1899, the best value indirect access
telco. I need to guess the average call length, say 5 minutes (so 100 mins is 20
calls). Also off-peak is different between weekdays and weekends - so I will
assume half and half.
100 Peak Outgoing, In-Network Mobile to Mobile: £10.60 [1]
100 Peak Incoming, In-Network Mobile to Mobile: £10.60 (charged to
caller)
100 Peak Outoging, Mobile to Landline: £0.60
100 Peak Incoming, Landline to Mobile: £10.60 (charged
to caller)
100 Peak Outoging, Mobile to Out-of-Network Mobile £10.60
100 Peak Incoming, Out-of-Network Mobile to Mobile £10.60 (charged to caller)
100 Off-Peak Outgoing, Mobile to Landline 0
100 Off-Peak Incoming, Landline to Mobile £6.60 (charged to
caller)
100 Off-Peak Outgoing, In-Network Mobile to Mobile 0
100 Off-Peak Incoming, In-Network Mobile to Mobile 0
1000 minutes
Plus £15 per month for the ED50 contract.
£75.2
Average Price Per Minute 7.52ppm
[1] 1899 price. Not sure if Orange to Orange peak calls are cheaper than 10ppm
on ED50.
--
Andy
| |
| Osmo R 2005-05-30, 10:55 pm |
| Miguel Cruz wrote:
quote:
>
> Yet you continue to make arguments based on the reasoning that people
> in Finland don't talk on the phone very much, as if there's any
> reason for this other than the fact that phone calls there are so
> expensive.
Of course the cost as something to do with the time people use to talk
to phone but most people do not have any need to spend hours every day
on a phone no matter how cheap it is. They have better things to do. The
more people give up landlines the more they use mobile phones for just
idle chatting and plans are developed for that.
When one talks about cost one should not focus only on those who talk
much. If one here wants just to receive calls it costs nothing besides
the actual phone.
Osmo
| |
| Steven M. Scharf 2005-05-30, 10:55 pm |
| "Andy Pandy" < spam8times@wonderful
.spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:3g16muFa0nl8U1@
individual.net...[vbcol=darkred]
>
> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
> news:VpHme.10679$M36.4277@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
plan[vbcol=darkred]
most[vbcol=darkred]
<snip>
That's about what the studies showed as well, about 2x the cost in Europe
per call. CPP termination fees really drives up the price.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-30, 10:55 pm |
|
"Osmo R" <okaro@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MtJme.1028$lu1.945@reader1.news.jippii.net...
[snip]
quote:
> 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.
That's their problem..!
Ivor
| |
| Miguel Cruz 2005-05-30, 10:55 pm |
| Osmo R <okaro@hotmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> When one talks about cost one should not focus only on those who talk
> much. If one here wants just to receive calls it costs nothing besides
> the actual phone.
And if you only count Christmas gifts, socks and aftershave are free.
It is not productive in a discussion of the overall cost paid for phones in
a given system, to fixate on exceptional cases such as people who only
receive and never place calls. If everyone were like that, there would be no
phone calls. Someone has to place them, and that someone is paying far more
than they need to, due to an anti-competetive system.
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 2005-06-01, 4:55 pm |
| Ototin <bangsit@balay.ca> wrote:
quote:
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:44:46 +0100, this_address_is_for_
spam@yahoo.com
> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
> wrote:
>
>
> So, for the sake of comparison assume that the 1,000 minutes is used
> up. And also assumed a usage during a specific time period, for
> example, from 07:00 to 20:00 everyday.
I'd bother doing so if I thought that most mobile users were using their
phone between 0700 and 2000 and using a 1,000 minutes a month.
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-06-01, 4:55 pm |
|
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
< this_address_is_for_
spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1gxhhfm. hzg4dvlwh1cbN%this_a
ddress_is_for_spam@y
ahoo.com...
quote:
> Ototin <bangsit@balay.ca> wrote:
>
>
> I'd bother doing so if I thought that most mobile users were using their
> phone between 0700 and 2000 and using a 1,000 minutes a month.
I struggle to use 120 minutes a month..!
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-06-01, 4:55 pm |
|
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
< this_address_is_for_
spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1gxhhi8. 1eems3a1ikskjcN%this
_address_is_for_spam
@yahoo.com...
[snip]
quote:
> It's highly likely that if Orange dump the plan I'm currently on, I may
> very well just go on to PAYG. I'm considering it with my partner's
> account. The whole reason I got onto contract in the first place was
> because it offered lower roaming costs. Now, you have companies which
> offer far better deals (Riiing), or similar costs on PAYG (thinking
> Easymobile for example) and it seems less attractive.
You're entirely correct. One of the main reasons I hang on to my contract
is it's the only way of having Line 2. I need this as I don't want to give
my main number to work.
Ivor
| |
| Steven M. Scharf 2005-06-01, 4:55 pm |
|
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:3g5vo8Farh3sU1@
individual.net...
quote:
>
> "chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco"
> < this_address_is_for_
spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1gxhhfm. hzg4dvlwh1cbN%this_a
ddress_is_for_spam@y
ahoo.com...
>
> I struggle to use 120 minutes a month..!
I use about 100 peak minutes a month, so my 300 minutes per month plan is a
bit wasteful, but it's the smallest plan I could get. It's around $32/month.
But where most people really rack up the minutes is nights and weekends, and
on-network mobile-mobile. It would normally cost $0.06/minute to make a
landline call from my house in Silicon Valley, to San Francisco, a mere 40
miles away. My wife's family all lives up there, and we were paying about
$20 per month in "local long-distance." Similarly, calling anywhere in the
U.S. will cost about $0.025/minute on the least expensive long distance
calling card, and we probably use another couple of hundred minutes on the
mobile phone, that would otherwise cost another $5. Since Verizon has a very
high market share in my area (GSM coverage is very poor in my area), nearly
every friend, relative, or colleague has Verizon service, and you can rack
up another couple of hundred free peak minutes that way.
It doesn't really matter how you slice it, CPP always results in higher
per-minute rates, the question is whether it's 1.3x, 1.5x, 2x, or 3x.
| |
| Osmo R 2005-06-01, 4:55 pm |
| Steven M. Scharf wrote:
quote:
>
>
> I use about 100 peak minutes a month, so my 300 minutes per month
> plan is a bit wasteful, but it's the smallest plan I could get. It's
> around $32/month.
I would never consider using so much for a mobile phone. So what's
cheap and what's expensive is relative. Since early 2003 I have used on
the average two euros a month for phone bills. Average use of airtime
has been 144 minutes a month. (counted from the phone logs).
Osmo
| |
| Osmo R 2005-06-01, 4:55 pm |
| Steven M. Scharf wrote:
quote:
> "Osmo R" <okaro@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bCjne.1558$3Y7.1084@reader1.news.jippii.net...
>
>
>
>
> Because if the termination charges were not so high, they would not be
> intentionally avoiding making certain calls. I wanted people to look at the
> big picture, and not just look at how the wireless carriers have conditioned
> them to behave.
And I still do not see why the cost of calling a mobile from a a
landline is relevant when one can call with a mobile.
quote:
>
>
> That is what the carriers want. They can successfully hide the true cost,
> when people think only about themselves.
So? I do not care of the carriers. I care what it costs to me.
Osmo
|
|
|
|
|