"Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message
news:64iha6F2c932oU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "Andy Pandy" <spam8times@wonderful.spam.invalid> wrote in
> message news:64i7rsF2ch00gU1@mid.individual.net
> : "James Lewis" <steffangl@gmail.com> wrote in message
> :
>
news:dbabf4d5-4618-454e-b2ca-3e0ebf3b1e39@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> : >
> : > For £15 a month extra on a 3 contract or Pay as you go
> : > you get unlimited calls to certain countries, see:
> : >
> :
>
http://www.three.co.uk/personal/prod...gintlsaver.omp
> :
> : Er, yes, to LANDLINES ONLY in most countries (except to
> : those sensible countries like the US who charge mobile
> : users for receiving instead of charging callers a
> : premium).
> :
> : If the OP was happy to call his g/f on a landline, he
> : could do it for virtually bugger all, in many different
> : ways.
>
> Exactly. Which is why several people have asked if it absolutely
*has* to
> be mobile to mobile, and if so why..?
>
> I accept that mobile calls are more expensive and so only use them
when
> there is absolutely no option. For everything non-urgent I use
landlines
> and VoIP.

So does anyone with half a brain, but it seems a lot of people simply
use their mobile for everything without even thinking of much cheaper
alternatives. I blame all these crappy "inclusive minutes" contracts
where people are encouraged to sign up for far more minutes than they
really need while actually mobile, and so end up using them up at
home/office when they could use the landline for trivial cost. Then
they get used to reaching for the mobile for everything, even for
calls which their "inclusive minutes" don't include and they'll get
charged a fortune for.

--
Andy