"32andtwentyseven" <32andtwentyseven@xemaps.com> wrote in message
news:1184629593.475469.292140@d55g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Why is calling other mobile phones in the UK so much more expensive
> than in the USA?
a) because the numbers are in the same ranges as landlines so there is
no way a telco can differentiate
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:46:33 -0700, 32andtwentyseven wrote:
> Why is calling other mobile phones in the UK so much more expensive
> than in the USA?
In the USA the higher cost for mobile calls are paid by the person
receiving the call.
So it might cost you the same to call a USA mobile as it does a USA
landline, but the person you are calling on the USA mobile has to pick up
the difference.
"Graham" <me@privacy.com> wrote in message
news:f7h0la$rdp$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> "32andtwentyseven" <32andtwentyseven@xemaps.com> wrote in message
> news:1184629593.475469.292140@d55g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>> Why is calling other mobile phones in the UK so much more expensive
>> than in the USA?
>
> a) because the numbers are in the same ranges as landlines so there is
> no way a telco can differentiate
>
> and, wait for it..
>
> b) the recipient pays for incomming calls.
But at such a cheap rate (and included in inclusive minutes, of which
there are many compared to UK contracts) that it really doesn't matter.
"Graham" <me@privacy.com> wrote in message
news:f7h0la$rdp$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> "32andtwentyseven" <32andtwentyseven@xemaps.com> wrote in message
> news:1184629593.475469.292140@d55g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>> Why is calling other mobile phones in the UK so much more expensive
>> than in the USA?
>
> a) because the numbers are in the same ranges as landlines so there is
> no way a telco can differentiate
>
> and, wait for it..
>
> b) the recipient pays for incomming calls.
But at such a cheap rate (and included in inclusive minutes, of which
there are many compared to UK contracts) that it really doesn't matter.
You can also port numbers between mobiles and landlines, as well as
reassign the area code if you move. On my T-Mobile SIM I can have a San
Francisco (415) number when I'm there and change it to (say) a 212 New
York number if I wanted to spend more than say a few days there.
In message <g5Umi.25174$p8.23415@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk >,
{{{{{Welcome}}}}} <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk> writes
>In the USA the higher cost for mobile calls are paid by the person
>receiving the call.
>
>So it might cost you the same to call a USA mobile as it does a USA
>landline, but the person you are calling on the USA mobile has to pick up
>the difference.
Makes a lot of sense... why can't we have that?
--
Gyp
Change to dotcom to reply
"Gyp" <Gyp@gyponline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qB1ksTBi8PnGFwu1@orange.orange...
> In message <g5Umi.25174$p8.23415@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk >,
> {{{{{Welcome}}}}} <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>>In the USA the higher cost for mobile calls are paid by the person
>>receiving the call.
>>
>>So it might cost you the same to call a USA mobile as it does a USA
>>landline, but the person you are calling on the USA mobile has to pick
>>up
>>the difference.
>
> Makes a lot of sense... why can't we have that?
Because the British mentality is different. In the US, the attitude is
"you choose to go mobile, why should I pay extra to call you..?" whereas
in the UK it's a case of "why should I pay to receive your phone calls..?
If you don't like mobile rates, don't call me on it, wait until I get
home/to the office."
What they fail to take into account is the difference between UK and US
calling plans. Most offer huge amounts of inclusive minutes, from which
incoming calls are taken, far more than here. I have friends in San
Francisco who get 2000+ minutes a month for something like $40 (I may be
slightly out, it's been a while since I spoke to them, but it's something
very close) and they've never once gone over the inclusive amount.
Personally I'd prefer at least the option of a tariff at US rates, but
it'll never happen.
32andtwentyseven@xemaps.com declared for all the world to hear...
>
> Why is calling other mobile phones in the UK so much more expensive
> than in the USA?
In the USA people pay for incoming calls, this provides part of the
revenue.
--
Regards
Jon
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:38:20 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Gyp" <Gyp@gyponline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:qB1ksTBi8PnGFwu1@orange.orange...
>> In message <g5Umi.25174$p8.23415@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk >,
>> {{{{{Welcome}}}}} <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>
>>>In the USA the higher cost for mobile calls are paid by the person
>>>receiving the call.
>>>
>>>So it might cost you the same to call a USA mobile as it does a USA
>>>landline, but the person you are calling on the USA mobile has to pick
>>>up
>>>the difference.
>>
>> Makes a lot of sense... why can't we have that?
>
> Because the British mentality is different. In the US, the attitude is
> "you choose to go mobile, why should I pay extra to call you..?" whereas
> in the UK it's a case of "why should I pay to receive your phone calls..?
> If you don't like mobile rates, don't call me on it, wait until I get
> home/to the office."
I thought it was to ease the uptake of phones when cellular services were
introduced.
£25/month and 25p/min was hard enough to swallow ...
On my T-Mobile SIM I can have a San
> Francisco (415) number when I'm there and change it to (say) a 212 New
> York number if I wanted to spend more than say a few days there.
How does that work then? It sounds unlikely, or at least sufficiently
unlikely as to be of no practical use.
f you have (415)-XXX-YYY, and want to move to New York, what happens to
the person who currently has (212)-XXX-YYY?
Ivor you are not off at all. We get so much anytime minutes and
unlimited nights and weekends than we know what to do with it. So,
while we do pay for incoming calls in that it comes out of our minutes,
it's no big deal since we get so many minutes.
As already mentioned, we do not differentiate between mobiles and
landlines. So, it should always cost the same to call either. We pretty
much call each other on the mobile anyway.
For example, a typical plan will give you 1000 anytime minutes, and
unlimited nights and weekends for about $45 or so. Of course, this is
all nationwide minutes. So, calling anywhere in the US from anywhere
withinn the US is covered and costs the same.
"Andy Burns" <usenet.oct2006@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote in message
news:469dddcf$0$1623$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> On 18/07/2007 10:19, Andrew Cook wrote:
>
>> If you have (415)-XXX-YYY, and want to move to New York, what happens to
>> the person who currently has (212)-XXX-YYY?
>
> Nothing, they keep it and you get (212)-VVVV-ZZZZ
> "Andy Burns" <usenet.oct2006@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:469dddcf$0$1623$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> > On 18/07/2007 10:19, Andrew Cook wrote:
> >
> >> If you have (415)-XXX-YYY, and want to move to New York, what happens to
> >> the person who currently has (212)-XXX-YYY?
> >
> > Nothing, they keep it and you get (212)-VVVV-ZZZZ
>
> Don't you just love Usenet pedantry.
Yup- shouldn't it be (212)-VVV-ZZZZ?
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Pres. Blair- May, 2007
"Andrew Cook" <spam@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1i1fzae.1ugtoucovk2yoN%spam@nospam.demon.co.u k...
> Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> On my T-Mobile SIM I can have a San
>> Francisco (415) number when I'm there and change it to (say) a 212 New
>> York number if I wanted to spend more than say a few days there.
>
> How does that work then? It sounds unlikely, or at least sufficiently
> unlikely as to be of no practical use.
If you're going to be somewhere for any length of time, it's useful to
have a local number. Remember that in the US most people get free calls to
local numbers.
> f you have (415)-XXX-YYY, and want to move to New York, what happens to
> the person who currently has (212)-XXX-YYY?
Nothing. The phone number changes as well as the code.
On 18 Jul, 12:27, mrcamp <mrcamp.e3b...@cellbanter.com> wrote:
> Ivor you are not off at all. We get so much anytime minutes and
> unlimited nights and weekends than we know what to do with it. So,
> while we do pay for incoming calls in that it comes out of our minutes,
> it's no big deal since we get so many minutes.
>
> As already mentioned, we do not differentiate between mobiles and
> landlines. So, it should always cost the same to call either. We pretty
> much call each other on the mobile anyway.
>
> For example, a typical plan will give you 1000 anytime minutes, and
> unlimited nights and weekends for about $45 or so. Of course, this is
> all nationwide minutes. So, calling anywhere in the US from anywhere
> withinn the US is covered and costs the same.
>
That's very interesting.
But what I really want to know is - are we charged disproportinately
more for calls in the UK than it costs the telcos? I.E. Are they
making higher profit margins than they do in the USA?
On Jul 17, 9:19 pm, Jon <s...@jonparker.plus.com> wrote:
> 32andtwentyse...@xemaps.com declared for all the world to hear...
>
>
>
> > Why is calling other mobile phones in the UK so much more expensive
> > than in the USA?
>
> In the USA people pay for incoming calls, this provides part of the
> revenue.
> --
> Regards
> Jon
On Jul 17, 8:38 pm, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> "Gyp" <G...@gyponline.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:qB1ksTBi8PnGFwu1@orange.orange...
>
> > In message <g5Umi.25174$p8.23...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk >,
> > {{{{{Welcome}}}}} <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
> >>In the USA the higher cost for mobile calls are paid by the person
> >>receiving the call.
>
> >>So it might cost you the same to call a USA mobile as it does a USA
> >>landline, but the person you are calling on the USA mobile has to pick
> >>up
> >>the difference.
>
> > Makes a lot of sense... why can't we have that?
>
> Because the British mentality is different. In the US, the attitude is
> "you choose to go mobile, why should I pay extra to call you..?" whereas
> in the UK it's a case of "why should I pay to receive your phone calls..?
> If you don't like mobile rates, don't call me on it, wait until I get
> home/to the office."
>
> What they fail to take into account is the difference between UK and US
> calling plans. Most offer huge amounts of inclusive minutes, from which
> incoming calls are taken, far more than here. I have friends in San
> Francisco who get 2000+ minutes a month for something like $40 (I may be
> slightly out, it's been a while since I spoke to them, but it's something
> very close) and they've never once gone over the inclusive amount.
>
> Personally I'd prefer at least the option of a tariff at US rates, but
> it'll never happen.
>
> Ivor
And what about all the pre-pay users in the US who have to pay out of
their balance to receive calls & texts?
On Jul 19, 12:52 pm, 32andtwentyseven <32andtwentyse...@xemaps.com>
wrote:
> On 18 Jul, 12:27, mrcamp <mrcamp.e3b...@cellbanter.com> wrote:
>
> > Ivor you are not off at all. We get so much anytime minutes and
> > unlimited nights and weekends than we know what to do with it. So,
> > while we do pay for incoming calls in that it comes out of our minutes,
> > it's no big deal since we get so many minutes.
>
> > As already mentioned, we do not differentiate between mobiles and
> > landlines. So, it should always cost the same to call either. We pretty
> > much call each other on the mobile anyway.
>
> > For example, a typical plan will give you 1000 anytime minutes, and
> > unlimited nights and weekends for about $45 or so. Of course, this is
> > all nationwide minutes. So, calling anywhere in the US from anywhere
> > withinn the US is covered and costs the same.
>
> That's very interesting.
>
> But what I really want to know is - are we charged disproportinately
> more for calls in the UK than it costs the telcos? I.E. Are they
> making higher profit margins than they do in the USA?
You also need to keep in mind that a lot of US contracts are for 2
years or longer, and the phones don't tend to be as subsidised.
Coverage tends to be more patchy in the US also.
There was a study published a year or two back which put the UK at the
top (or close to the top) for value on mobile costs (I can't find the
reference, however) and the US way down the list. That said, the US
mobile market has come on leaps and bounds recently.
"Usenet User" <usenetuser@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1184941696.100180.18450@g4g2000hsf.googlegrou ps.com
> On Jul 17, 8:38 pm, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid>
> wrote:
[snip]
> > What they fail to take into account is the difference
> > between UK and US calling plans. Most offer huge
> > amounts of inclusive minutes, from which incoming calls
> > are taken, far more than here. I have friends in San
> > Francisco who get 2000+ minutes a month for something
> > like $40 (I may be slightly out, it's been a while
> > since I spoke to them, but it's something very close)
> > and they've never once gone over the inclusive amount.
> >
> > Personally I'd prefer at least the option of a tariff
> > at US rates, but it'll never happen.
> >
> > Ivor
>
> And what about all the pre-pay users in the US who have
> to pay out of their balance to receive calls & texts?
What about them..? I have a pre-pay US phone for my trips over there and
yes I have to pay for incoming calls out of the credit (not sure about
texts as I don't use that phone for them) but it's still good value IMHO.
On Jul 20, 7:49 pm, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> "Usenet User" <usenetu...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:1184941696.100180.18450@g4g2000hsf.googlegrou ps.com
>
> > On Jul 17, 8:38 pm, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid>
> > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>
>
> > > What they fail to take into account is the difference
> > > between UK and US calling plans. Most offer huge
> > > amounts of inclusive minutes, from which incoming calls
> > > are taken, far more than here. I have friends in San
> > > Francisco who get 2000+ minutes a month for something
> > > like $40 (I may be slightly out, it's been a while
> > > since I spoke to them, but it's something very close)
> > > and they've never once gone over the inclusive amount.
>
> > > Personally I'd prefer at least the option of a tariff
> > > at US rates, but it'll never happen.
>
> > > Ivor
>
> > And what about all the pre-pay users in the US who have
> > to pay out of their balance to receive calls & texts?
>
> What about them..? I have a pre-pay US phone for my trips over there and
> yes I have to pay for incoming calls out of the credit (not sure about
> texts as I don't use that phone for them) but it's still good value IMHO.
>
> Ivor- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
And it would seem a pain to not be able to receive any of your calls
when you are in the US when your balance was nil.
"Usenet User" <usenetuser@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1185005624.649086.211490@r34g2000hsd.googlegr oups.com
[snip]
> And it would seem a pain to not be able to receive any of
> your calls when you are in the US when your balance was
> nil.
And knowing that, why would I allow the balance to reach nil..?
In all the years I've had PAYG phones, none of them have ever approached a
zero balance. I think the closest one got was 27p when I was running it
down prior to getting rid of it.
Pricing Question 
Linear Mode
