The Register: Reding would OK charges to receive mobile calls

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/16/reding_charges/

I checked out a typical US plan, on Verizon, from a NYC, Brooklyn base
(they ask for your location).
This package appears to offer unlimited NATIONAL incoming calls. So,
presumably, they mask these charges by selling a low amount of cheap
cost outgoing minutes at a very much inflated price. I wonder if the
'unlimited' is the same as the UK 'unlimited' which means you are, in
reality, limited and we'll charge you a fat fee if you go over our
small print 'fair use' amount.
http://tinyurl.com/6zbumh
The inclusive 'free', or subsidised price, phone model appears to be
operative in the US, also, if this is anything to go by.



---
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
---

Silly me, I read that as *Reading*

--
Graham

%Profound_observation%

On 2008-06-17, Brian A <no_spam_bca1000@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/16/reding_charges/
>
> I checked out a typical US plan, on Verizon, from a NYC, Brooklyn base
> (they ask for your location).
> This package appears to offer unlimited NATIONAL incoming calls. So,
> presumably, they mask these charges by selling a low amount of cheap
> cost outgoing minutes at a very much inflated price. I wonder if the
> 'unlimited' is the same as the UK 'unlimited' which means you are, in
> reality, limited and we'll charge you a fat fee if you go over our
> small print 'fair use' amount.
> http://tinyurl.com/6zbumh

I'm not quite sure where you are seeing "unlimited incoming calls"
there. Note that "National IN calling" isn't incoming calls, it is
what they call Verizon-mobile-to-Verizon-mobile calls. Arbitrary
incoming calls consume plan minutes just like arbitrary outgoing
calls do, but calls to or from Verizon mobiles don't.

Note that "unlimited" in the US pretty much always means the ordinary
meaning of the word "unlimited"; there has been some litigation there
which has strongly discouraged the UK-style use of the word. While
you might find some wording in the Verizon customer agreement which
limits you somewhat when roaming (even the big carriers, like Verizon,
have lots of coverage holes in more rural parts of the country which
they fill in with national roaming on other operators), "unlimited"
really does mean you can use your phone as much as you want on the
home network.

I'd also note that Verizon is hardly "typical", in fact Verizon's
reputation is that they provide the best coverage where they operate
at the highest prices. If you want to see what the other end of the
feeding chain looks like you might look at, say, MetroPCS at

http://www.metropcs.com/

There you can have unlimited calling for a $40/month flat rate.

Mobile phone service in the US isn't really cheaper than the UK
(in fact I think the big American mobile companies have a significantly
higher ARPU than UK companies do, the former are extremely good at
extracting cash from their customers), but if you measure everything
in cost-per-minute it can be very cheap in the US to use your mobile
a lot. And since intercarrier call termination charges in the US are
very close to zero the carriers have a lot of lattitude to compete
on price.

> The inclusive 'free', or subsidised price, phone model appears to be
> operative in the US, also, if this is anything to go by.

This part is very true. I would point out another difference between
the US and UK, however, that being that US service contracts can
generally be terminated at any time by the payment of an Early Termination
Fee, which tends to be in the $150-$200 range. That tends to limit
the phone subsidies to $150-$200.

Dennis Ferguson

"Brian A" <no_spam_bca1000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:n76f545uoj72vr1bctsakog0oh24g909t7@4ax.com...
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/16/reding_charges/
>
> I checked out a typical US plan, on Verizon, from a NYC, Brooklyn base
> (they ask for your location).
> This package appears to offer unlimited NATIONAL incoming calls. So,
> presumably, they mask these charges by selling a low amount of cheap
> cost outgoing minutes at a very much inflated price. I wonder if the
> 'unlimited' is the same as the UK 'unlimited' which means you are, in
> reality, limited and we'll charge you a fat fee if you go over our
> small print 'fair use' amount.
> http://tinyurl.com/6zbumh
> The inclusive 'free', or subsidised price, phone model appears to be
> operative in the US, also, if this is anything to go by.

What are you talking about. Within the UK all networks have free incoming
calls, and I have never heard of a limit. If you go abroad then incoming
calls are normally charged (often heavily).

This is because the model differs between the UK and US. In the US numbers
appear in NANP and are indistinguishable from landlines. The extra cost of
the mobile segment falls on the called party. OTOH in the UK mobile numbers
have their own ranges and charges fall on the caller.

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:19:50 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton"
<nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote:
Firstly, thank you Dennis for clearing up some points - particularly
re the incoming calls only being unlimited on v to v and that others
are taken out of minutes. I am only approaching this for the first
time. I wanted to see what sort of model existed in th eUS so that I
could decide whether I was in agreement with the possible change or
against it. I wanted to spark a debate in order to glean more
information.
>
>"Brian A" <no_spam_bca1000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:n76f545uoj72vr1bctsakog0oh24g909t7@4ax.com.. .
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/16/reding_charges/
>>
>> I checked out a typical US plan, on Verizon, from a NYC, Brooklyn base
>> (they ask for your location).
>> This package appears to offer unlimited NATIONAL incoming calls. So,
>> presumably, they mask these charges by selling a low amount of cheap
>> cost outgoing minutes at a very much inflated price. I wonder if the
>> 'unlimited' is the same as the UK 'unlimited' which means you are, in
>> reality, limited and we'll charge you a fat fee if you go over our
>> small print 'fair use' amount.
>> http://tinyurl.com/6zbumh
>> The inclusive 'free', or subsidised price, phone model appears to be
>> operative in the US, also, if this is anything to go by.
>
>What are you talking about. Within the UK all networks have free incoming
>calls, and I have never heard of a limit. If you go abroad then incoming
>calls are normally charged (often heavily).
I am sure that it is agreed that incoming calls are free on all UK
networks. The comments made, which perhaps may have created confusion,
was to the term 'unlimited'. It was not meant to relect on incoming
minutes in the UK as under current regimes. The term 'unlimited' has
been used, in the UK, when in fact a limit exists in the small print.
I am of the opinion that the mobile companies are allowed to get away
with this, by Ofcom, because of the amount of money they paid for 3G
licences. Any organisation worth its salt would have pounced on the
likes of Vodafone (offering, I think, some miniscule amount like 250MB
as 'unlimited' ). Personally, if vodafone sent me an inflated bill
under that regime I'd refuse to pay it. Let a court decide what is
reasonable for a customer to assume by the term 'unlimited'. They are,
IMHO, just out to fleece thier customers.
>
>This is because the model differs between the UK and US. In the US numbers
>appear in NANP and are indistinguishable from landlines. The extra cost of
>the mobile segment falls on the called party. OTOH in the UK mobile numbers
>have their own ranges and charges fall on the caller.
I think that if we were to pay for incoming calls then restrictions on
'cold calling' must be very strictly applied. Who wants to waste
mobile minutes talking to someone trying to sell you a mobile phone
contract etc. It should also be possible to restrict international
incoming calls to a white list. That way call centres from abroad
can't get round the restrictions as easily.



---
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
---

"Brian A" <no_spam_bca1000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:n76f545uoj72vr1bctsakog0oh24g909t7@4ax.com...
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/16/reding_charges/
>
> I checked out a typical US plan, on Verizon, from a NYC,

I wonder how 'fuck off' sounds to her and the mobile companies which would
use ANY EXCUSE to rip us off even more than they do already.

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:34 +0100, "Starman2112"
<spammerslie@starman2112.com> wrote:

>
>"Brian A" <no_spam_bca1000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:n76f545uoj72vr1bctsakog0oh24g909t7@4ax.com.. .
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/16/reding_charges/
>>
>> I checked out a typical US plan, on Verizon, from a NYC,
>
>I wonder how 'fuck off' sounds to her and the mobile companies which would
>use ANY EXCUSE to rip us off even more than they do already.
>
Well, it was at her insistence that the providers have had to reduce
roaming charges in Europe. She intimated that the UK Government were
on the side of the operators and not that of the consumer. The UK
Government were quite prepared to let the operators have their own way
it seems. Her main aim is to reduce further the roaming costs.

I have my own views on this. I'd like to see Europe wide agreements
such that the issue of roaming became a non-entity in the respect that
if you buy minutes here you can use them anywhere in Europe. Why not?
It costs virtually nothing to transfer a call to another country so
the only possible justification the operators have for fleecing
customers is the termination charge. The charging system could all be
changed. If for example, I had a contract with O2 and I roamed onto
Movistar in Spain why can't Movistar bill O2 for that and vice versa.
They could have standard agreed tariffs between themselves so, at the
end of the month, they just balance up their charges. It should be
possible to call anyone in Europe for the same charge as calling
someone next door and the only reason why it doesn't happen is that
the operators in all the countries want to fleece the customers. They
don't see any advantage to themselves in having a pan European tariff
for everyone. If someone like Reading would champion something like
this it could get off the ground - Ofcom will never do it, IMHO they
just appease the operators. Ofcom is just a poodle.

Having said all that I still have to be convinced that paying for
incoming calls is a good thing.



---
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
---

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:38:16 +0100, Graham. wrote:

> Silly me, I read that as *Reading*

By coincidence, I read Reading as reading.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
21:09:55 up 20:51, 3 users, load average: 0.31, 0.24, 0.15
Convergence, n: The act of using separate DSL circuits for voice and data

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:52:33 +0000, Brian A wrote:

> Having said all that I still have to be convinced that paying for
> incoming calls is a good thing.

And you don't have to be either. Ms Reding hasn't proposed that Callee
Pays be mandatory, rather that it be an option. So some tariffs will have
it, some won't.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
22:03:10 up 21:44, 2 users, load average: 0.39, 0.31, 0.22
Convergence, n: The act of using separate DSL circuits for voice and data

"alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4859791e$0$19152$bed64819@news.gradwell.net.. .
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:52:33 +0000, Brian A wrote:
>
>> Having said all that I still have to be convinced that paying for
>> incoming calls is a good thing.
>
> And you don't have to be either. Ms Reding hasn't proposed that Callee
> Pays be mandatory, rather that it be an option. So some tariffs will have
> it, some won't.

I'm not so sure.

An odd phenomenon has cropped up on a few occasions during the past 8 years
or so: mobile operators (T-Mobile, Virgin and Orange) making changes to
their charging plans - changes that disadvantage consumers - with the
*explicit* rationale of bringing themselves "in to line" with other mobile
companies. It really is odd to read/hear the announcements which explain,
basically, that prices are being raised because other companies are
doing/have done the same! What about the value of competition?

Virgin has done it recently with the increase in SMS from 10p to 12p (no
reasonable rationale for that other than profit given the already hugely
lucrative SMS income).

This practice (companies arguing that they are coming "in to line") hasn't
attracted as much criticism as I would have thought - it does after all
imply an anti-competitive culture within the industry (the sort of thing
which, presumably, necessitated the involvement of the Commission in
relation to roaming prices and the suggestion that the UK Government wasn't
interested in a fair deal for consumers).

It's possible that, having paid so much for 3G licenses, the various network
providers (aside from 3) don't have a great appetite for cut throat
competition. This maybe why it's possible to get slightly but only slightly
better pre pay tariffs on virtuals.

In relation to data usage things are becoming too expensive for many non
business users (those who don't have significant amounts of disposable
income). The charging model on pre pay is still suited to text only WAP and
even then it is ridiculously expensive when compared to 3G modem dedicated
tariffs.

Gareth.