|
Home > Archive > Voice Over IP > June 2005 > 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]Pages: Pages: [1] 2 3
| Author |
Advice for calling US Mobile Phone?
|
|
|
| Hi, I live in the UK and my girlfriend is going to america as part of an
exchange programme for the summer.
Does the cheapest/easiest way for us to keep in contact simply involve
her buying any old USA pay as you go mobile phone and then me calling
her via a voice over ip service? Can anyone recommend a decent one with
not too much lag? Or is there a better method than this, ie: is it
cheaper to register with one of those calling card companies in the UK
and call using their number? This'd be great if I could use a UK mobile
phone to call her and not pay through the roof?
Thanks for your help!
Mark.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| Mark wrote:
> Hi, I live in the UK and my girlfriend is going to america as part
> of an exchange programme for the summer.
>
> Does the cheapest/easiest way for us to keep in contact simply
> involve her buying any old USA pay as you go mobile phone and then
> me calling her via a voice over ip service? Can anyone recommend a
> decent one with not too much lag? Or is there a better method than
> this, ie: is it cheaper to register with one of those calling card
> companies in the UK and call using their number? This'd be great
> if I could use a UK mobile phone to call her and not pay through
> the roof?
> Thanks for your help!
>
> Mark.
Will there be broadband access where she'll be going..? If so she could
take a VoIP ATA and you could both use something like Sipgate
(www.sipgate.co.uk) which would mean totally free calls. Of course you'd
have to buy the ATA's but alternatively you could use a softphone such as
X-Lite if PC's are available.
If you want to go the mobile route, then if she gets a US PAYG phone you
can call it using either inclusive minutes on an Orange or O2 mobile via
Pre-Dial, or at relatively cheap rates from Sipgate (1.5p/min) or
Telestunt/Telediscount etc. from a BT/Telewest line.
Hope this helps,
Ivor
| |
| Stuart Friedman 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| Does your girl friend have broadband in the US? Do you have a landline
in the UK? Do you have broadband.
Calling the UK is really cheap from the US with a calling card. I use
onesuite.com, it is two something cents a minute. In the other
direction, look at call1899.com. Half a p a minute. They also, have
a VOIP program. I
Does your girl friend have a triband? One of the better prepaid
offerings comes from 711.com. Their speakout wireless phones are
effectively free and the per minute rate is $US0.20 a minute. It works
nationwide in the US, and has a one year expiry. Remember that in the
US incoming calls come out of your bucket of minutes.
| |
| Phil Thompson 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| On Sun, 22 May 2005 21:58:46 GMT, Mark <x@unknown.com> wrote:
>Does the cheapest/easiest way for us to keep in contact simply involve
>her buying any old USA pay as you go mobile phone and then me calling
>her via a voice over ip service?
using 18866 or the like could be cheaper, depending on rates offerred
by the VoIP provider for calls out to US numbers.
Prepay is far less common in th eUSA and mobiles have standard area
code numbers.
Phil
--
spamcop.net address commissioned 18/06/04
Come on down !
| |
|
| >>Does the cheapest/easiest way for us to keep in contact simply involve
>
>
> using 18866 or the like could be cheaper, depending on rates offerred
> by the VoIP provider for calls out to US numbers.
>
> Prepay is far less common in th eUSA and mobiles have standard area
> code numbers.
Thanks for all your advice so far guys, everyone that replied to my
questions.
I do have broadband, though she won't have internet access when she's
over there I don't think.
I like the idea of something like the pre-dial service, that seems
pretty cheap, and I could call their access number using the free
landline minutes I get with my '3' mobile contract here in the UK.
You say that prepay telephones arent that common in the US, are they
available anywhere at all? She doesn't have a triband phone... She'll
be working in or around the ocean city area in maryland... can she pick
up a prepay mobile there do you think?
Cheers.
| |
|
| Stuart Friedman wrote:
> Does your girl friend have a triband? One of the better prepaid
> offerings comes from 711.com. Their speakout wireless phones are
> effectively free and the per minute rate is $US0.20 a minute. It works
> nationwide in the US, and has a one year expiry. Remember that in the
> US incoming calls come out of your bucket of minutes.
Sorry by this do you mean that if someone from abroad calls any native
US mobile phone, even if that phone is in the US, they have to pay to
/receive/ the call? Or does that go for all calls?
Thanks.
Mark.
| |
| Stuart Friedman 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| All calls with a few exceptions (e.g. certain mobile to mobile calls, some
off peak calls, etc.). All the exceptions are plan specific.
Stu
"Mark" <x@unknown.com> wrote in message
news:409ke.14508$hn5.14332@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> Stuart Friedman wrote:
>
>
> Sorry by this do you mean that if someone from abroad calls any native US
> mobile phone, even if that phone is in the US, they have to pay to
> /receive/ the call? Or does that go for all calls?
>
> Thanks.
> Mark.
| |
|
| That's mad. I can't find anything on the 7-Eleven Speak Out site about
having to pay for incoming calls, it says incoming texts but doesn't say
incoming calls, can you point me to where to find out about this?
Stuart Friedman wrote:
> All calls with a few exceptions (e.g. certain mobile to mobile calls, some
> off peak calls, etc.). All the exceptions are plan specific.
>
> Stu
>
> "Mark" <x@unknown.com> wrote in message
> news:409ke.14508$hn5.14332@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>
>
>
>
| |
| CharlesH 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| Mark wrote:
\> Sorry by this do you mean that if someone from abroad calls any native
> US mobile phone, even if that phone is in the US, they have to pay to
> /receive/ the call? Or does that go for all calls?
In the U.S., the user of a mobile phone always pays airtime whether
calling or receiving a call. For people on post-pay, they generally have
a fairly large bucket of included peak-time minutes per month, and many
such plans include unlimited free off-peak and weekend airtime. Also, it
is very common for all calls to other users of the same provider to be
free at all times. These free times do not apply to pre-pay users.
Furthermore, since the mobile phone user pays for incoming airtime,
there is no surcharge for the caller to call a mobile phone. Mobile
phone numbers in the U.S. cannot be identified by the number, and in
fact, a number can be moved between a landline and mobile provider.
| |
|
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
> In the USA the owner of the mobile you are calling has to pay to receive your
> call or it comes out of some of their inclusive minutes, some networks may
> allow for the first 30 seconds or so of an incoming call to be free. This
> also means it costs the same for you to call a USA mobile as it does a USA
> landline. Crazy system I know, and one I am glad never took off here in
> Europe and elsewhere. It might not mention about paying for incoming calls on
> some of the websites as in the USA it is common knowledge you have to pay.
I see. Hmm. Okay then, well, leading up to my final questions  .. Can
anyone recommend what network the cheapest Pay-as-you go mobile she
could pick up would be, that would charge the least amount to receive an
incoming call from Britain? Just some pointers would be cool, I know so
little about US mobile companies that I just need somewhere to start.
Coverage would have to be good in the Ocean City area of Maryland.
Thanks again!!
| |
| Joseph 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| On Sun, 22 May 2005 23:47:26 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>If you want to go the mobile route, then if she gets a US PAYG phone you
>can call it using either inclusive minutes on an Orange or O2 mobile via
>Pre-Dial, or at relatively cheap rates from Sipgate (1.5p/min) or
>Telestunt/Telediscount etc. from a BT/Telewest line.
Just don't forget that she'll be paying part of the freight as US
mobile system is charged for both incoming and outgoing calls. There
is no penalty however for calling a mobile number. The rate to call
is the same as a fixed line.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| Joseph 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| On Sun, 22 May 2005 23:55:50 GMT, Mark <x@unknown.com> wrote:
>You say that prepay telephones arent that common in the US, are they
>available anywhere at all? She doesn't have a triband phone... She'll
>be working in or around the ocean city area in maryland... can she pick
>up a prepay mobile there do you think?
That's nonsense that prepaid are not common in the US. Most every
operator has some sort of prepaid. T-Mobile, cingular, 7-11, Virgin
Mobile, Locus Mobile, Beyond Wireless, CallPlus and others. The only
GSM prepaid in the "traditioal" sense is T-Mobile, cingular.
You can pick up a prepaid package from most any of the ones mentioned
above. To get a prepaid SIM you're likely to get a better deal by
going to eBay than you are going to a traditional store. With the
non-GSM providers you'll likely have to buy a phone from them for
their service unless you can find a used phone that was on their
service previously. This is also true with 7-11 though it is a GSM
MVNO you cannot buy just the SIM from them. It's definitely not as
convenient as it is in Europe.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| Stuart Friedman 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| Incoming calls cost the same whether the originator is in the UK or across
the street. The cheapest pay as you go plan carries a per day usesage charge
or very short termination periods. I think the best values on whole are
Virginmobile (http://www.virginmobileusa.com/), the 7-11 offering that I
mentioned, icallplus, libertywireless.com. In a few cities there is an
interesting alternative in a few select cities called Cricket
(https://www.mycricket.com/).
"Mark" <x@unknown.com> wrote in message
news:RC9ke.11539$X86.271@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> {{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
>
>
> I see. Hmm. Okay then, well, leading up to my final questions .. Can
> anyone recommend what network the cheapest Pay-as-you go mobile she could
> pick up would be, that would charge the least amount to receive an
> incoming call from Britain? Just some pointers would be cool, I know so
> little about US mobile companies that I just need somewhere to start.
> Coverage would have to be good in the Ocean City area of Maryland.
>
> Thanks again!!
| |
|
| Stuart Friedman wrote:
> Incoming calls cost the same whether the originator is in the UK or across
> the street. The cheapest pay as you go plan carries a per day usesage charge
> or very short termination periods. I think the best values on whole are
> Virginmobile (http://www.virginmobileusa.com/), the 7-11 offering that I
> mentioned, icallplus, libertywireless.com. In a few cities there is an
> interesting alternative in a few select cities called Cricket
> (https://www.mycricket.com/).
Thanks...
Hmm, it looks like most of these charge around 0.10c a minute to receive
calls, looks like it's pretty much standard across the board, apart from
Cricket which doesn't cover Maryland...
Beginning to think it might actually be a lot cheaper to swap the odd
text and leave the onus on her to call me using a cheap calling card,
since that'll be far cheaper than the 10c a minute to receive an
incoming call, and then me do the same if she can get access to a landline..
Thanks for everyone's help :-)
mark.
| |
| Joseph 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| On Mon, 23 May 2005 01:11:05 GMT, "Stuart Friedman" <stu@nospam.na>
wrote:
>Incoming calls cost the same whether the originator is in the UK or across
>the street. The cheapest pay as you go plan carries a per day usesage charge
>or very short termination periods. I think the best values on whole are
>Virginmobile (http://www.virginmobileusa.com/), the 7-11 offering that I
>mentioned, icallplus, libertywireless.com. In a few cities there is an
>interesting alternative in a few select cities called Cricket
>(https://www.mycricket.com/).
Cheapest is Beyond Wireless.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| Miguel Cruz 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| Mark <x@unknown.com> wrote:
> Hmm, it looks like most of these charge around 0.10c a minute to receive
> calls, looks like it's pretty much standard across the board, apart from
> Cricket which doesn't cover Maryland...
If you will be talking a fair bit, then she should get a post-paid plan that
includes a fair-sized pail of minutes.
> Beginning to think it might actually be a lot cheaper to swap the odd
> text and leave the onus on her to call me using a cheap calling card,
> since that'll be far cheaper than the 10c a minute to receive an
> incoming call, and then me do the same if she can get access to a landline..
Anything that doesn't involve mobile phones will be a lot cheaper (pretty
close to free if you do it right).
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
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| X-Trace: individual.net Llk0+o5UpMYRLYBNdv1X8gSKqITzMXLR5OWkSE/k4QeN7Yhzao
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com uk.telecom.mobile:590293 alt.cellular-phone-tech:70031 alt.cellular:176967 comp.dcom.voice-over-ip:13120
Mark wrote:
> That's mad. I can't find anything on the 7-Eleven Speak Out site
> about having to pay for incoming calls, it says incoming texts but
> doesn't say incoming calls, can you point me to where to find out
> about this?
Not mad at all. The US school of thought is simple - *you* choose to go
mobile, therefore *you* pay for the privilege. Why should a *caller* have
to pay extra because *you* want to go out..?
It's not normally a problem as most US calling plans have more inclusive
minutes than you know what to do with, but for PAYG you have to watch out.
Also note that calls are usually billed by the minute not the second, so a
1 minute 5 second call costs you 2 minutes.
BTW please note that top posting is frowned upon in this group, thanks.
Ivor
| |
| Phil Thompson 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| On Sun, 22 May 2005 23:55:50 GMT, Mark <x@unknown.com> wrote:
>You say that prepay telephones arent that common in the US, are they
>available anywhere at all?
yes they are available but watch out for things like no roaming to
other networks, no roaming outside the home city or State etc. They
aren't common like in the UK, by far the majority are on contract
phones (paying for incoming calls is a factor).
GSM coverage has improved a lot but isn't everywhere by a long chalk,
so a review of maps is called for. Their are analogue and digital
prepay options (Virgin Mobile using Sprint is digital but not GSM so
texting won't work).
http://www.virginmobileusa.com/
http://www.t-mobile.com/
Phil
--
spamcop.net address commissioned 18/06/04
Come on down !
| |
| jim.gm4dhj 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| > GSM coverage has improved a lot but isn't everywhere by a long chalk,
> so a review of maps is called for. Their are analogue and digital
> prepay options
See ?....the merrycans are not stupid.........they don't throw out the baby
with the bathwater.....our analogue TV is next...new technology squandering
the worlds resources.....
| |
| Andy Pandy 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
|
"Mark" <x@unknown.com> wrote in message
news:Oeake.15118$sE4.1888@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> Thanks...
>
> Hmm, it looks like most of these charge around 0.10c a minute to receive
> calls, looks like it's pretty much standard across the board, apart from
> Cricket which doesn't cover Maryland...
>
> Beginning to think it might actually be a lot cheaper to swap the odd
> text and leave the onus on her to call me using a cheap calling card,
> since that'll be far cheaper than the 10c a minute to receive an
> incoming call, and then me do the same if she can get access to a landline..
If she calls you on your UK mobile it'll almost certainly cost a hell of a lot
more than 10c per minute. It costs over 21p per minute to call a "3" mobile from
a UK (BT) landine - calling it from the US is likely to be more.
That's the other side of the coin to the US system of mobile user paying for
incoming calls. It costs a lot to terminate calls on UK mobiles so the cost of
calling them is very high.
--
Andy
| |
|
| "Mark" <x@unknown.com> wrote in message
news:a_8ke.14505$hn5.10099@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> Thanks for all your advice so far guys, everyone that replied to my
> questions.
My 2p worth
Orange PAYG works in usa - you could text her cheaply and she could receive
for nowt.
If she could get access to a land line, you could call her cheaply with 1899
from your landline, or quite cheaply from an Orange mobile with 18866.
Don't know about t'other mobile networks sorry!
--
J B
| |
|
| Andy Pandy wrote:
> If she calls you on your UK mobile it'll almost certainly cost a hell of a lot
> more than 10c per minute. It costs over 21p per minute to call a "3" mobile from
> a UK (BT) landine - calling it from the US is likely to be more.
>
> That's the other side of the coin to the US system of mobile user paying for
> incoming calls. It costs a lot to terminate calls on UK mobiles so the cost of
> calling them is very high.
Even if she used one of the calling card /pre-dial companies that claim
massively cheap rates to call the UK?
Mark.
| |
| S Viemeister 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| J B wrote:
>
> Orange PAYG works in usa - you could text her cheaply and she could receive
> for nowt.
>
That's quite recent - I discovered it by accident. I had just installed my
Orange SIM, to check some phone numbers (I was in the US at the time) and
within seconds, a text message from a cousin in the UK arrived!
If I had to rely on the Orange website, though, I'd still think PAYG Orange
was unavailable in the US.
| |
| Stuart Friedman 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| Yup, the cheapest rate I've got to a UK mobile is $0.15 a minute.
Stu
"Mark" <x@unknown.com> wrote in message
news:axjke.1569$RG2.1556@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> Andy Pandy wrote:
>
>
> Even if she used one of the calling card /pre-dial companies that claim
> massively cheap rates to call the UK?
>
> Mark.
| |
| Andy Pandy 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
|
"Mark" <x@unknown.com> wrote in message
news:axjke.1569$RG2.1556@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
lot[vbcol=seagreen]
from[vbcol=seagreen]
of[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Even if she used one of the calling card /pre-dial companies that claim
> massively cheap rates to call the UK?
Yes. They will have much higher rates for calling UK mobiles than for calling UK
landlines. They would lose money on calls to mobiles otherwise, since your UK
mobile operator charges them high termination fees.
It's the same calling from the UK to countries where it is free to receive
mobile calls (eg France). The cost of calling French mobiles is a hell of a lot
more than the cost of calling French landlines (on 1899 it is 15 times the
cost!). Calling US mobiles is the same price as calling US landlines because of
the US system where mobile users pay to receive.
All mobile operators have high termination fees - the difference between the US
and UK system is who pays it. In the UK the caller always pays, in the US the
mobile user pays.
Forget mobiles - use landlines wherever possible and you and your girlfriend can
gas very cheaply, or even free.
0.5p per min on 1899: http://www.call1899.co.uk/index2.php
or free using a VOIP service like Skype, if you both have broadband access:
http://www.skype.com
--
Andy
| |
| etillet 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| Mark wrote:
> Stuart Friedman wrote:
>
>
>
> Sorry by this do you mean that if someone from abroad calls any native
> US mobile phone, even if that phone is in the US, they have to pay to
> /receive/ the call? Or does that go for all calls?
If someone anywhere (even in the USA standing right next to you using a
normal house phone in a US house) calls a US cellphone, then the
recipient pays for those minutes. US mobiles are on normal dialling
codes so cost no more to call than any other local number. The extra
cost is picked up by the recipient.
| |
| Joseph 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| On Mon, 23 May 2005 01:09:56 -0500, mnc@admin.u.nu (Miguel Cruz)
wrote:
>If you will be talking a fair bit, then she should get a post-paid plan that
>includes a fair-sized pail of minutes.
If she doesn't have US credit it's unlikely she can get a postpaid
monthly plan unless she ponies up several hundered dollars deposit (if
then even.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
> Mark wrote:
>
> Not mad at all. The US school of thought is simple - *you* choose to
> go mobile, therefore *you* pay for the privilege. Why should a
> *caller* have to pay extra because *you* want to go out..?
>
> It's not normally a problem as most US calling plans have more
> inclusive minutes than you know what to do with, but for PAYG you
> have to watch out. Also note that calls are usually billed by the
> minute not the second, so a 1 minute 5 second call costs you 2
> minutes.
> BTW please note that top posting is frowned upon in this group,
> thanks.
> Ivor
The caller has the choice whether to pay the cost of calling a mobile or not.
Thankfully we never went down the crazy route of paying for incoming calls.
| |
| Andy Pandy 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
|
"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:_MqdncOrZ_hBcwzfRVnyvQ@pipex.net...
> The caller has the choice whether to pay the cost of calling a mobile or not.
Yes, but the mobile networks use termination charges to subsidise the prices
they charge their users. On a "caller pays" system, it should cost the same to
call a mobile from a landline as to call a landline from a mobile - but it is
generally much cheaper to call a landline from a mobile.
> Thankfully we never went down the crazy route of paying for incoming calls.
No? Ever used your phone abroad?
--
Andy
| |
| wkearney99 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| > In the USA the owner of the mobile you are calling has to pay to receive
your
> call
They pay for minutes used. For in-bound it's just minutes consumed. For
outbound it's minutes plus any long-distance that might be involved. Calls
to/from phones on the same provider are often free (this varies from one
carrier to another). Free as in not consuming any minutes.
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| Thus spaketh Andy Pandy:
> "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:_MqdncOrZ_hBcwzfRVnyvQ@pipex.net...
>
> Yes, but the mobile networks use termination charges to subsidise the
> prices they charge their users. On a "caller pays" system, it should
> cost the same to call a mobile from a landline as to call a landline
> from a mobile - but it is generally much cheaper to call a landline
> from a mobile.
>
>
> No? Ever used your phone abroad?
Yes, many many times, but that is roaming, and things are changing in that
area too.
| |
| Jet Morgan 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
|
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:3fde37F71hskU1@individual.net...
> Not mad at all. The US school of thought is simple - *you* choose to go
> mobile, therefore *you* pay for the privilege. Why should a *caller* have
> to pay extra because *you* want to go out..?
Does that mean that if *I* choose not to have a phone at all, I
have to pay for a taxi for the caller to come and visit me ? Why
should a caller pay to travel to my house, just because *I* choose
not to have a phone ?
Richard [in PE12]
| |
| Jet Morgan 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
|
"Phil Thompson" <phil.thompson@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:oo1391dhhiel29pq554hfiloa019cthf6o@
4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 May 2005 23:55:50 GMT, Mark <x@unknown.com> wrote:
>
>
> yes they are available but watch out for things like no roaming to
> other networks, no roaming outside the home city or State etc.
Are you saying that a US GSM handset can not "roam" outside
their own state (or even city) ? And why is that called "roaming" ?
Richard [in PE12]
| |
|
|
"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1h92919rjjpqsrc6q9546n7qsndpdbppbm@
4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 May 2005 23:47:26 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Just don't forget that she'll be paying part of the freight as US
> mobile system is charged for both incoming and outgoing calls. There
> is no penalty however for calling a mobile number. The rate to call
> is the same as a fixed line.
>
And there is no mobile-specific number (like 07). They are all geographical
numbers relating to the area the sim originates, indistinguishable from
landlines. The amount US mobile users pay to receive calls is fixed,
regardless of where they originate. It varies between 15 (8p) and 35 (20p)
cents a minute, depending on how much credit you get on your sim card or
when you top-up. Calling UK is around $1.50 a min (82p).
Alec
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| Jet Morgan wrote:
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3fde37F71hskU1@individual.net...
>
>
> Does that mean that if *I* choose not to have a phone at all, I
> have to pay for a taxi for the caller to come and visit me ? Why
> should a caller pay to travel to my house, just because *I* choose
> not to have a phone ?
That's a poor analogy, they can always write a letter <g>
As I said, US calling plans generally have more inclusive minutes for the
money than we do so using some for incoming calls rarely causes a problem.
My friends in San Francisco pay around $35 for 2000 minutes and never use
them all, even with incoming calls.
Ivor
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
> Jet Morgan wrote:
>
> That's a poor analogy, they can always write a letter <g>
>
> As I said, US calling plans generally have more inclusive minutes for
> the money than we do so using some for incoming calls rarely causes a
> problem. My friends in San Francisco pay around $35 for 2000 minutes
> and never use them all, even with incoming calls.
>
> Ivor
What about people who only have a phone for emergencies and do not want to
have to pay a monthly rental charge?
| |
| Steve Terry 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| "jim.gm4dhj" <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Uygke.10872$RJ6.3544@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> See ?....the merrycans are not stupid.........they don't throw out the baby
> with the bathwater.....our analogue TV is next...new technology squandering
> the worlds resources.....
>
Is that why they are fast dumping Analogue AMPs phones on 850MHz
for 850MHz GSM?
Giving them dualband 850 and 1900MHz GSM, and with quad band
GSM phones, world-wide roaming.
I take it Freeview BBC3 and 4, and ITV2 and 3 are a mystery to you?
Steve Terry
| |
| Rick Merrill 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
> Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
>
>
>
> What about people who only have a phone for emergencies and do not want to
> have to pay a monthly rental charge?
>
>
If the phone is working, 911 is required to be working, free.
There are groups that collect old phones (partially to keep them out of
the landfills) and give the working ones to women at risk.
http://www.recycleforlondon.com/med...obile_phone.cfm
and similar in the US.
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/7269.html
| |
|
| Mark wrote:
> Hi, I live in the UK and my girlfriend is going to america as part of an
> exchange programme for the summer.
>
> Does the cheapest/easiest way for us to keep in contact simply involve
> her buying any old USA pay as you go mobile phone and then me calling
> her via a voice over ip service? Can anyone recommend a decent one with
> not too much lag? Or is there a better method than this, ie: is it
> cheaper to register with one of those calling card companies in the UK
> and call using their number? This'd be great if I could use a UK mobile
> phone to call her and not pay through the roof?
>
> Thanks for your help!
>
> Mark.
The way I do this at the moment, is I can call my friend who's on T mobile in the states
out of my inclusive minutes from my o2 contract using telediscount as a dial through
number. He gets minutes deducted from his inclusive minutes bundle for when I call.
However, calling him on his landline results in a totally free call from either end
(unless you run out of inclusive contract minutes) :-) So if your girlfriend can access a
landline then you can call free using inclusive minutes on an O2 contract via telediscount.
If she's looking for a prepay for you to txt on, I managed to pick up a tmobile prepay sim
card when I was over there in a tmobile store. Works fine for txting and for receiving
calls from the UK (although it's right about paying either in money or minutes to receive
calls)
Hope this helps,
Em
--
Emma Hussey-Yeo (mailto: menace@recoveredsatellite.com)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"...Sometimes the world seems like a big hole.
You spend all your life shouting down it,
and all you hear are the echoes of some idiot,
shouting nonsense down a hole..."
- Adam Duritz (http://adam.countingcrows.com/)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| Thus spaketh Rick Merrill:
> {{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
>
>
> If the phone is working, 911 is required to be working, free.
>
> There are groups that collect old phones (partially to keep them out
> of the landfills) and give the working ones to women at risk.
>
> http://www.recycleforlondon.com/med...obile_phone.cfm
>
> and similar in the US.
>
> http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/7269.html
Yes, but if you have your phone not on a contract, how long will it work for,
and also you would have to ignore all incoming calls so not as to get charged,
as you phone is really only for emergencies, how do you know whether an
incoming call is an emergency or not, and to whether to answer the call and
then end up getting charged for a useless call.
No thank you very much.
| |
| Steven M. Scharf 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| "Mark" <x@unknown.com> wrote in message
news:qg7ke.18602$Pi3.9562@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> Hi, I live in the UK and my girlfriend is going to america as part of an
> exchange programme for the summer.
>
> Does the cheapest/easiest way for us to keep in contact simply involve
> her buying any old USA pay as you go mobile phone and then me calling
> her via a voice over ip service? Can anyone recommend a decent one with
> not too much lag? Or is there a better method than this, ie: is it
> cheaper to register with one of those calling card companies in the UK
> and call using their number? This'd be great if I could use a UK mobile
> phone to call her and not pay through the roof?
The cheapest way is for her to call your landline from a landline in the
U.S., using a calling card. Rates to the U.K. are very cheap, around 2 cents
per minute. To call a UK mobile phone is more, around 15-17 cents per
minute. Long calls to a mobile phone in the U.S. are going to cost you a
lot, since incoming calls are not free.
In terms of which prepaid phone to get, it depends on where she is going to
be, how much she is going to talk on it, and at what time. The best choice
is probably Beyond Wireless, which is as low as 10 cents per minute, has
excellent coverage, and will use any old nokia or motorola TDMA phone that
was previously used on AT&T Wireless TDMA (they will also sell you a phone).
7-11 convenience stores sell a GSM phone and charge 20 cents per minute, but
GSM coverage in the U.S. isn't so great.
Verizon InPulse is normally not a great plan, since they have a $1 fee for
every day you use your phone. But the per minute cost is only 10¢, and they
offer free night calling, 9:01 pm - 5:59 am, local time (but not free
weekend calling). So this may actually work out for you, given the time
difference. None of the other prepaid service offer free off-peak.
See http://prepaiduswireless.com for comparisons on prepaid wireless.
| |
| Andy Pandy 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
|
"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:s7KdnRKG-LfUlQ_fRVnyrQ@pipex.net...
> Thus spaketh Andy Pandy:
>
> Yes, many many times, but that is roaming, and things are changing in that
> area too.
So presumably you've paid for incoming calls. Are you crazy?
--
Andy
| |
| John R. Levine 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| >Are you saying that a US GSM handset can not "roam" outside
>their own state (or even city) ? And why is that called "roaming" ?
If you have a postpaid plan, which is what's considered normal in the
US, GSM handsets roam just fine. I've used mine all over the US as
well in Canada and Argentina. Cingular tells me that if I put the SIM
in my 900/1800 phone it'll work in Europe, but their roaming rates are
so high there's no point. Most prepaid plans are from resellers who
make their own deals with the underlying carriers, and some arrange
for roaming and some don't.
That said, I agree with everyone else who says that if your goal is to
talk with someone who's in Maryland, you should forget about mobile
phones. Find out if the place she's staying has a phone and if so,
just call her on it using one of the cheap UK calling services. If
not, should should get a prepaid US calling card that charges 2
cents/min to call the UK and call you from a pay phone. Google for
"calling cards" and you'll find zillions of them, most that you can
buy over the net and are delivered virtually, just an access phone
number and a PIN.
| |
| S Viemeister 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| "John R. Levine" wrote:
>
> If you have a postpaid plan, which is what's considered normal in the
> US, GSM handsets roam just fine. I've used mine all over the US as
> well in Canada and Argentina. Cingular tells me that if I put the SIM
> in my 900/1800 phone it'll work in Europe, but their roaming rates are
> so high there's no point.
>
Last month, my usual UK SP (Orange) suffered a temporary outage, and I
switched to my Cingular/ATT SIM card - it worked just fine. It's useful as
an emergency backup, but as you say, far too expensive.
| |
| Steven M. Scharf 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote in message
news:d6ttkj$5ac$1@xuxa.iecc.com...
> Most prepaid plans are from resellers who
> make their own deals with the underlying carriers, and some arrange
> for roaming and some don't.
Ironically, Cingular and T-Mobile, who actually own networks, do not allow
roaming on pre-paid. But resellers of GSM prepaid all allow roaming, at high
per minute rates.
GSM is not the best choice for U.S. prepaid. The best choice is TDMA/AMPS,
the second best choice is CDMA/AMPS. This holds true even though you may
need to buy a phone.
See http://prepaiduswireless.com
> That said, I agree with everyone else who says that if your goal is to
> talk with someone who's in Maryland, you should forget about mobile
> phones. Find out if the place she's staying has a phone and if so,
> just call her on it using one of the cheap UK calling services.
If she gets one of the prepaid TDMA plans, such as from Beyond Wireless, he
can send her a free text message indicating the number where she should call
him. There is no minimum, and no activation fee on their plan; she could get
by for the whole summer without actually buying any time. She just needs to
find an old AT&T TDMA phone, but these are a dime a dozen now, on
craigslist.org.
| |
| Joseph 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| On Mon, 23 May 2005 22:39:40 +0100, "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}"
<bhx@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Yes, but if you have your phone not on a contract, how long will it work for,
>and also you would have to ignore all incoming calls so not as to get charged,
>as you phone is really only for emergencies, how do you know whether an
>incoming call is an emergency or not, and to whether to answer the call and
>then end up getting charged for a useless call.
People in Europe are going to argue with people in North America til
the cows come home, but the fact remains that the North Americans are
*not* going to switch to a caller pays mobile system. That's it.
Get used to it. It's been tried and it failed in North America. If
you want to argue that caller pays is the greatest fine. Just don't
expect us here in North America to agree with you. Arguments are
really a *WASTE OF TIME!*
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| Joseph 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:54:18 +0100, "Jet Morgan"
<jm@paran---andr---.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Are you saying that a US GSM handset can not "roam" outside
>their own state (or even city) ? And why is that called "roaming" ?
Of course they can. It's generally called roaming when you're using
another network to complete your calls. These days many plans include
roaming on other networks so that's not even an issue.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
|
"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:obd5919f36u2g6a3uj3mvdc74qhbvpiro9@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 22:39:40 +0100, "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}"
> <bhx@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> People in Europe are going to argue with people in North America til
> the cows come home, but the fact remains that the North Americans are
> *not* going to switch to a caller pays mobile system. That's it.
> Get used to it. It's been tried and it failed in North America. If
> you want to argue that caller pays is the greatest fine. Just don't
> expect us here in North America to agree with you. Arguments are
> really a *WASTE OF TIME!*
Hey, I've been arguing *in favour* of the US system..! I'd like to see it
at least available as an alternative.
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
|
"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ajd5915im82jto2l0oi5j69nuusiucee07@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:54:18 +0100, "Jet Morgan"
> <jm@paran---andr---.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Of course they can. It's generally called roaming when you're using
> another network to complete your calls. These days many plans include
> roaming on other networks so that's not even an issue.
Ah, there is the difference he might not have understood. Here in the UK
the main network operators do not allow roaming on one another's systems.
Ivor
| |
| Joseph 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| On Tue, 24 May 2005 09:12:24 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:obd5919f36u2g6a3uj3mvdc74qhbvpiro9@
4ax.com...
>
>Hey, I've been arguing *in favour* of the US system..! I'd like to see it
>at least available as an alternative.
That's fine, but it's just not going to happen. Part of it is the
different culture of telephone charging. Europeans have always
expected to pay for all calls. Americans and Canadians for the most
part have not. The reality is that the systems are what they are and
are unlikely to change.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| Rick Merrill 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
....
> Yes, but if you have your phone not on a contract, how long will it work for,
In the US the phone will "work" for 911 until the battery fails.
> and also you would have to ignore all incoming calls so not as to get charged,
If one has no plan, one has no number, and therefor there are no
incoming calls at all! Pretty convenient!
> as you phone is really only for emergencies, how do you know whether an
> incoming call is an emergency or not,
There are NO incoming calls. See above.
> and to whether to answer the call and
> then end up getting charged for a useless call.
There are no charges.
>
> No thank you very much.
>
You would look a gift horse in the mouth?
| |
| Rick Merrill 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ajd5915im82jto2l0oi5j69nuusiucee07@
4ax.com...
>
>
>
> Ah, there is the difference he might not have understood. Here in the UK
> the main network operators do not allow roaming on one another's systems.
>
> Ivor
>
>
No roaming? Does everyone use public transportation too?-)
I think that 'no roaming' means that the market is not expanding fast
enough to motivate interconnection of systems. Or the technologies are
too incompatible.
| |
| Rick Merrill 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| Andy Pandy wrote:
> "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:s7KdnRKG-LfUlQ_fRVnyrQ@pipex.net...
>
>
>
> So presumably you've paid for incoming calls. Are you crazy?
>
> --
> Andy
>
>
Can y'all stop cross-posting to the Voice-over-IP group? Thanks.
| |
| David Marshall 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| In article <8JidnT2SxPFXvw7fRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
Rick Merrill <rick0.merrill@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>I think that 'no roaming' means that the market is not expanding fast
>enough to motivate interconnection of systems. Or the technologies are
>too incompatible.
No, it means the networks all have national coverage.
Dave
--
Email: dave@durge.org MSN Messenger: dave@durge.org
| |
| Stuart Friedman 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| Subscriber pays is an option on Orange in the UK. You can get a
geographical number for your mobile and pay for the incoming calls. I think
those calls then come out of your same bucket of minutes. It is not a
commonly used option, but I know a locksmith in the UK who subscribes to it.
We basically works out of his van and decided that he would lose too much
business if he listed a mobile number.
I've benefited from caller pays and can see the attraction. I'm a Yank who
j is a very frequent visitor to the UK. I love have a UK SIM that I just
plop in my phone and go. The caller pay models make it attactive to make
these SIMs available. Caller pays makes emergency phones much easier. Buy
a Virgin SIM, slide an extra tenner on it and you're in business.
Similarly, my best friend who lives in London but has a number of foreign
guests, keeps a visitor's SIM. Like a borrowed car, just bring it back
full. The European model is definitely more convenient, but the American
model has a great deal to be said about it financially.
The problem in my mind with caller pays is that it switches around the
economic model. The caller is in a very difficult position to negotiate for
a cheap termination rate with the mobile provider in exchange for
guaranteeing the use of a largish block of minutes, e.g. I cannot call Voda
and say that I plan on spending a thousand minutes a month calling Voda
customers, what is the best rate you'll give me.
As a result, the cost of terminating calls to mobiles is significantly
higher than it should be. If the price of calling a mobile was only a few
cents higher than calling a landline, caller pays would be great.
This problem is amplified if you have foreign callers. For example, it
costs me two US cents a minute to call a German landline, but twenty-eight
US cents a minute to call a German mobile. The differential is too high.
With caller-pays, the end consumer loses their voice.
In the US, several carriers have free incoming plans. Even though calling
numbers is not surcharged, most people I know who subscribe to them, change
them for buckets with more incoming/outgoing minutes. The exception is
people in certain trades (plummers, taxis, locksmiths, etc).
In closing, I think what I'm saying (as I think out loud) is that the US
plans favor the high volume users. The European seem like a better deal for
the moderate users. Carriers on both sides of the pond rob us blind on
international roaming. Thank god for Riiing.
Stu
"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ff6691lkn30n4ed4997cvc09nga43kd5e6@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 09:12:24 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> That's fine, but it's just not going to happen. Part of it is the
> different culture of telephone charging. Europeans have always
> expected to pay for all calls. Americans and Canadians for the most
> part have not. The reality is that the systems are what they are and
> are unlikely to change.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
|
"Stuart Friedman" <stu@nospam.na> wrote in message
news:0LFke.6864$M36.4795@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Subscriber pays is an option on Orange in the UK. You can get a
> geographical number for your mobile and pay for the incoming calls. I
> think those calls then come out of your same bucket of minutes. It is
> not a commonly used option, but I know a locksmith in the UK who
> subscribes to it. We basically works out of his van and decided that he
> would lose too much business if he listed a mobile number.
AFAIK the calls *don't* come out of inclusive minutes and are charged at a
very high rate and not worth it at all unless you can get a generous
employer to pay. In the case of your locksmith friend, a possibly cheaper
option would be to list his ordinary landline number and divert that to
his mobile when he's out. In fact I do that myself occasionally if I'm
expecting a call on the landline and have to go out unexpectedly. I'd
still prefer the US mobile system though..!
> I've benefited from caller pays and can see the attraction. I'm a Yank
> who j is a very frequent visitor to the UK. I love have a UK SIM that
> I just plop in my phone and go. The caller pay models make it attactive
> to make these SIMs available. Caller pays makes emergency phones much
> easier. Buy a Virgin SIM, slide an extra tenner on it and you're in
> business. Similarly, my best friend who lives in London but has a number
> of foreign guests, keeps a visitor's SIM. Like a borrowed car, just
> bring it back full. The European model is definitely more convenient,
> but the American model has a great deal to be said about it financially.
I would much rather have the US system. I rarely use all my inclusive
minutes even with a low calling plan (120 minutes) so using a few for
incoming calls would enable me to make the most of them and encourage
people to call me as well.
I just don't understand why it isn't available as an *option* for those
who want it. The Orange system isn't a true equivalent.
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
|
"Rick Merrill" <rick0.merrill@gmailNO.SPAMcom> wrote in message
news:8JidnQKSxPGgvw7fRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> {{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
> ...
>
> In the US the phone will "work" for 911 until the battery fails.
>
>
> If one has no plan, one has no number, and therefor there are no
> incoming calls at all! Pretty convenient!
>
>
> There are NO incoming calls. See above.
>
>
> There are no charges.
>
>
> You would look a gift horse in the mouth?
I think he means emergencies as being able to call home or them be able to
call him, not just being able to call the emergency services.
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
|
"David Marshall" <dave@fof.durge.org> wrote in message
news:d6v8f1$1f9$1@fof.durge.org...
> In article <8JidnT2SxPFXvw7fRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
> Rick Merrill <rick0.merrill@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> No, it means the networks all have national coverage.
And Orange don't want you buying a phone from them and then using Vodafone
to make calls..! Or the other way round.
Ivor
| |
| GlintingHedgehog 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| In article <3fgos4F7p21vU1@individual.net>, ivor@despammed.invalid
says...
> I would much rather have the US system. I rarely use all my inclusive
> minutes even with a low calling plan (120 minutes) so using a few for
> incoming calls would enable me to make the most of them and encourage
> people to call me as well.
I've used both systems - have lived in North America and the UK - and
much prefer the UK system. I am much more willing to give out my
mobile number here in the UK, because I know that I'm not having to
pay for them doing so, whereas in North America, many people don't
give out their cellular numbers as freely because they don't want to
receive sales calls, for example. It's clear in the UK when you're
dialling a mobile number, and you choose to incur the cost or not,
whereas with the North American system, the person receiving (and
paying for) the call doesn't have any choice in the matter. As far as
using up extra minutes on incoming calls is concerned, I simply offer
to call people straight back.
--
Hedgehog
| |
| Rick Merrill 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> "David Marshall" <dave@fof.durge.org> wrote in message
> news:d6v8f1$1f9$1@fof.durge.org...
>
>
>
> And Orange don't want you buying a phone from them and then using Vodafone
> to make calls..! Or the other way round.
>
> Ivor
>
>
Well then, as long as any phone works anywhere in GB, there's no
problem, is there?
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
|
"Rick Merrill" <rick0.merrill@gmailNO.SPAMcom> wrote in message
news:b5mdnWVCYtir0w7fRVn-qA@comcast.com...
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> Well then, as long as any phone works anywhere in GB, there's no
> problem, is there?
There are pockets where some networks have coverage but not others, such
as in the remoter areas of Scotland etc.
Ivor
| |
| mobileshoporg@despammed.com 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| On Tue, 24 May 2005 13:12:28 GMT, "Stuart Friedman" <stu@nospam.na>
wrote:
>Subscriber pays is an option on Orange in the UK. You can get a
>geographical number for your mobile and pay for the incoming calls
You can also get 0800 or 0845 or 0870 numbers that terminate at a
mobile.
--
Visit the Hairydog Guide to Mobile Phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html - maintainers of
http://www.mobileshop.org - the on-line mobile phone guide
sponsored by http://www.mobileshop.com - the online store
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
|
<mobileshoporg@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:t9u691939mcrkr0tnqj4gabvcunckg09qn@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 13:12:28 GMT, "Stuart Friedman" <stu@nospam.na>
> wrote:
>
>
> You can also get 0800 or 0845 or 0870 numbers that terminate at a
> mobile.
Which isn't the point under discussion.
Ivor
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
> "Stuart Friedman" <stu@nospam.na> wrote in message
> news:0LFke.6864$M36.4795@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> AFAIK the calls *don't* come out of inclusive minutes and are charged
> at a very high rate and not worth it at all unless you can get a
> generous employer to pay. In the case of your locksmith friend, a
> possibly cheaper option would be to list his ordinary landline number
> and divert that to his mobile when he's out. In fact I do that myself
> occasionally if I'm expecting a call on the landline and have to go
> out unexpectedly. I'd still prefer the US mobile system though..!
>
>
> I would much rather have the US system. I rarely use all my inclusive
> minutes even with a low calling plan (120 minutes) so using a few for
> incoming calls would enable me to make the most of them and encourage
> people to call me as well.
>
> I just don't understand why it isn't available as an *option* for
> those who want it. The Orange system isn't a true equivalent.
>
> Ivor
This idea is only good if you are happy to waste £25+ a month on a contract
phone, that you don't really need, when you can spend a few pennies a month on
a PAYG phone, that doesn't cost you any thing to receive calls.
No point in keep arguing, as said before changing to the poorer USA system is
unlikely. I just don't see the point of being forced to pay to receive calls,
all this will do is penalise those people who do not want to waste money each
month on a contract phone, and are happy to let £5 last them months, as the
phone is only really used for emergencies or maybe if they are out and someone
needs to get in touch.
I used to have a contract since 1996, about 18 months ago I ditched it, best
decision made, no longer need to waste almost £30 a month on the phone, and
just pay for the odd call I make, and it doesn't cost me a penny if someone
rings me, why should I pay when it is them who want to get in contact with me!
I make calls on my landline for free and via VoIP, I always try an call people
on their landlines first, second or third, only if it is really important do I
try a mobile, and then it is only a short call.
So again for someone who only wants the phone to use in an emergency, and that
includes those emergencies when someone need to reach them, why should they be
penalised.
If Europe had gone down the USA route of callee pays, then there wouldn't be
anywhere near the amount of mobile users as there is. Whether that is good or
bad.
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
> "Rick Merrill" <rick0.merrill@gmailNO.SPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:8JidnQKSxPGgvw7fRVn-rw@comcast.com...
>
> I think he means emergencies as being able to call home or them be
> able to call him, not just being able to call the emergency services.
>
> Ivor
Yes, that is my meaning of emergencies.
For example you could be out shopping and your child has become very ill or
injured whilst at school, I would want to know as soon as possible if any of
my children where having to be rushed to hospital.
| |
| Steven M. Scharf 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
|
"Rick Merrill" <rick0.merrill@gmailNO.SPAMcom> wrote in message
news:8JidnT2SxPFXvw7fRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
systems.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> No roaming? Does everyone use public transportation too?-)
Roaming is much less of an issue in a densely populated country. It's not
like the U.S. where there are vast sparsely populated areas that are served
by small cellular operators, sometimes still only on analog. In the U.S., it
is very unwise to use a carrier that doesn't allow roaming off of their own
network, including roaming onto the old analog network (unless you never
leave the urban core). In Asia, usually you can't roam either, but I never
found it to be an issue in Korea or Taiwan.
| |
| Steven M. Scharf 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
|
"GlintingHedgehog" <hedgehog@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cfd4bc2662591289896d1@news.dial.pipex.com...
> with the North American system, the person receiving (and
> paying for) the call doesn't have any choice in the matter.
Of course they do. They can choose not to answer the call. Caller ID is
standard, and the phone displays who is calling if the name is in your
phone's phonebook.
| |
| Steven M. Scharf 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6vydnQ_v7uWhGw7fRVnyhg@pipex.net...
> For example you could be out shopping and your child has become very ill
or
> injured whilst at school, I would want to know as soon as possible if any
of
> my children where having to be rushed to hospital.
For emergency use, forcing the caller to pay to call a mobile phone is a
very bad idea. Already we are seeing that some toll free numbers in the U.S.
won't accept calls from pay phones, because they get charged an extra fee by
the pay phone operator. As it is now, businesses, schools, etc., will
usually let someone use the phone to make an emergency call, but since these
calls are often to mobile phones, this generosity would stop if the caller
had to pay for the call if it were to a mobile.
The pay as you go mobile phones have caller-ID. If you don't want to pay for
an incoming call, you just ignore it. Or you ante up the 10¢ to risk
answering a call from an unknown or blocked caller-ID number.
Free incoming calls would be great, but not if the caller has to pay. Some
carriers used to offer FIMF (first incoming minute free) but AFAIK, none of
the major U.S. carriers still have this (some smaller carriers still include
it).
I hope the U.S. never takes the backward step of making the caller pay to
call a mobile phone. It's a crazy idea. I can't believe that people in
Europe put up with having to pay to call someone on their mobile phone.
| |
| Joseph 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:36:49 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>"Rick Merrill" <rick0.merrill@gmailNO.SPAMcom> wrote in message
>news:8JidnQKSxPGgvw7fRVn-rw@comcast.com...
>
>I think he means emergencies as being able to call home or them be able to
>call him, not just being able to call the emergency services.
On TDMA (IS-136) phones that's very possible as well. You just have
to program the phone for 123-456-7890 and it will go to the "American
Roaming Network" any time you attempt to make a chargeable call. If
American Roaming Network places a call for you it's $2.99 to set up
the call and $1.99 per minute. If you absolutely have to make a call
you can. It's one way. No one can call you. For emergencies it will
fill the bill. In fact there's a concern called "Emergency Cell
Phones" which basically jus instructs you on how to program your
phone to use the American Roaming Network. On nokia phones it's quite
a simple matter.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
|
"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:q_2dnSJI0Ma6GA7fRVnyhg@pipex.net...
> Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
>
> This idea is only good if you are happy to waste £25+ a month on a
> contract phone, that you don't really need, when you can spend a few
> pennies a month on a PAYG phone, that doesn't cost you any thing to
> receive calls.
I have a contract anyway, the money isn't wasted for me. So why can't I
choose to use my inclusive minutes for receiving calls..?
> No point in keep arguing, as said before changing to the poorer USA
> system is unlikely. I just don't see the point of being forced to pay
> to receive calls, all this will do is penalise those people who do not
> want to waste money each month on a contract phone, and are happy to let
> £5 last them months, as the phone is only really used for emergencies or
> maybe if they are out and someone needs to get in touch.
You must realise that not everybody is like you and only has a PAYG phone
which they rarely use. My contract phone is used for both work and
personal use and is used daily. There is a system I would like to use (the
US one) that I cannot have due to the way the mobile companies think I
ought to be using my phone. I am paying them money for a service, why
can't I have the service I want..? I agree not everyone wants the system I
want, but that's no reason it can't be provided as an option for those
that do want it. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
> I used to have a contract since 1996, about 18 months ago I ditched it,
> best decision made, no longer need to waste almost £30 a month on the
> phone, and just pay for the odd call I make, and it doesn't cost me a
> penny if someone rings me, why should I pay when it is them who want to
> get in contact with me!
If you're already paying for inclusive minutes, as I am, then it doesn't
cost you any extra. For a PAYG emergency phone, where a tenner credit
could theoretically last years, does it really matter that much..?
> I make calls on my landline for free and via VoIP, I always try an call
> people on their landlines first, second or third, only if it is really
> important do I try a mobile, and then it is only a short call.
But if you only had to pay the same as for a landline, it wouldn't
matter..!
> So again for someone who only wants the phone to use in an emergency,
> and that includes those emergencies when someone need to reach them, why
> should they be penalised.
Like I said, for such a few (presumably) short calls, is it really that
much of a problem..? I know someone whose mother has a PAYG phone that
only sees one or two calls a year. What difference would a few pence for
the odd incoming call make to her when a tenner credit lasts years..?
Answer nothing.
Ivor
| |
| Joseph 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| On Tue, 24 May 2005 20:42:17 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>I hope the U.S. never takes the backward step of making the caller pay to
>call a mobile phone. It's a crazy idea. I can't believe that people in
>Europe put up with having to pay to call someone on their mobile phone.
I just love people who think that their way of doing things is always
the best. Europeans like it that way. Don't go to Europe and you
won't have to deal with it. Likewise if Europeans don't like the way
we do things here too bad. Get used to it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| Joseph 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| On Tue, 24 May 2005 08:49:14 -0400, Rick Merrill
<rick0.merrill@gmailNO.SPAMcom> wrote:
>No roaming? Does everyone use public transportation too?-)
>
>I think that 'no roaming' means that the market is not expanding fast
>enough to motivate interconnection of systems. Or the technologies are
>too incompatible.
Nonsense. It's because in Europe mobile operators all build out their
own networks and for the most part don't need to rely on other
networks. An exception is th 3 network which is 3G which can roam on
Vodafone's network. That's the exception rather than the rule.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| Joseph 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| On Tue, 24 May 2005 20:49:06 +0100, "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}"
<bhx@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>No point in keep arguing, as said before changing to the poorer USA system is
>unlikely.
And you lied! You said no point in arguing but you come right out and
say that the USA system is poorer. You have made the decision for
everyone haven't you?! Somehow you think you have "won" the argument
when in fact you haven't done any such thing! They are different
systems and likely will remain so. Why you feel you need to put in
your feelings of your system's superiority is quite beyond me.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| Steven M. Scharf 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
|
"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9k57915qcj3bs0mujrlj3i6tfni6uge7h0@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:36:49 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
an[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> On TDMA (IS-136) phones that's very possible as well. You just have
> to program the phone for 123-456-7890 and it will go to the "American
> Roaming Network" any time you attempt to make a chargeable call. If
> American Roaming Network places a call for you it's $2.99 to set up
> the call and $1.99 per minute. If you absolutely have to make a call
> you can. It's one way. No one can call you. For emergencies it will
> fill the bill. In fact there's a concern called "Emergency Cell
> Phones" which basically jus instructs you on how to program your
> phone to use the American Roaming Network. On nokia phones it's quite
> a simple matter.
With Beyond Wireless (http://gobeyondwireless.com) you may as well activate
the TDMA phone, since there is no monthly or yearly minimum (other than
having to make one call every sixty days to keep the number active). Calls
are between 10¢ and 14¢ per minute, depending on how much time you buy, and
you can buy as little as $5 (it comes with 35 minutes when you activate, and
there is no charge to activate).
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
|
"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9967915geb9nsc9f8c5k3r89rgocuv2765@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 08:49:14 -0400, Rick Merrill
> <rick0.merrill@gmailNO.SPAMcom> wrote:
>
>
> Nonsense. It's because in Europe mobile operators all build out their
> own networks and for the most part don't need to rely on other
> networks. An exception is th 3 network which is 3G which can roam on
> Vodafone's network. That's the exception rather than the rule.
Actually it roams on O2 <g>
Ivor
| |
| mobileshoporg@despammed.com 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| On Tue, 24 May 2005 20:33:05 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>Which isn't the point under discussion.
Yes it is. It is a way that user of the mobile phone can pay for the
mobile leg of the call, so that callers don't have to pay a premium to
call a mobile.
--
Visit the Hairydog Guide to Mobile Phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html - maintainers of
http://www.mobileshop.org - the on-line mobile phone guide
sponsored by http://www.mobileshop.com - the online store
| |
| mobileshoporg@despammed.com 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:13:21 -0700, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Likewise if Europeans don't like the way
>we do things here too bad.
Many europeans would not go to the US on principle, because of the
over-intrusive personal data demanded nowadays.
Pariahs of the world, in the view of some.
--
Visit the Hairydog Guide to Mobile Phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html - maintainers of
http://www.mobileshop.org - the on-line mobile phone guide
sponsored by http://www.mobileshop.com - the online store
| |
| Phil Thompson 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:21:34 -0700, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> An exception is th 3 network which is 3G which can roam on
>Vodafone's network.
O2's network I think.
Phil
--
spamcop.net address commissioned 18/06/04
Come on down !
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| Thus spaketh Joseph:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 20:49:06 +0100, "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}"
> <bhx@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> And you lied! You said no point in arguing but you come right out and
> say that the USA system is poorer. You have made the decision for
> everyone haven't you?! Somehow you think you have "won" the argument
> when in fact you haven't done any such thing! They are different
> systems and likely will remain so. Why you feel you need to put in
> your feelings of your system's superiority is quite beyond me.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There are no winners or losers to the argument. I think the USA system is
crazy, the odd few think it is a good idea. Arguing ain't going to change it
anytime soon.
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| Thus spaketh Steven M. Scharf:
> "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6vydnQ_v7uWhGw7fRVnyhg@pipex.net...
>
>
> For emergency use, forcing the caller to pay to call a mobile phone
> is a very bad idea. Already we are seeing that some toll free numbers
> in the U.S. won't accept calls from pay phones, because they get
> charged an extra fee by the pay phone operator. As it is now,
> businesses, schools, etc., will usually let someone use the phone to
> make an emergency call, but since these calls are often to mobile
> phones, this generosity would stop if the caller had to pay for the
> call if it were to a mobile.
>
> The pay as you go mobile phones have caller-ID. If you don't want to
> pay for an incoming call, you just ignore it. Or you ante up the 10¢
> to risk answering a call from an unknown or blocked caller-ID number.
>
> Free incoming calls would be great, but not if the caller has to pay.
> Some carriers used to offer FIMF (first incoming minute free) but
> AFAIK, none of the major U.S. carriers still have this (some smaller
> carriers still include it).
>
> I hope the U.S. never takes the backward step of making the caller
> pay to call a mobile phone. It's a crazy idea. I can't believe that
> people in Europe put up with having to pay to call someone on their
> mobile phone.
And I can't see why anyone would want to favour the USA system.
| |
| Steven M. Scharf 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c56791trdttb2lak3lg004cidt77dt0jui@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 20:42:17 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>
>
> I just love people who think that their way of doing things is always
> the best. Europeans like it that way. Don't go to Europe and you
> won't have to deal with it. Likewise if Europeans don't like the way
> we do things here too bad. Get used to it.
I don't claim that the U.S. system is necessarily the best, but no one has
put forth any coherent argument as to why a caller should have to pay extra
to call a mobile phone.
With the U.S. system, the person who wants the convenience of a mobile phone
is responsible for the charges. The owner of the mobile phone can choose
whether or not to answer calls, and is hence in complete control.over their
charges. Callers are not reluctant to call a cell phone because of extra
charges that they might incur.
| |
| Phil Thompson 2005-05-24, 5:46 pm |
| On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:44:18 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>This is true, but at least the prepaid wireless is cheap in the U.S., if you
>stay away from GSM. You'd think that the weak dollar would help U.S.
>tourism, but this is not the case.
I'm afraid the fingerprinting, Nazi immigration questionnaires, shoe
carnival at airport security, taking laptops out of bags and all that
shit is a sufficient deterent to send us elsewhere. Dubai was a
refreshing change.
Phil
--
spamcop.net address commissioned 18/06/04
Come on down !
| |
| Phil Thompson 2005-05-24, 8:45 pm |
| On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:50:58 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>I don't claim that the U.S. system is necessarily the best, but no one has
>put forth any coherent argument as to why a caller should have to pay extra
>to call a mobile phone.
to have the convenience of being able to call the called party
irrespective of their location ?
It is often more of a benefit to the caller to find the called person,
than it is for the called person to be found IME.
Mobile phone = electronic tag, but at least you can turn it off.
Phil
--
Good news seldom travels by helicopter or by mobile phone.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-24, 8:45 pm |
|
<mobileshoporg@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:9g97919qmbp5ttaivfanobuuj0868str52@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 20:33:05 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Yes it is. It is a way that user of the mobile phone can pay for the
> mobile leg of the call, so that callers don't have to pay a premium to
> call a mobile.
Ok, *my* point is I want to be able to pay for incoming calls out of my
inclusive minutes, as per the US system. Why can't I have this as an
option..? I fully realise not everybody wants it, but it should be
available for those of us that do.
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-24, 8:45 pm |
|
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:3fhrm9F7vg4rU1@individual.net...
>
> <mobileshoporg@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:9g97919qmbp5ttaivfanobuuj0868str52@
4ax.com...
>
> Ok, *my* point is I want to be able to pay for incoming calls out of my
> inclusive minutes, as per the US system. Why can't I have this as an
> option..? I fully realise not everybody wants it, but it should be
> available for those of us that do.
>
> Ivor
Sorry to reply to my own post but I forgot to mention - an 0845 or 0870
number is almost as bad as mobile rate..! 0800 is ok but there aren't many
0800 providers that will divert to a mobile and those that do aren't
cheap. I want calls out of my minutes, is that so hard to understand..?!
Ivor
| |
| Andy Pandy 2005-05-24, 8:45 pm |
|
<mobileshoporg@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:9g97919qmbp5ttaivfanobuuj0868str52@
4ax.com...
>
> Yes it is. It is a way that user of the mobile phone can pay for the
> mobile leg of the call, so that callers don't have to pay a premium to
> call a mobile.
The caller *is* charged a premium for calling 0845 and 0870 numbers on nearly
all landline tariffs.
As for 0800 numbers terminating on a mobile - how much does that cost? Massively
more than the typical 10c/min US mobile users pay for incoming calls, I'd wager.
So yes, it is possible, but the costs are prohibitive.
--
Andy
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-24, 8:45 pm |
|
"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:mdOke.7424$uR4.1264@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
[snip]
> I don't claim that the U.S. system is necessarily the best, but no one
> has
> put forth any coherent argument as to why a caller should have to pay
> extra
> to call a mobile phone.
>
> With the U.S. system, the person who wants the convenience of a mobile
> phone
> is responsible for the charges. The owner of the mobile phone can choose
> whether or not to answer calls, and is hence in complete control.over
> their
> charges. Callers are not reluctant to call a cell phone because of extra
> charges that they might incur.
I couldn't agree more.
Ivor (in the UK)
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-24, 8:45 pm |
|
"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:zqidndRis7_EMw7fRVnyiw@pipex.net...
> Thus spaketh Steven M. Scharf:
[snip]
>
> And I can't see why anyone would want to favour the USA system.
I've explained it to you over and over until I'm blue in the face, you're
just not getting it..! Or maybe you don't want to get it.
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-24, 8:45 pm |
|
"Andy Pandy" <spam8times@wonderful.spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:3fhrugF7reg7U1@individual.net...
[snip]
> The caller *is* charged a premium for calling 0845 and 0870 numbers on
> nearly
> all landline tariffs.
>
> As for 0800 numbers terminating on a mobile - how much does that cost?
> Massively
> more than the typical 10c/min US mobile users pay for incoming calls,
> I'd wager.
Where do you get 10c/min..? My friends in the US get their calls taken
from their (large) bucket of inclusive minutes, they never pay over the
agreed line rental irrespective of the number of incoming or outgoing
calls they receive/make.
Ivor
| |
| Andy Pandy 2005-05-24, 8:45 pm |
|
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:3fhs6jF7sk3uU1@individual.net...
>
> Where do you get 10c/min..? My friends in the US get their calls taken
> from their (large) bucket of inclusive minutes, they never pay over the
> agreed line rental irrespective of the number of incoming or outgoing
> calls they receive/make.
Mentioned in this thread, I guess for a PAYG phone.
To work out the real cost for a contract phone with inclusive minutes, divide
the line rental by the number of minutes actually *used* per month (not the
number of minutes included).
--
Andy
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-05-24, 8:45 pm |
|
"Andy Pandy" <spam8times@wonderful.spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:3fhsj6F805qnU1@individual.net...
>
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3fhs6jF7sk3uU1@individual.net...
[snip]
>
> Mentioned in this thread, I guess for a PAYG phone.
>
> To work out the real cost for a contract phone with inclusive minutes,
> divide
> the line rental by the number of minutes actually *used* per month (not
> the
> number of minutes included).
Fair enough. I rarely use all my allocated minutes, which is why I'd like
the US system - using some of them for incoming calls would benefit me by
helping me to use them all up as well as the caller by reducing their
costs.
Ivor
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2005-05-24, 8:45 pm |
| Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
> "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:zqidndRis7_EMw7fRVnyiw@pipex.net...
>
> [snip]
>
>
> I've explained it to you over and over until I'm blue in the face,
> you're just not getting it..! Or maybe you don't want to get it.
>
> Ivor
I fully understand, but to me it is a crazy idea.
I'm not going to change how you feel, and you aren't going to change how I
feel.
It's not a system I would like to see compulsory, but if you did have a choice
of either having a 07 number and not have to pay to receive calls or have an
01 or 02 number and pay for incoming calls then that would be OK. I just
don't want the USA system to be compulsory.
What I am for is choice and to have a debate about the in and outs of a
system, and to show both systems have good and bad points. So I would never
deny you your right to be able to choose a USA system, but not for it to
replace the European system.
| |
| Stuart Friedman 2005-05-24, 8:45 pm |
| I'm paying US$90 a month for 2,500 prime time minutes. That includes
incoming and outgoing calls. Calls made before 7am or after 7pm are free,
as are calls to other subscribers on the ATT/Cingular network.
In comparing the offerings, consider the following high end plan:
http://onlinestorez.cingular.com/ce...skuid=csku00024
For $99 a month, you receive 2000 minutes, free nights, weekends,and mobile
to mobile calls. Not counting, the nights and weekends, you are paying
about just over three cents a minute. If you factor in the free calls, your
per minute cost drops to about two cents a minute for the average user. Not
bad for $54 quid.
Stu
..
"Andy Pandy" <spam8times@wonderful.spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:3fhsj6F805qnU1@individual.net...
>
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3fhs6jF7sk3uU1@individual.net...
>
> Mentioned in this thread, I guess for a PAYG phone.
>
> To work out the real cost for a contract phone with inclusive minutes,
& | | |