|
Home > Archive > Voice Over IP in UK > January 2006 > Cheap UK mobile?
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]
|
|
|
| Hi, I see that we can get free calls to US landlines and mobiles even
from EU, but not to our own Europe mobiles. Lowest UK mobile charge I
saw was 5p/min and only on weekends. Cheapest weekday price is 10p/min.
Do you know any cheaper ppm or is there any regulations or just not
enough competition to make it as cheap as in US?
best regards,
Andrius
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2006-01-15, 5:45 pm |
| Thus spaketh AKK:
> Hi, I see that we can get free calls to US landlines and mobiles even
> from EU, but not to our own Europe mobiles. Lowest UK mobile charge I
> saw was 5p/min and only on weekends. Cheapest weekday price is
> 10p/min.
> Do you know any cheaper ppm or is there any regulations or just not
> enough competition to make it as cheap as in US?
>
> best regards,
> Andrius
The reason for difference in price is that the USA have that nasty habbit of
charging the person you are calling on the mobile for receiving your call, in
Europe the caller pays the full cost of the call.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-15, 5:45 pm |
|
"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk>
wrote in message
news:H2zyf.1657$wl.1253@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
> Thus spaketh AKK:
>
> The reason for difference in price is that the USA have
> that nasty habbit of charging the person you are calling
> on the mobile for receiving your call, in Europe the
> caller pays the full cost of the call.
Not a nasty habit if it means the person making the call doesn't get
charged through the nose. Why should I have to pay more to call you
because *you* choose to go mobile..? You (presumably) want me to call you
if you've given me your number, so if you choose to take advantage of the
freedom offered by a mobile, you should pay for that freedom, not me.
Give me the US system any day.
Ivor
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2006-01-15, 5:45 pm |
| Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
> "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote in message
> news:H2zyf.1657$wl.1253@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
>
> Not a nasty habit if it means the person making the call doesn't get
> charged through the nose. Why should I have to pay more to call you
> because *you* choose to go mobile..? You (presumably) want me to call
> you if you've given me your number, so if you choose to take
> advantage of the freedom offered by a mobile, you should pay for that
> freedom, not me.
> Give me the US system any day.
>
> Ivor
The USA can keep their system. The one we have is perfectly fine.
You have the choice whether to call me on my 'landline' or mobile. If you
don't want to call the mobile then fine, I don't see why I should pay to
receive a call. There is no reason however why the cost of calling mobiles
can't come down.
| |
| Adrian 2006-01-15, 5:45 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote in message
> news:H2zyf.1657$wl.1253@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
>
> Not a nasty habit if it means the person making the call doesn't get
> charged through the nose. Why should I have to pay more to call you
> because *you* choose to go mobile..? You (presumably) want me to call
> you if you've given me your number, so if you choose to take
> advantage of the freedom offered by a mobile, you should pay for that
> freedom, not me.
>
> Give me the US system any day.
>
> Ivor
It would piss me off if I had a US mobile, and I kept getting wrong numbers
or marketing calls. I get both on my UK mobile.
| |
|
|
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:42vtp4F1l8bb6U1@individual.net...
>
>
> "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote in message
> news:H2zyf.1657$wl.1253@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
>
> Not a nasty habit if it means the person making the call doesn't get
> charged through the nose. Why should I have to pay more to call you
> because *you* choose to go mobile..?
When I receive calls I would not like to have to screen them before
answering worrying about the incoming call cost, it would also be very
annoying when work called when I had to pay for part of the call, and other
similar aituations when it is not reasonable to pay for the call when people
want to talk to *me*.
> You (presumably) want me to call you if you've given me your number, so if
> you choose to take advantage of the freedom offered by a mobile, you
> should pay for that freedom, not me.
This could very easily be argued the other way- if I gave you my geographic
number and mobile number, it is up to you which you call if you wish to
speak to me. One I am only contactable on for a few hours a day before I
goto sleep, the other is on my person all the time. I would assume that the
person making the call would be the one 'wanting' something from the other
(eg a lift to work, ETA for getting to a bar, right the way through to a
telemarketing call being after a sale...) so think it is up to the callee to
decide whether they have the provisions (be it free x-network minutes or
bank balance to fund per minute charges) to take the extra option of calling
a mobile or not. If not, then pretend I don't have a mobile, and leave a
message on my geo number, and be called back 24 hours later: no-ones forcing
you to pay for my freedom of the use of my mobile!
>
> Give me the US system any day.
>
And pay for every incoming call regardless of its importance or calling
party?
> Ivor
>
>
People don't have to pay more to call me if I've "chosen" to go mobile... if
I hadn't gone mobile, they could keep calling my geographic number until I
returned home from being out and wherever. Having a mobile is an extra
option for people to get hold of me, not a change from geographic to mobile.
However if a friend has cross network minutes and wants a chat, or work want
to talk to me for a long time when I'm not contactable on a landline, then
they pay for the call, not me!
FWIW all the calls I make to mobiles are included in free minutes on my
mobile, as are a majority of my friends. The only people that pay more per
minute to call me are work and other companies/organisations where I would
definitely not want to pay for part of the incoming call anyway.
Alex
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-15, 5:45 pm |
|
"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk>
wrote in message
news:3rzyf.1673$wl.974@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
> Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
[snip]
> The USA can keep their system. The one we have is
> perfectly fine.
If you don't mind paying ripoff prices. I'd prefer to be charged the same
as for a landline.
> You have the choice whether to call me on my 'landline'
> or mobile. If you don't want to call the mobile then
> fine, I don't see why I should pay to receive a call. There is no reason
> however why the cost of calling
> mobiles can't come down.
That's one way of looking at it, however if you give me your number I
assume you *want* me to call you. Why should I pay extra because you
choose to go mobile..? You didn't answer that.
The US system takes the cost of incoming calls from inclusive minutes
bundles. Prices there are such that you get many times the number of
minutes that you do here for the same price, with the result that people
rarely use them all, even heavy users. So using some of them for incoming
calls is rarely a problem, you still pay the same amount per month.
In any case, this really should be in uk.telecom.mobile, so I'll say no
more here.
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-15, 5:45 pm |
|
"Adrian" <anca@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:etmdnc7Zac1dXlfeRVnyjA@brightview.com
[snip]
> It would piss me off if I had a US mobile, and I kept
> getting wrong numbers or marketing calls. I get both on
> my UK mobile.
I never get them. In any case, as I mentioned in another message, the
pricing system on US mobiles is such that the cost of incoming calls is
minimal and has little or no effect on the amount you end up paying per
month.
Ivor
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2006-01-15, 5:45 pm |
| Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
> "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote in message
> news:3rzyf.1673$wl.974@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
>
> [snip]
>
>
> If you don't mind paying ripoff prices. I'd prefer to be charged the
> same as for a landline.
>
>
> That's one way of looking at it, however if you give me your number I
> assume you *want* me to call you. Why should I pay extra because you
> choose to go mobile..? You didn't answer that.
>
> The US system takes the cost of incoming calls from inclusive minutes
> bundles. Prices there are such that you get many times the number of
> minutes that you do here for the same price, with the result that
> people rarely use them all, even heavy users. So using some of them
> for incoming calls is rarely a problem, you still pay the same amount
> per month.
> In any case, this really should be in uk.telecom.mobile, so I'll say
> no more here.
>
> Ivor
The problem is 70% of people in the UK are on PAYG, so don't get inclusive
minutes.
You pay extra because that is the cost to catch me whilst I am mobile, you
could however call me on my landline, just as you would have done before
mobile phones were available.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-15, 5:45 pm |
|
"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk>
wrote in message
news:wUAyf.1744$wl.1560@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
[Cross posted from uk.telecom.voip as this really should be in
uk.telecom.mobile, not there. Please ensure replies are in uk.t.m only,
thanks]
[snip]
> The problem is 70% of people in the UK are on PAYG, so
> don't get inclusive minutes.
Ok, one final reply, any response will be cross-posted to uk.t.m and only
replied to there.
PAYG mobiles in the US are charged for a little differently, when you buy
credit, it is for so many minutes, which are used for both incoming and
outgoing calls. So if you buy 500 minutes it's for both, so you do get
inclusive minutes in a way.
> You pay extra because that is the cost to catch me whilst
> I am mobile, you could however call me on my landline,
> just as you would have done before mobile phones were
> available.
But if you're out, I can't..! I am penalised if I need to speak to you
urgently, that's what's wrong, don't you see..?
Ivor
| |
|
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
> Thus spaketh AKK:
>
>
>
> The reason for difference in price is that the USA have that nasty
> habbit of charging the person you are calling on the mobile for
> receiving your call, in Europe the caller pays the full cost of the
> call.
Either way, the mobile phone companies need that revenue to pay for the
expensive networks they built. It's got to come from somewhere!
| |
| David Floyd 2006-01-15, 8:45 pm |
| In message of Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Ivor Jones writes
>
>
>"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk>
>wrote in message
>news:wUAyf.1744$wl.1560@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
>
>[Cross posted from uk.telecom.voip as this really should be in
>uk.telecom.mobile, not there. Please ensure replies are in uk.t.m only,
>thanks]
>
>[snip]
>
>
>Ok, one final reply, any response will be cross-posted to uk.t.m and only
>replied to there.
>
>PAYG mobiles in the US are charged for a little differently, when you buy
>credit, it is for so many minutes, which are used for both incoming and
>outgoing calls. So if you buy 500 minutes it's for both, so you do get
>inclusive minutes in a way.
>
>
>But if you're out, I can't..! I am penalised if I need to speak to you
>urgently, that's what's wrong, don't you see..?
>
>Ivor
>
>
Ivor - you've gone through all this before. So:
1) don't go through it all again
2) tell people to google for previous threads
3) it's OFF TOPIC here
and most people don't agree with you on this topic anyway.
DF
| |
| Peter Corlett 2006-01-15, 8:45 pm |
| Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
[...]
> But if you're out, I can't..! I am penalised if I need to speak to
> you urgently, that's what's wrong, don't you see..?
If *you* have the need, why does the recipient have to pay?
--
Men get laid, but women get screwed.
- Quentin Crisp
| |
| Martin² 2006-01-16, 2:45 am |
| Welcome:
>There is no reason however why the cost of calling mobiles can't come down.
Oh YES, there is !
It's the £17bn + interest the networks paid the gov. for the 3G licences !
Neat trick - taxing you all in advance
(well they getting next to nowt from me...ha, ha).
Perhaps you can console yourselves with the fact you would have otherwise
have to pay more in income tax for the gov. mad schemes like ID cards,
satellite tracking and charging all vehicles, the dome etc. etc. etc.....
Regards,
Martin
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-01-16, 5:45 pm |
| On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:35:30 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>But if you're out, I can't..!
Yes.
>I am penalised if I need to speak to you
>urgently,
Yes
>that's what's wrong, don't you see..?
No. If you don't want to call urgently, wait. You have the choice. Why
should the recipient pay for your impatience?
--
Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2006-01-16, 5:45 pm |
| Thus spaketh hairydog@despammed.com:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:35:30 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
> Yes
>
>
> No. If you don't want to call urgently, wait. You have the choice. Why
> should the recipient pay for your impatience?
Well said!
| |
|
| hi,
oh that looks great, but land line does not give freedom, is there
anything similar with voip/sip access via Internet?
Cheers,
AKK
Max Power wrote:
> If you have a BT landline sign up at http://www.18185.co.uk. Their rates
> are cheaper than the ones you quoted:
>
> UK Fixed 0 p.p.m.
> UK mobiles (sat/sun) 2 p.p.m.
> UK mobiles (weekdays) 5 p.p.m.
>
> There is a 4p connection charge though 8(
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-16, 5:45 pm |
|
"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk>
wrote in message
news:wQTyf.2271$wl.2175@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
> Thus spaketh hairydog@despammed.com:
>
> Well said!
Why should I pay for something urgent if it's not my fault it's urgent..?
I need to call an emergency plumber because my bathroom ceiling has just
collapsed, for example.
Ivor
| |
|
| Ivor Jones wrote:
|| "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk>
|| wrote in message
|| news:wQTyf.2271$wl.2175@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
||| Thus spaketh hairydog@despammed.com:
|||| On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:35:30 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
|||| <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
||||
||||| But if you're out, I can't..!
||||
|||| Yes.
||||
||||| I am penalised if I need to speak to you
||||| urgently,
||||
|||| Yes
||||
||||| that's what's wrong, don't you see..?
||||
|||| No. If you don't want to call urgently, wait. You have
|||| the choice. Why should the recipient pay for your
|||| impatience?
|||
||| Well said!
||
|| Why should I pay for something urgent if it's not my fault it's
|| urgent..? I need to call an emergency plumber because my bathroom
|| ceiling has just collapsed, for example.
||
|| Ivor
This is a very circular argument.
| |
| David Floyd 2006-01-16, 5:45 pm |
| In message of Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Ivor Jones writes
>
>
>"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk>
>wrote in message
>news:wQTyf.2271$wl.2175@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
>
>Why should I pay for something urgent if it's not my fault it's urgent..?
>I need to call an emergency plumber because my bathroom ceiling has just
>collapsed, for example.
>
>Ivor
>
>
IVOR, WILL YOU PLEASE STOP POSTING OFF TOPIC TO UK.TELECOM.VOIP
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-01-16, 5:45 pm |
| On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:44:37 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>Why should I pay for something urgent if it's not my fault it's urgent..?
Your choice.
>I need to call an emergency plumber because my bathroom ceiling has just
>collapsed, for example.
So it is urgent. Pay. Or wait till he gets home. Your choice. Why
should he pay for "urgent" dripping tap calls?
--
Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!
| |
| Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2006-01-17, 5:45 pm |
| On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:45:17 +0000, David Floyd <david@floyd.org.uk>
wrote:
>IVOR, WILL YOU PLEASE STOP POSTING OFF TOPIC TO UK.TELECOM.VOIP
You can't say that to Ivor he owns the group did you not know ! .
|
|
|
|
|