|
Home > Archive > Voice Over IP in UK > March 2006 > Cost to call mobile phones
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]
| Author |
Cost to call mobile phones
|
|
| Joao Saraiva 2006-03-21, 5:46 pm |
| Hi All
Is there any technical reason why call to MOBILES are so much more expensive
than calls to LANDLINES when using voip (skype for example) ?
Or it is just the case that mobile operators are greedy and charge more ?
I would appreciate your informed posts ...
Rgds
JS
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2006-03-21, 5:46 pm |
| Thus spaketh Joao Saraiva:
> Hi All
>
> Is there any technical reason why call to MOBILES are so much more
> expensive than calls to LANDLINES when using voip (skype for example)
> ?
>
> Or it is just the case that mobile operators are greedy and charge
> more ?
>
> I would appreciate your informed posts ...
> Rgds
> JS
Mobile phone networks have higher termination fees, therefore the cost is
higher to call them, though VoIP providers might add a little more than usual
on top to compensate for the lower (or free) cost to call landlines.
--
For £5 when referred to easyMobile contact me via
www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-03-21, 5:46 pm |
| Joao Saraiva wrote:
> Is there any technical reason why call to MOBILES are so much more expensive
> than calls to LANDLINES when using voip (skype for example) ?
>
> Or it is just the case that mobile operators are greedy and charge more ?
Mobile operators charge other telcos (including BT) more to terminate
calls than landline operators charge. Therefore it costs you as a retail
customer more as well as your provider has to cover their costs.
It's probably more complicated than that if you look into price
regulation etc, but that is the gist of it.
| |
|
| On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:48:34 -0000, "Joao Saraiva"
<joao.saraiva@cam-group.com> wrote:
>Hi All
>
>Is there any technical reason why call to MOBILES are so much more expensive
>than calls to LANDLINES when using voip (skype for example) ?
>
>Or it is just the case that mobile operators are greedy and charge more ?
>
>I would appreciate your informed posts ...
It's particularly galling when calls to US mobiles are free to about
3p/min. I notice the new Tesco voip is charging 10p /min to UK
mobiles - a good deal less than most other methods.
JPG
>Rgds
>JS
>
| |
| Joao Saraiva 2006-03-21, 5:46 pm |
| Thanks all for your input.
I was going to make the point of the cost of the calls to USA mobiles ...
practically the same as to landlines. Is it the case that major landline
operators are also mobile operators ?
"JPG" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:q9v022t7gjoatiqa4cr007hsqqefrdhgc8@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:48:34 -0000, "Joao Saraiva"
> <joao.saraiva@cam-group.com> wrote:
>
expensive[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> It's particularly galling when calls to US mobiles are free to about
> 3p/min. I notice the new Tesco voip is charging 10p /min to UK
> mobiles - a good deal less than most other methods.
>
> JPG
>
>
>
| |
|
| Joao Saraiva formulated the question :
> "JPG" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:q9v022t7gjoatiqa4cr007hsqqefrdhgc8@
4ax.com...
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks all for your input.
>
> I was going to make the point of the cost of the calls to USA mobiles ...
> practically the same as to landlines. Is it the case that major landline
> operators are also mobile operators ?
>
In the US, the vast majority of mobile plans charge the recipient for
the call (or at least the call comes out out the /recipient's/
inclusive minutes)
In addition, there is no real difference between mobile & landline
number ranges - indeed, you can port a number from one to the other.
The argument for this model is "if you choose to go out & about, why
should /I/ have to pay extra for the privilege of calling /you/?"
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2006-03-21, 5:46 pm |
| Thus spaketh Joao Saraiva:
> Thanks all for your input.
>
> I was going to make the point of the cost of the calls to USA mobiles
> ... practically the same as to landlines. Is it the case that major
> landline operators are also mobile operators ?
>
USA works differently, and why mobile take up was/is slow.
The extra cost is passed to the person you are calling, that is they have to
pay to receive your call, either by a per cent rate or out of bundled minutes.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-03-21, 8:45 pm |
|
"Joao Saraiva" <joao.saraiva@cam-group.com> wrote in
message news:dvq0e6$12o$1@news.freedom2surf.net
> Thanks all for your input.
>
> I was going to make the point of the cost of the calls to
> USA mobiles ... practically the same as to landlines. Is
> it the case that major landline operators are also mobile
> operators ?
No, it's that US mobiles are not differentiated from landlines for
charging as the mobile user pays the mobile part of the call, much as you
do if you roam abroad (only it's a lot cheaper..!)
You cannot tell from a US number whether it is mobile or fixed and it
doesn't matter. Numbers can be ported from one to the other as well.
Ivor
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?
| |
|
|
"Joao Saraiva" <joao.saraiva@cam-group.com> wrote in message
news:dvpapi$hp2$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
> Hi All
>
> Is there any technical reason why call to MOBILES are so much more
expensive
> than calls to LANDLINES when using voip (skype for example) ?
>
> Or it is just the case that mobile operators are greedy and charge more ?
>
Yes its the greedy operators. Mobile phone calls are expensive. because its
a habit of mobile operators.
They keep getting away with ripping folks off, because the UK people seem to
accept whatever cost the operators set.
If they started kicking up a stink and stopped sing the silly mobile, they
would soon reduce the costs.
They would have to, to survive.
While ever they keep getting dumb UK people making them massive profit, they
will continue to do so.
| |
|
| > Mobile phone networks have higher termination fees, therefore the cost is
> higher to call them, though VoIP providers might add a little more than
> usual on top to compensate for the lower (or free) cost to call landlines.
What I cannot understand is you can call uk mobs for 4p on the 0844 number
but the cheapest
voip tariff is about 10p/min
Unless the 0844 co is making a loss (unlikely) how are they managing this -
and what cannot
you get anything like this rate on voip?
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-03-23, 8:46 pm |
| DMac wrote:
>
> What I cannot understand is you can call uk mobs for 4p on the 0844 number
> but the cheapest voip tariff is about 10p/min
> Unless the 0844 co is making a loss (unlikely) how are they managing this -
> and what cannot you get anything like this rate on voip?
They are making a loss.
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2006-03-23, 8:46 pm |
| Thus spaketh DMac:
>
> What I cannot understand is you can call uk mobs for 4p on the 0844
> number but the cheapest
> voip tariff is about 10p/min
> Unless the 0844 co is making a loss (unlikely) how are they managing
> this - and what cannot
> you get anything like this rate on voip?
They are making a loss.
VoIP providers are charging more to pay for the other services they provide
and to compensate for the free calls, I would have thought.
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-03-25, 9:45 am |
| On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:48:34 -0000, "Joao Saraiva"
<joao.saraiva@cam-group.com> wrote:
>Is there any technical reason why call to MOBILES are so much more expensive
>than calls to LANDLINES when using voip (skype for example) ?
Yes, there is.
The mobile networks charge several pence per minute for delivering the
call the other mobile, which the calling network has to pay - so they
charge you for it.
This is the mobile network's greed. PAYG users on 3 can be credited 5p
per minute from this charge: that's how big a rip-off it is.
The solution? Don't call mobiles.
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-03-25, 9:45 am |
| On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:58:12 -0000, "Joao Saraiva"
<joao.saraiva@cam-group.com> wrote:
>I was going to make the point of the cost of the calls to USA mobiles ...
>practically the same as to landlines.
US mobiles are different. The recipient of the call pays for the
mobile leg at the end of the call: incoming calls are chargeable as
well as outgoing ones in the US (though they normally come out of
"inclusive" minutes).
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-03-25, 9:45 am |
| On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:18:38 GMT, Jono <nothanks@notonyournelly.co.uk>
wrote:
>The argument for this model is "if you choose to go out & about, why
>should /I/ have to pay extra for the privilege of calling /you/?"
Indeed, but the opposite argument is "If you want the convenience of
being able to call me when I go out & about, why should I pay for it?"
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-03-25, 9:45 am |
|
<hairydog@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:vs9a225eip86hdt2vt33do4j46rhtfs1ql@
4ax.com
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:18:38 GMT, Jono
> <nothanks@notonyournelly.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Indeed, but the opposite argument is "If you want the
> convenience of being able to call me when I go out &
> about, why should I pay for it?"
That one's easy. You obviously want to be called while you are out you
wouldn't have a mobile..!
I don't know when I initially call you on your ordinary geographic number
whether you are out or not, and to the US user it doesn't matter. The cost
of incoming calls is included in inclusive minutes on contracts and comes
from pre-paid credit on PAYG and is far cheaper than here. For example, my
friends in San Francisco have something like 2000 minutes a month for $40
or so (I don't recall exactly but it's something like that). At those
prices who cares if some of those minutes are used for incoming calls..?
In business it encourages callers and may result in extra work..!
I just wish it was at least an option here.
Ivor
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-03-27, 7:46 am |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> <hairydog@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:vs9a225eip86hdt2vt33do4j46rhtfs1ql@
4ax.com
>
> That one's easy. You obviously want to be called while you are out you
> wouldn't have a mobile..!
What if you carry a mobile for "emergencies" as not as a primary point
of contact?
> I don't know when I initially call you on your ordinary geographic number
> whether you are out or not, and to the US user it doesn't matter. The cost
> of incoming calls is included in inclusive minutes on contracts and comes
> from pre-paid credit on PAYG and is far cheaper than here. For example, my
> friends in San Francisco have something like 2000 minutes a month for $40
> or so (I don't recall exactly but it's something like that).
I don't spend $40 a month on my mobile, I don't even spend £10 a month -
why would this be a benefit to me?
> In business it encourages callers and may result in extra work..!
What about non-business users?
> I just wish it was at least an option here.
That would be good, but I wouldn't want it to the mandatory, or even the
default.
| |
|
| Paul Cupis wrote:
> Ivor Jones wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> What if you carry a mobile for "emergencies" as not as a primary point
> of contact?
That's the cost of carrying a mobile, if you're paying for incoming calls.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I don't spend $40 a month on my mobile, I don't even spend £10 a month -
> why would this be a benefit to me?
He didn't say it would - he was just saying he'd like to have a choice. His
ability to choose won't preclude your ability to carry on doing what you're
doing.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
10:50:19 up 14 days, 36 min, 2 users, load average: 0.01, 0.09, 0.08
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-03-27, 7:46 am |
| alexd wrote:
> Paul Cupis wrote:
>
> He didn't say it would - he was just saying he'd like to have a choice. His
> ability to choose won't preclude your ability to carry on doing what you're
> doing.
Thanks for snipping this from your reply:
Paul Cupis wrote:
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> That would be good, but I wouldn't want it to the mandatory, or even
> the default.
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-03-27, 7:46 am |
| On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:36:10 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>That one's easy. You obviously want to be called while you are out you
>wouldn't have a mobile..!
Rubbish. I have a mobile so I can call people when I want to, and
people can call me if they want to. I don't *want* people to call and
interrupt me.
>I don't know when I initially call you on your ordinary geographic number
>whether you are out or not, and to the US user it doesn't matter.
If you call me home or office number, and I'm not there, you'll be
offered the chance to leave a message, and also told my mobile number.
If your call is important and urgent, you can ring my mobile. Your
decision, you pay.
>The cost
>of incoming calls is included in inclusive minutes on contracts and comes
>from pre-paid credit on PAYG
Indeed. But that means nothing.
> and is far cheaper than here.
That's inherent in the system in the US. Most things are far cheaper
than in the UK. Nothing to do with called party pays. Do you really
think that if we had the US system for incoming calls, call charges
would tumble?
>For example, my
>friends in San Francisco have something like 2000 minutes a month for $40
>or so (I don't recall exactly but it's something like that).
Chances are that if they leave the SF area, those calls won't be
inclusive, and they'll pay roaming fees.
>At those
>prices who cares if some of those minutes are used for incoming calls..?
That's far more than I spend in a month. I used to have an account
that let me make 600 minutes of calls per month and it cost £3.99 per
month, but I cancelled it because I don't need it.
>In business it encourages callers and may result in extra work..!
Not so IME. It encourages callers and therefore stops you getting the
work done.
>I just wish it was at least an option here.
It is.
I have an 0800 number that rings my mobile. If I want people to be
able to call it for free, I can give them that number.
I can also forward calls from my landline number (well, it's VOIP, but
you know what I mean) to my mobile at fairly low cost. I don't want
to, but it is an option.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-03-27, 7:46 am |
|
"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e04li6$gh$2@custnews.inweb.co.uk
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> What if you carry a mobile for "emergencies" as not as a
> primary point of contact?
In which case you would presumably only give the number to those with a
need to call you in an emergency, i.e. immediate family.
>
> I don't spend $40 a month on my mobile, I don't even
> spend £10 a month - why would this be a benefit to me?
To you probably not, but many people do spend this and more on their
mobiles.
>
> What about non-business users?
What about them..?
>
> That would be good, but I wouldn't want it to the
> mandatory, or even the default.
Nor would I, I would just like it as an option.
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-03-27, 7:46 am |
|
<hairydog@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:jl9d2217ageq9ch01t7mc09tqv41j4l7ni@
4ax.com
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:36:10 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Rubbish. I have a mobile so I can call people when I want
> to, and people can call me if they want to. I don't
> *want* people to call and interrupt me.
So don't tell them the number ;-) I asked my elderly mum if she wanted a
mobile (for emergencies) for her birthday, she said no, she didn't want
people calling her when she was out..! I couldn't convince her they
couldn't unless she told them the number..!
>
> If you call me home or office number, and I'm not there,
> you'll be offered the chance to leave a message, and also
> told my mobile number. If your call is important and
> urgent, you can ring my mobile. Your decision, you pay.
Fair enough, but the US system should be an option. You chose to go out, I
didn't make you, so why should I pay..?
>
> Indeed. But that means nothing.
Yes it does. I am often told that I could have incoming calls on a
geographic number forwarded to my mobile, indeed I could but the cost of
the call would not come out of my minutes, which is the core of the US
system and is what I want.
>
> That's inherent in the system in the US. Most things are
> far cheaper than in the UK. Nothing to do with called
> party pays. Do you really think that if we had the US
> system for incoming calls, call charges would tumble?
Probably not, with BT and the like involved, but I bet they'd be cheaper
than they are at the moment.
>
> Chances are that if they leave the SF area, those calls
> won't be inclusive, and they'll pay roaming fees.
Wrong. No roaming charges anywhere in the US.
>
> That's far more than I spend in a month. I used to have
> an account that let me make 600 minutes of calls per
> month and it cost £3.99 per month, but I cancelled it
> because I don't need it.
Nor would I, but with the huge amount of minutes available in many deals,
a few of them being used for incoming calls would not impact greatly on
the total cost per month, which is the point I was making.
>
> Not so IME. It encourages callers and therefore stops you
> getting the work done.
If you're so busy you don't have time to answer the phone then maybe you
don't *need* any more customers ;-)
>
> It is.
>
> I have an 0800 number that rings my mobile. If I want
> people to be able to call it for free, I can give them
> that number.
So I am often told. But the cost of the call does *not* come from the
inclusive minutes, which is the core of my argument. That is what I want,
but cannot have.
> I can also forward calls from my landline number (well,
> it's VOIP, but you know what I mean) to my mobile at
> fairly low cost. I don't want to, but it is an option.
So can I, but the cost doesn't come from my minutes..! Can't you see the
difference..?
Ivor
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-03-27, 7:46 am |
| On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:25:08 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>So don't tell them the number ;-)
As ever, you are missing the point. I don't want people to interrupt
me enough to subsidise them doing it, but if they thing the call is
important enough, that's up to them: they can pay.
You are trying to move to a situation where I have no choice: either I
hide my number (but would still get sales calls from sequential
diallers) or I pay for incoming calls, regardless of whether or not I
want to.
The idea of mobile users having a choice is daft: doing that would
entail moving to a different numbering range, and if you are going to
do that, it's the same as call diversion.
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-03-27, 7:46 am |
| On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:25:08 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>So I am often told. But the cost of the call does *not* come from the
>inclusive minutes, which is the core of my argument. That is what I want,
>but cannot have.
Inclusive minutes is usually a swindle: it's a way for the networks to
get money every month whether you use their services or not.
People use minutes just because they've paid for them, not because
they want to.
If you pay for call diversion on a per-minute basis, you pay for what
you use, and don't pay for what you don't use.
| |
| M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2006-03-27, 7:46 am |
| On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:25:08 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>So don't tell them the number ;-) I asked my elderly mum if she wanted a
>mobile (for emergencies) for her birthday, she said no, she didn't want
>people calling her when she was out..! I couldn't convince her they
>couldn't unless she told them the number..!
Not strictly true Ivor I have had a few calls on my mobile from stupid
people dialing wrong number before now so now the mobile is only
switched on when I need to use it which isn't very often .
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-03-27, 7:46 am |
|
<hairydog@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:9udd22h6niubrbbtnmj33t11gklv0f3qdc@
4ax.com
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:25:08 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> As ever, you are missing the point. I don't want people
> to interrupt me enough to subsidise them doing it, but if
> they thing the call is important enough, that's up to
> them: they can pay.
Ok, fair enough.
> You are trying to move to a situation where I have no
> choice: either I hide my number (but would still get
> sales calls from sequential diallers) or I pay for
> incoming calls, regardless of whether or not I want to.
I am trying to move to a situation where I have a choice. As it is I am
stuck with either paying for call diversion out of my landline costs, not
out of inclusive minutes, which is the whole point I am making.
> The idea of mobile users having a choice is daft: doing
> that would entail moving to a different numbering range,
> and if you are going to do that, it's the same as call
> diversion.
No..! It *isn't* the same as call diversion; not if the call costs come
from inclusive minutes..! THAT is the whole point of my arguiment - that
is what is available in the US but not here. WHY NOT..?
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-03-27, 7:46 am |
|
<hairydog@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:b7ed22h2i83iu76m7f7f6cd7ltsnb6t1c5@
4ax.com
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:25:08 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Inclusive minutes is usually a swindle: it's a way for
> the networks to get money every month whether you use
> their services or not.
>
> People use minutes just because they've paid for them,
> not because they want to.
>
> If you pay for call diversion on a per-minute basis, you
> pay for what you use, and don't pay for what you don't
> use.
Not for everybody. Even so, it should still be an option.
Ivor
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-03-27, 7:46 am |
| On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:25:08 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>If you're so busy you don't have time to answer the phone then maybe you
>don't *need* any more customers ;-)
That is certainly true.
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-03-27, 7:46 am |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> <hairydog@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:jl9d2217ageq9ch01t7mc09tqv41j4l7ni@
4ax.com
>
> Yes it does. I am often told that I could have incoming calls on a
> geographic number forwarded to my mobile, indeed I could but the cost of
> the call would not come out of my minutes, which is the core of the US
> system and is what I want.
Ivor, I respectively request that yo:
a) petition your favourite mobile operator to give you this as an option
b) take it to uk.telecom.mobile
You are off-topic here.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-03-27, 7:46 am |
|
"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e06pf0$bdv$1@custnews.inweb.co.uk
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> Ivor, I respectively request that yo:
>
> a) petition your favourite mobile operator to give you
> this as an option b) take it to uk.telecom.mobile
>
> You are off-topic here.
Fair enough. I have actually done both in the past, but it wasn't me that
brought the topic up here.
I will say no more.
Ivor
| |
|
| On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:48:34 -0000, "Joao Saraiva"
<joao.saraiva@cam-group.com> wrote:
>Hi All
>
>Is there any technical reason why call to MOBILES are so much more expensive
>than calls to LANDLINES when using voip (skype for example) ?
>
>Or it is just the case that mobile operators are greedy and charge more ?
>
>I would appreciate your informed posts ...
>Rgds
>JS
>
Try call18185 Mobile Weekday 5p/min
-- ras
| |
| alexd 2006-03-27, 11:56 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> No..! It *isn't* the same as call diversion; not if the call costs come
> from inclusive minutes..! THAT is the whole point of my arguiment - that
> is what is available in the US but not here. WHY NOT..?
Because there is
a) no commercial imperative for mobile networks to offer this sort of
feature [or, they don't perceive one];
b) no regulatory requirement for mobile networks to offer this sort of
feature,
therefore it's not an option.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
19:00:29 up 15 days, 8:47, 3 users, load average: 0.37, 0.31, 0.21
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
| |
| alexd 2006-03-27, 11:56 pm |
| Paul Cupis wrote:
> Thanks for snipping this from your reply:
<snipped>
Any time, Cupid.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
19:06:10 up 15 days, 8:52, 3 users, load average: 0.33, 0.29, 0.22
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
|
|
|
|
|