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

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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, i
n
Europe the caller pays the full cost of the call.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.c
o.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

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"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

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.c
o.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

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"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

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.c
o.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

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]