Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SAYNOTO0870.COM

<---- Back to main website

 
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
Ending Revenue Sharing isn't the whole solution??? (Read 18,124 times)
NonGeographicalMan
Ex Member


Re: Ending Revenue Sharing isn't the whole solutio
Reply #15 - Dec 12th, 2005 at 8:32am
 
07 mobile calls are only vaguely fair because people do have an idea that 07 is likely to cost them extra but the system is still unfair because there is not a call price announcement to announce the cost of the call per minute and this is not at all clear from the actual mobile phone number which does not identify the mobile phone operator.  Again this system works in the mobile phone industry's favour and against the consumer and the lowering of prices.

Call price announcements are the only fair system because as mobile phone numbers are portable then the number you have doesn't necessarily bear any relation to the mobile network that you are now on.

Of course in the USA this is all unnecessary because the caller pays for the mobile phone advantage and mobile phone calls cost thes same as fixed line.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 12th, 2005 at 8:33am by N/A »  
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Ending Revenue Sharing isn't the whole solutio
Reply #16 - Dec 12th, 2005 at 12:33pm
 
Quote:
DonQuixote wrote on Dec 12th, 2005 at 12:35am:
If you follow this logic, then mobile phone calls should be charged at local rate and the called party should pay the rest, right? So all mobile phone users would pay for incoming calls...  Roll Eyes

This is absolutely what should happen since it is the called party and not the caller who derives any advantage from the mobile phone's use.  [...]

Whilst I agree that the payment to the mobile network can be seen as a micro-payment, on balance, I don't agree that the receiver should have to pay per minute for receiving calls. I also think that the assertion that it is the receiving party who is benefiting is suspect. What alternative contact methods are there when mobile?

Remember that NTS just routes to a landline. Therefore a normal landline number could be given out instead. It is the receiving party who has put that barrier in the way, as it were.

Quote:
Under this system the mobile phone call cost is driven as low as possible because the recipient doesn't want to pay excessive charges.  But under a system where a £250 mobile phone is presented as free to the owner and this is in fact recouped through excessive contract charges and ripoff charges to your mobile phone callers uk mobile phone call costs are some of the most expensive in the world. [...]

Whilst this makes sense, my principal objection would be that I would have to pay to receive calls, probably on a per minute basis, the same as we have to pay for NTS now. I object to paying to receive calls on a telephone because the system works on the principal that the caller pays to call the recipient subscriber.

All subscribers should have to pay a service charge, and this is known as 'line rental' with a landline telephone. IMO this term is misused with mobile providers because it goes to subsidising a 'free' or reduced price handset and to pay for inclusive minutes. Calls outside inclusive minutes are often as expensive as pay as you go rates.

I would therefore be quite happy to pay a fixed amount in line rental for my mobile connection in return for lower call charges. This would also replace the increased costs that my callers have to pay to call me. After all, mobile calls are presumably higher rate because of the higher cost of running a mobile network (or so you would think).
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
idb
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male
Re: Ending Revenue Sharing isn't the whole solutio
Reply #17 - Dec 12th, 2005 at 1:07pm
 
Dave wrote on Dec 12th, 2005 at 12:33pm:
Whilst I agree that the payment to the mobile network can be seen as a micro-payment, on balance, I don't agree that the receiver should have to pay per minute for receiving calls. I also think that the assertion that it is the receiving party who is benefiting is suspect. What alternative contact methods are there when mobile?
Just to give some info about what happens in the US, where admittedly, the cellular market is often fragmented. I have a contract with Cingular, a GSM provider on the 850MHz and 1900MHz frequencies. Other providers' plans are similar, perhaps more minutes, perhaps less. For $60 per month (with FL and other taxes, this increases to ~$75 per month) for two handsets (me and the wife), we get 500 peak-time minutes shared across both handsets for incoming and outgoing calls. These minutes can rollover up to twelve months. The plan gives unlimited night (after 9pm) and weekend minutes, again for incoming and outgoing calls. To be honest, we have way too many minutes for our needs, so paying for the odd false or incorrect inbound call really isn't a problem (this is an issue, however, with pre-pay/PAYG). The advantages are that the cellular codes are exactly the same as ordinary land numbers, so a Miami cellular phone will have a 305 area code. These numbers are also portable to landline phones. I can call a 'local' Miami number at exactly the same cost as a number in Los Angeles or Chicago. I can also call a toll-free 800 number which is also taken from inclusive minutes. It is simple, effective, and the model of paying for incoming calls does not appear to be a problem to people here given that we do not need separate numbering for cellular systems. One downside is that calls are billed in one-minute intervals - no per-second charging here. I guess it's a balance, but I favour the system here. PAYG is somewhat different, and the called party pays model may not be appropriate, but for contracts with plenty of minutes, it really does not present a problem.

Forgot to mention, the plan gives unlimited calling to other Cingular phones at all times (I think this is referred to as 'on-net' in the UK). Also, roaming is free throughout the country, which may sound odd to UK residents, but this county has all sorts of mobile operators).
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 12th, 2005 at 1:13pm by idb »  

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: Ending Revenue Sharing isn't the whole solutio
Reply #18 - Dec 12th, 2005 at 1:30pm
 
idb wrote on Dec 12th, 2005 at 1:07pm:
Just to give some info about what happens in the US [...]

Do most tariffs provide for subsidised handsets or can you opt for a 'contract' that just provides your connection?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
idb
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male
Re: Ending Revenue Sharing isn't the whole solutio
Reply #19 - Dec 12th, 2005 at 1:43pm
 
Dave wrote on Dec 12th, 2005 at 1:30pm:
idb wrote on Dec 12th, 2005 at 1:07pm:
Just to give some info about what happens in the US [...]

Do most tariffs provide for subsidised handsets or can you opt for a 'contract' that just provides your connection?
Handsets are subsidised, but (generally), not to the same extent as to that in the UK. Of course there are offers of free advanced handsets but you have to submit rebate claims (a common activity here). I believe that Cingular will provide a contract SIM without handset, but it is not an advertised offering as the demand is not great. Another difference is that contracts are often 24 month minumum with a $120 early termination penalty.

I paid around $200 for a 'smartphone' device and around $40 for my wife's Nokia, a basic but decent phone. I could have got the smartphone cheaper at Amazon and the Nokia free, but I couldn't be bothered to wait and to mess around with all the paperwork!
Back to top
 

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.
 
IP Logged
 
DonQuixote
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 36
North of the Ivory Towers
Gender: male
Re: Ending Revenue Sharing isn't the whole solutio
Reply #20 - Dec 12th, 2005 at 9:52pm
 
Quote:
This is absolutely what should happen since it is the called party and not the caller who derives any advantage from the mobile phone's use.  As idb highlights this is already the common practice with many mobile phone operators in the USA and is why when one makes an international call to the USA a mobile phone call doesn't cost any extra.

Nice point, shows how knowledgeable ngm is!  Cool

However, he forgot to add that in the US many folk don't publish their mobile number for fear of running up big bills due to unsolicited calls. So many end  up using pagers and voice mail. How quaint and how time inefficient!

I suppose it depends on how valuable your time is?  Wink

Just imagine all those silent or sales calls to our mobiles, which we will all pay for, if NGM has his way!

Mind you he's right about those roaming charges. What a ripoff !  Angry Angry
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Forum Admin, Dave, bbb_uk, DaveM, CJT-80)

Website and Content © 1999-2024 SAYNOTO0870.COM. All Rights Reserved. (DE)
Written permission is required to duplicate any of the content within this site.

WARNING: This is an open forum, posts are NOT endorsed by SAYNOTO0870.COM,
please exercise due caution when acting on any info from here.


SAYNOTO0870.COM » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.


Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge