Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SAYNOTO0870.COM

<---- Back to main website

 
Home Help Search Login Register

Poll Poll
Question: Would you prefer US style paying to receive calls?

Yes    
  8 (20.0%)
No    
  29 (72.5%)
Not sure    
  3 (7.5%)
Don't mind    
  0 (0.0%)




Total votes: 40
« Created by: bbb_uk on: Sep 6th, 2008 at 7:12pm »

Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
U.S. style 'Pay to receive' mobile charges coming? (Read 48,364 times)
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: U.S. style 'Pay to receive' mobile charges com
Reply #15 - Sep 7th, 2008 at 4:36pm
 
Why do we have to put up with higher outgoing call charges? And if call charges to mobiles are reduced, then it's likely we will have to pay (high) incoming charges.

The more minutes of calls we make, the more "high" or "extra" call charges we make. There is no sliding scale where higher volume of calls means we still pay the "premium".

I feel that the mobile operators should adopt the same system we have with landlines. That is a line rental at £10-15 or whatever per month with lower call charges.

That way, higher call charges will be offset by the line rental.

Or, to look at it another way (and this is how I see it), for every minute of calls made (and received - if the "US-style" plan goes ahead), calls we pay a fraction of the line rental. The more calls made/received the more we pay. The line rental should be fixed.


What the mobile providers term "line rental" at the moment isn't really so. "Contract" packages pay for handsets and inclusive minutes and any other extras. Call rates outside of inclusive minutes are roughly the same as with pay as you go.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
Re: U.S. style 'Pay to receive' mobile charges com
Reply #16 - Sep 7th, 2008 at 7:30pm
 
irrelevant wrote on Sep 7th, 2008 at 2:02pm:
I can quite see the situation arising where they reduce the caller's costs only slightly, and charge the callee, with the total being more than the present call costs!
Exactly!  Mobile providers will probably use it to make more money and mentioning slightly lower calls but "forgetting" to mention the callee gets charged MORE than the reduction in caller's costs.

Also, depending on tariff, mobile companies are offering unlimited (subject to fair use as always) mins and/or texts albeit mostly to their own network.  Would there be such a thing as unlimited tariffs under US style charging?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: U.S. style 'Pay to receive' mobile charges com
Reply #17 - Sep 7th, 2008 at 9:52pm
 
bbb_uk wrote on Sep 7th, 2008 at 10:24am:
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 6th, 2008 at 10:23pm:
Can we confirm that the very straightforward question in the poll invites us to simply express a preference as if in a hypothetical ideal world.
Yes.  I didn't want to over complicate anything.

It seems from the discussion that many of us (including myself) are very concerned about how such an arrangement would work in practice. I wonder if this is reflected in the voting.

I hope that this is the case, as much of our focus in this forum is on attacking inappropriate use of "revenue sharing" numbers. These apply the principle that the caller, rather than the receiver, pays for the features available on non-geographic numbers, and perhaps more besides.

If we find that the forum is populated by a majority in favour of the caller paying, then should we be saying "yes" to 0845, 0844, 0870 etc., and "no" to 03 where the receiver pays for these special features through fees on calls received?

Perhaps, like all referenda, votes have little to do with objective judgement of the specific question being addressed and much to do with subjective assessments of the individuals and organisations involved.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
irrelevant
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 409
Re: U.S. style 'Pay to receive' mobile charges com
Reply #18 - Sep 8th, 2008 at 7:33am
 
I think the main issue is that of price transparency.

Most people are pretty well educated that calling mobiles from a landline is going to cost them more than calling other landlines, and the costs of calling landlines and other mobiles from a mobile are generally pretty well explained when choosing a mobile contract, where both types of call are generally now treated equally.

However 08* call costs are not at all clear - it's a rare mobile company that quotes its call costs to these in marketing litrature, and the continued use of "local rate" and "national rate" tags just misleads the consumer of the true costs of these calls from any network.  Whilst this situation continues, I see the role of this site, for instance, as very important.

As for as the question of who should pay for the call ..  whilst it does seem that there is an argument for "called party pays" on mobiles by virtue of people who carry a mobile wish to be contactable, you have to bear in mind the difference between an individual who will primarilly be receiving personal calls, and a business where the calls will mainly be of a commercial nature, and whom will be expecting to make a profit at the end of the year.

Now 084/087 calls are generally to businesses, whom are already trying to make money from us on the products they sell us.  For them to get an income (in whatever form) from our calls is icing on the cake to them.    It also shows just how greedy they are that you can often find an 080 freephone number for sales calls, but 087 or even premium rate calls for after-sales support!

Mobile numbers are generally used by individuals whom make no money from receiving the calls.  The high price for calling one from a landline is shared among the telcos, and is down to the high charges the mobile operators make to the landline operators for taking the calls.  

Historically this was because there was a massive investment needed to set up the networks, but surely this is almost complete now, and their ongoing expenses should only be maintenance and upgrades, so there should be scope for dramatic reductions in the interconnect charges.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Sep 8th, 2008 at 7:34am by irrelevant »  
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: U.S. style 'Pay to receive' mobile charges com
Reply #19 - Sep 8th, 2008 at 9:34am
 
irrelevant wrote on Sep 8th, 2008 at 7:33am:
I think the main issue is that of price transparency.

Price transparency is indeed a major point. As is stated however, the point is that prices are obscured to conceal the unacceptable fact that the caller is paying for the additional features deployed, rather than the receiver.

With truly competitive businesses it may be acceptable for any charge to be made, so long as it is declared, as the market will ensure that all is fair. This does not however apply to service lines, the cost of which is not declared as part of the contract, nor to public services. Knowing that your NHS doctor's practice funds its services using payments from patients does not make it OK; it simply reveals that it is wrong.

The campaigning forum and the database of alternative numbers on this site do indeed have an important role to play. Knowledge of its existence and every visit that is made indicate that the essential battle about transparency is being won. Victory is however only achieved when names no longer need to appear in the database.

The point about mobile calls being mostly received from friends would seem to argue that it does not matter who pays. With most such mobile calls that I receive, I would be very pleased to be relieved of the obligation to call back. Equally, I would be very happy to subsidise family members using mobiles more directly.

Some would argue that it is the use of freephone numbers for sales calls that is the indicator of greed. Any indication of excessive funding of pre-sales operations shows that a very good margin is expected on the business that may be won. The sales costs would be recovered in general pricing, not through subsidy of service operations.

As with users of many 084x numbers, mobile users may not actually profit from calls received, however the cost of their incoming telephone service is being subsidised by callers.

It has clearly been an objective of government and of Ofcom for the use of mobiles to grow to its present level of over 100% saturation. This has demanded that they be adopted by the least wealthy (including kids) and therefore subsidised by others. We therefore have a situation where the costs are distributed quite irrationally. Contract users with perfectly good handsets (including myself) are paying for inferior annual replacements that they do not want. Technical developments are being focussed on ways of making more money out of an irrational system, rather than on meeting genuine need.

Whilst this should be addressed, and moving to a system of "receiver pays" on call charges would be only part of this, there is little chance that this could happen. One only needs to think of the many who currently have a PAYG mobile because they cannot afford to rent a landline to recognise that implementation of a more rational system covering payment for mobile calls could not be implemented without great difficulty.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
andy9
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 505
Re: U.S. style 'Pay to receive' mobile charges com
Reply #20 - Sep 15th, 2008 at 10:26am
 
If it were to happen, then things would probably settle down after transition, but plenty of confusion and upset would occur until then

And there could be advantages

For example, if mobile termination rates dropped, there would be a good chance that they would be included in landline inclusive packages. They'd certainly be cheaper to call.

On a mobile contract that has say 600 inclusive minutes at the moment, some will be to landlines and some to mobiles. If the mobile termination rates dropped, then there should be either a drop in the monthly rental, or more likely the rental would stay the same and calls (including received) would be increased to 1000 or 1200 minutes.

Someone who wanted to receive calls on a landline but sometimes forward it to their mobile would be a lot better off. I understand this is what US users like; if they have both landline and mobile contracts with inclusive minutes, then call diversion doesn't cost them anything at all.

For mobiles on payg, outgoing call rates should drop, but I suspect that this is where the most scope for disappointment would be. Perhaps there would be conditional top-up packages that included free incoming calls, but it would be pretty confusing.

The other aspect, which I suspect Ofcom hasn't thought through as much, is that the costs of roaming abroad would be affected. Unless something like this was done on a Europe-wide basis, the UK networks would argue that they couldn't support  cheap or free roaming, and they'd be right.

There are a number of global roaming  SIMs which have free incoming calls in plenty of countries, which we've discussed on occasions. The possibility of free roaming arises because of a margin built into the incoming termination fee, which would not be possible if that was only a penny or cent a minute. Thus when people ask if there are free roaming SIMs with Hong Kong numbers (because it's cheap to call there), I reply that I doubt it will ever be possible (in fact there is a HK-based SIM, but with other numbers forwarded to it).

My O2 contract includes the My Europe Extra add-on, which means free incoming calls in Europe, which means it's effectively the  same as those above. But if O2 only got a small amount for people calling me when I'm abroad, it would cost them too much to divert to the European network where I was, unless they are all concurrently dropping termination fees as well. Outside Europe, the cost of roaming would probably increase. And, as some of the global SIMs have Jersey and IoM mobile numbers, would their regulatory authorities decide to parallel Ofcom moves, or stay out of  it?

It does seem rather late for this to be considered, now that mobile calls are on the point of exceeding landline calls, and some contracts now average out to only 2 or 3 pence a minute anyway.

I'm reminded of the old joke or anecdote about someone asking for directions, where the reply is that it's a bit complicated to explain, if I were you I wouldn't start from here.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Sep 15th, 2008 at 10:29am by andy9 »  
 
IP Logged
 
bbb_uk
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,041
Re: U.S. style 'Pay to receive' mobile charges com
Reply #21 - Sep 15th, 2008 at 7:06pm
 
andy9 wrote on Sep 15th, 2008 at 10:26am:
For mobiles on payg, outgoing call rates should drop, but I suspect that this is where the most scope for disappointment would be. Perhaps there would be conditional top-up packages that included free incoming calls, but it would be pretty confusing.
Don't the USA have their version of payg then?  If so, have you any idea how they work?!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
andy9
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 505
Re: U.S. style 'Pay to receive' mobile charges com
Reply #22 - Sep 15th, 2008 at 8:26pm
 
bbb_uk wrote on Sep 15th, 2008 at 7:06pm:
Don't the USA have their version of payg then?  If so, have you any idea how they work?!


Yes. I think most of them  have fairly simple top-ups compared to here, just credit which then pays for incoming and outgoing calls at about 10 to 20 cents a minute depending on the amount of credit added

Here, we see loads of different types of conditional monthly top-up bonuses, and my guess would be that this is where bundles of incoming calls might be promoted most if we were to see these changes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: U.S. style 'Pay to receive' mobile charges com
Reply #23 - Sep 22nd, 2008 at 9:28pm
 
I believe that the following announcement from Ofcom today is of relevance to this thread.

Quote:
Ofcom has today published a joint response with the UK Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform to the European Commission draft Recommendation on the Regulatory Treatment of Fixed and Mobile Termination Rates in the EU consultation. The response can be found at:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/eutermination/response.pdf

A technical document supporting the response can be found at:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/eutermination/annex.pdf

Members who wish to receive thrilling notifications like this by email, can subscribe at:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/subscribe/select_list.htm.

Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
jgxenite
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


Help us to help you -
read the instructions!!

Posts: 1,454
Gender: male
Re: U.S. style 'Pay to receive' mobile charges com
Reply #24 - Sep 22nd, 2008 at 9:38pm
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Sep 22nd, 2008 at 9:28pm:
Members who wish to receive thrilling notifications like this ...


... can wait for SCV to receive them and let us know here Cheesy.
Back to top
 

I don't mind helping you with your request as long as you read the instructions!
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: U.S. style 'Pay to receive' mobile charges com
Reply #25 - Sep 23rd, 2008 at 7:27am
 
jgxenite wrote on Sep 22nd, 2008 at 9:38pm:
Members who wish to receive thrilling notifications like this ...
... can wait for SCV to receive them and let us know here Cheesy.

Always happy to help when I can, but cannot be relied upon to provide a forwarding service.

Furthermore, I have not yet had time to read one word of the documents and so cannot offer any comment.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: U.S. style 'Pay to receive' mobile charges com
Reply #26 - Nov 4th, 2008 at 10:35pm
 
Just thought I'd bump this thread - I've just remembered the deadline for this consultation is in two days' time!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mcowley01
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 1
Re: U.S. style 'Pay to receive' mobile charges com
Reply #27 - Dec 14th, 2008 at 10:16pm
 
As mikeinnc said, US mobiles' (plus Canada and most of Caribbean) numbers are indistiguishable from geographical numbers and cost the same to call - a terrific advantage. Disadvantages are you pay to receive and US does'nt have the cost-equivalent of 1899, 18185 and 18866. On balance, I think the US system would work out better for us. The UK mobile phone companies have been milking us for too long! maybe it's our own fault for being sheep-like for too long in this and every other field of consumerism (e.g. see US petrol prices).
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Tanllan
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 797
Gender: male
Re: U.S. style 'Pay to receive' mobile charges com
Reply #28 - Dec 22nd, 2008 at 4:55pm
 
Yup. I had always liked the UK style of charging, being a modest user at the start. But the UK should change; and I am still a modest user. At the moment everyone likes the "free" handset, for which everyone pays forever.
Come on UK, time to change - and then perhaps consumer power might work. After all the operators might find that people suddenly become more aware of the costs.
Who will be first to change in the new economy?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Xen
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 1
Re: U.S. style 'Pay to receive' mobile charges com
Reply #29 - Jun 8th, 2009 at 1:13pm
 
Definitely NOT is my vote on being charged for incoming calls.  A friend of mine in the States restricted his daughters mobile, because of her huge bills, to incoming calls only ( except for outgoing calls to him and his wife for emergencies )  He was surprised, to say the least, to receive a phone bill for her for $700 because her friends had been calling her !!!
Mobile calls are a rip off at present.  I remember seeing something on the TV some time ago about one of the Scandinavian countries where all mobile calls are about 2p / min.  If they can do it, there seems no reason other than greed from the phone companies that we can't.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: CJT-80, Forum Admin, DaveM, bbb_uk, Dave)

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