jrawle wrote on Feb 6
th, 2010 at 6:37pm:
Going a bit off-topic, but I still think relevant to this thread.
I see it as perfectly acceptable to respond to the points made and to develop related themes.
jrawle wrote on Feb 6
th, 2010 at 6:37pm:
I don't support calls for a "standard charge", which sounds to me to be what BT are calling for with their Terminate the Rate campaign.
The Terminate the Rate campaign has support from some unexpected organisations, who seem to believe that money grows on trees. They subscribe to the suggestion that the only effect of success for the campaign would be to the advantage of customers. There is an assumption that mobile operators would meet the loss of termination rate income by diminishing the size of a slush fund they have been holding, rather than preserving their income in some other way - e.g. stopping their customers from benefitting from this subsidy, which has kept their charges artificially low.
In principle it is fair that the user should pay for a service, rather than having it subsidised by others. The problem in this case is with the way in which the telecoms market in the UK has been allowed to develop, with “new” technology being favoured. A swift change back now would have considerable social consequences for those who have come to rely on using a mobile phone under the current terms. This is a tricky matter, where
what is right in principle may not be right in practice.
Such matters are of no concern to BT, which is naturally in favour of mobile customers paying for their service, rather than them being subsidised by its customers. It is however disturbing to see organisations such as the NUS, RNID, RCN, GMB, Unite and Age Concern / Help the Aged taking a position that seriously threatens the interests of many less well off people.
The primary sponsor of the Terminate the Rate Campaign is “3”.
Better informed contributors may be able to offer a clear explanation for its maverick position on commercial issues amongst the mobile network providers. It is however clear that this is all about some beef that it has with the other four.
jrawle wrote on Feb 6
th, 2010 at 6:37pm:
... I have to have a landline so that I can have ADSL.
... The only reason I tolerate having a mobile phone is because it doesn't cost me anything to keep it. I avoid using it to make calls other than in exceptional circumstances.
... most calls I seem to receive these days are from scammers and spammers
... their outdated business of providing fixed-line phone services
... people would be better served by freeing up the infrastructure to provide advanced data services where the cost doesn't have to include paying for an unwanted, outdated landline.
The most interesting suggestion, that
standard format voice telephony, and even SMS, is outdated, having been superseded by use of the internet, is certainly worthy of discussion.
If this were to be now, or to become, true then I do not agree that there should be an emphasis on access to communications technology only being provided through fixed point connections, which are only suitable for those who are housebound. Whilst some people may have no use for a mobile communications device, I am not sure that the potential for communications through the internet is really so great that it will prevent us all from ever needing or wanting to leave our homes. That is a very “brave” idea, which has many supporters, not least amongst the ranks of those concerned for the environment.
I personally believe that standard (i.e. not relying on a user ip connection)
interactive voice telephony, both fixed and mobile, does have a future, if only of perhaps 20 or 30 years. It certainly retains a major place in the lives of most people today.As VOIP develops, along with other subscription based services, the emphasis on “pay as you use” fees, i.e. call charges, will diminish as the overhead of call billing mechanisms will probably not be entertained as being economic, because the total cost will be so small. I see the current moves by BT and others as being part of this trend.
This will eventually kill off the option for “Premium Rate” services (including those presently classified as simply “revenue sharing”). We do however have some way to go before this point is reached and odd effects will be created in the course of the long drawn out transition.
The original topic of this thread has served to point out examples of this.(I would be delighted if someone with a better knowledge of VOIP, its current penetration, especially on mobile devices, and likely development of both this and other internet based interactive communications services, perhaps voice and image, could contribute some helpful thoughts.)As most members of this forum are keen users of voice telephony, it is very interesting to hear the views of one who is not, and finds that he has to pay for it nevertheless. It is perhaps unfortunate that those who are not users of the internet are unable to contribute to our discussions! This means that we may not get a balanced view of its merits.