Last message on previous page:
Archived from groups: uk.telecom.mobile,alt.cellular-phone-tech,alt.cellular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Andy Pandy wrote:
> "Osmo R" <okaro@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> newsoqme.728$Gi2.301@reader1.news.jippii.net...
>
>>> My point is that you wonder why people have landlines when you
>>> can make calls for 6.9c per minute on your mobile.
>>>
>>> I make the vast majority of my phone calls for much cheaper rates
>>> than 6.9c per minute (even when you factor in the monthly line
>>> rental), by virtue of having a landline and my contacts having
>>> landlines.
>>
>> You then make plenty of calls.
>
>
> Not really. Usually about 600 mins a month.

Here 600 minutes from a landline costs 18 euros + 12 cents/call.

> The other point, here in the UK, is that if you don't have a landline
> then you are forcing most of your callers to pay much much more to
> call you, typically 10 times the cost. You may have reasonable mobile
> termination rates in Finland, we don't here.

The calls from landlines to mobiles are expensive here also. If one
views a five minute call then the charge _per minute_ is

Mobile->anything ca. 7-9
Land->Mobile ca. 17-29
Local call: ca. 3-4
LD: ca. 5-9

The longer the call the greater the difference between local and mobile
calls is. However, as most people use mobiles anyway that's not an issue.


> As I wrote earlier, a friend of mine saw his bill sky rocket when his
> wife's best friend decided to ditch her landline - their monthly bill
> which was usually a few pounds went up to over £50.

Well the problem was with his wife, not with her friend. She should have
used her mobile. Ditching the landlibe avoids such problems.

Osmo

Archived from groups: uk.telecom.mobile,alt.cellular-phone-tech,alt.cellular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

John R. Levine wrote:
>>> In the US I was paying about US$25/month (19 euro) for unlimited
>>> calls to local landlines and mobiles. As you can imagine, calling
>>> patterns in that environment are quite different - people stay
>>> on the phone for hours.
>>
>> Well one can hope the other party does not have a mobile.
>
>
> Depends when. A lot of US plans now offer either unlimited night and
> weekend minutes or a large enough number that it might as well be
> unlimited, e.g., I get 3500/mo. This works fine for me, since during
> the day I tend to be in the office with my landline at hand, and
> nights and weekends I'm more likely to be out.

With nights do you mean something like after 5 pm or after 9 pm. That
makes a huge difference. I never call someone after 9 pm unless that was
agreed beforehand. Weekends have never had cheaper prices here. As I
understand those pricings are result of mobile use still being mainly a
business use.

>
>> Well in some sense it is true. If all your friends get mobile
>> phones you need to get one too.
>
>
> Finland seems to be kind of a special case, just about the only place
> I know where there are more mobiles than landlines. It sounds like
> the landline service wasn't so grat, and the telco decided (not
> altogether unreasonably) to make mobiles irresistable rather than
> investing in landlines.

Sure they decided around 1990 that mobiles are the place where growth
is. They did not expect people to close landlines. In fact they
predicted a few hundred thousand mobile users by 2000. They got over
three million.

> In the US, pretty much everyone had a phone by 1960. Other countries
> took a lot longer to catch up, and if they waited long enough,
> mobiles could be a good alternative. I gather that everyone in
> Hungary has a mobile, too, because it was faster to build a new
> mobile network after the communists left than to fix the decrepit
> fixed network.

I hope you are not implying that Finland has been some developing
country when it comes to landlines. Nothing could be further from the
truth. The first telephone exchange in Helsinki opened in 1882 (the
first in the U.S. and the world opened in 1878). Unlike most of Europe
telephone was here mainly a private venture and not state operation so
it spread relatively rapidly. The above dates should be viewed in the
perspective that in the standard of living Finland was about 50 years
behind the U.S. By 1978 Finland was 8th on the word on phone density
(41/100 people compared to 72/100 in the leading U.S.). The number of
landlines peaked in 1997 at 2.85 million or 55.4 / 100 people. Since then
it has dropped to about 2.5 million. The number of mobile connections
was 4.7 million in 2003. That's about 90 / 100 people. note the above
makes no difference between corporate and home phones. In 1994 94% of
households had a mobile phone. Only 64% had landline.

Sources: Immonen: Sillat Sielujen ja Ihmismieleen (History of HPY/Elisa)
Statistics Finland: Statistical yearbook of Finland 2003
http://www.stat.fi/ajk/tiedotteet/v2004/046tuls.pdf

Simply put the fixed network has little to offer especially because of
the constantly increasing prices. The companies witched from
co-operative model to listed companies in the 1990's. This with lack of
competition increased prices as the higher the price the larger the
dividend on stockholders. A major reason for the drop has been because
broadband makes landline unnecessary for Internet use.

Osmo

Archived from groups: uk.telecom.mobile,alt.cellular-phone-tech,alt.cellular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Joseph wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 00:47:07 +0300, Osmo R <okaro@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Joseph wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking. Did you not see
>>> "the receiver pays and I will have a conversation as long as both
>>> parties are willing." That implies that the party who is paying
>>> for the call is not as you say "babbling" but is having a
>>> conversation for as long as is mutually agreed by both parties.
>>> You really do need to pay attention!
>>
>> The other party might be too polite to interrupt you.
>
>
> Osmo, if you don't have an answer it's really better to not say
> anything rather than appear foolish. You're grasping for straws and
> they ain't there.

There are people who are too polite to hand up on a telemarketer so they
buy what he sells just to get rid of him. Hanging up is a big no no to
some people.


Osmo

Archived from groups: uk.telecom.mobile,alt.cellular-phone-tech,alt.cellular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:VpHme.10679$M36.4277@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Maybe a UK person, can post what the total costs would be for a typical plan
> as outlined below, including the termination charges, as I did for the most
> expensive U.S. carrier:
>
> Verizon
> Americas Choice UK Plan
> 100 Peak Outgoing, In-Network Mobile to Mobile: 0
> 100 Peak Incoming, In-Network Mobile to Mobile: 0
> 100 Peak Outoging, Mobile to Landline: $10
> 100 Peak Incoming, Landline to Mobile: $10
> 100 Peak Outoging, Mobile to Out-of-Network Mobile $20
> 100 Peak Incoming, Out-of-Network Mobile to Mobile $20
> 100 Off-Peak Outgoing, Mobile to Landline 0
> 100 Off-Peak Incoming, Landline to Mobile 0
> 100 Off-Peak Outgoing, In-Network Mobile to Mobile 0
> 100 Off-Peak Incoming, In-Network Mobile to Mobile 0
> 1000 minutes
> $60
> Average Price Per Minute $0.06
>
> The monthly plan is $40, and I added $20 for the cost to the calling party
> to/from an out-of-network mobile phone, at $0.10 per minute, since we are
> trying to find the total cost.
>
> I tried doing this for a UK plan, and came up with £105.00, using the OFCOM
> termination fee limit, but I'm sure that this is too high.

It'll depend so much on what plan the incoming caller uses. Also it is possible
to be a "phone tart" and get a very cheap contract and phone, by switching
contracts every year. The networks are so desperate to sign people up that they
offer retailers big bonuses for every new customer, which some retailers use to
offer cashback to the customer.

I'll have a go using Orange ED50 plus 1899, the best value indirect access
telco. I need to guess the average call length, say 5 minutes (so 100 mins is 20
calls). Also off-peak is different between weekdays and weekends - so I will
assume half and half.

100 Peak Outgoing, In-Network Mobile to Mobile: £10.60 [1]
100 Peak Incoming, In-Network Mobile to Mobile: £10.60 (charged to
caller)
100 Peak Outoging, Mobile to Landline: £0.60
100 Peak Incoming, Landline to Mobile: £10.60 (charged
to caller)
100 Peak Outoging, Mobile to Out-of-Network Mobile £10.60
100 Peak Incoming, Out-of-Network Mobile to Mobile £10.60 (charged to caller)
100 Off-Peak Outgoing, Mobile to Landline 0
100 Off-Peak Incoming, Landline to Mobile £6.60 (charged to
caller)
100 Off-Peak Outgoing, In-Network Mobile to Mobile 0
100 Off-Peak Incoming, In-Network Mobile to Mobile 0
1000 minutes
Plus £15 per month for the ED50 contract.

£75.2
Average Price Per Minute 7.52ppm

[1] 1899 price. Not sure if Orange to Orange peak calls are cheaper than 10ppm
on ED50.

--
Andy

Archived from groups: uk.telecom.mobile,alt.cellular-phone-tech,alt.cellular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Miguel Cruz wrote:
>
> Yet you continue to make arguments based on the reasoning that people
> in Finland don't talk on the phone very much, as if there's any
> reason for this other than the fact that phone calls there are so
> expensive.

Of course the cost as something to do with the time people use to talk
to phone but most people do not have any need to spend hours every day
on a phone no matter how cheap it is. They have better things to do. The
more people give up landlines the more they use mobile phones for just
idle chatting and plans are developed for that.

When one talks about cost one should not focus only on those who talk
much. If one here wants just to receive calls it costs nothing besides
the actual phone.

Osmo

Archived from groups: uk.telecom.mobile,alt.cellular-phone-tech,alt.cellular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

"Osmo R" <okaro@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HeIme.989$aC.655@reader1.news.jippii.net...
> >>> My point is that you wonder why people have landlines when you
> >>> can make calls for 6.9c per minute on your mobile.
> >>>
> >>> I make the vast majority of my phone calls for much cheaper rates
> >>> than 6.9c per minute (even when you factor in the monthly line
> >>> rental), by virtue of having a landline and my contacts having
> >>> landlines.
> >>
> >> You then make plenty of calls.
> >
> >
> > Not really. Usually about 600 mins a month.
>
> Here 600 minutes from a landline costs 18 euros + 12 cents/call.

It costs me typically £13 a month including line rental.

Typically 600 minutes of calls mobile-mobile would cost around £50 in the UK.

> > The other point, here in the UK, is that if you don't have a landline
> > then you are forcing most of your callers to pay much much more to
> > call you, typically 10 times the cost. You may have reasonable mobile
> > termination rates in Finland, we don't here.
>
> The calls from landlines to mobiles are expensive here also. If one
> views a five minute call then the charge _per minute_ is
>
> Mobile->anything ca. 7-9
> Land->Mobile ca. 17-29
> Local call: ca. 3-4
> LD: ca. 5-9
>
> The longer the call the greater the difference between local and mobile
> calls is. However, as most people use mobiles anyway that's not an issue.

Cross network mobile-mobile calls are just as expensive as landline-mobile calls
here.

> > As I wrote earlier, a friend of mine saw his bill sky rocket when his
> > wife's best friend decided to ditch her landline - their monthly bill
> > which was usually a few pounds went up to over £50.
>
> Well the problem was with his wife, not with her friend. She should have
> used her mobile. Ditching the landlibe avoids such problems.

Yeah right. That would have meant they'd be paying about £60-70 a month for
their phone usage, rather than about £15. Great idea.

They know where the problem was. His wife's friend has now put her landline back
in, and they are a bit wiser about calling mobiles.

--
Andy

Archived from groups: uk.telecom.mobile,alt.cellular-phone-tech,alt.cellular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

DevilsPGD wrote:

>
> I carry both. My pager can do things that no phone on the market
> today can even dream of doing:
>
> 1) Standby time measured in weeks or months. 2) Run from a battery
> that I can pick up at any corner store for $2.

Well not so important if one can get to places that have electricity
for at least twice a week.

> 3) Receive a signal virtually anywhere. That includes elevators,
> underground (basements, subbasements, etc), parkades, train tunnels,
> etc.

Just how does that differ from mobile phones? Here such coverage is
expected.

> 4) Hardware cost under $50 without any contract/commitment/etc
> (Important because if I break it, lose it, whatever else, I don't
> care anywhere near as much as if I lose me $300 cell phone)

Well same applies to mobiles here.

Osmo

Archived from groups: uk.telecom.mobile,alt.cellular-phone-tech,alt.cellular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

"Andy Pandy" <spam8times@wonderful.spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:3g16muFa0nl8U1@individual.net...
>
> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
> news:VpHme.10679$M36.4277@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > Maybe a UK person, can post what the total costs would be for a typical
plan
> > as outlined below, including the termination charges, as I did for the
most
> > expensive U.S. carrier:

<snip>

That's about what the studies showed as well, about 2x the cost in Europe
per call. CPP termination fees really drives up the price.

Archived from groups: uk.telecom.mobile,alt.cellular-phone-tech,alt.cellular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

"Osmo R" <okaro@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MtJme.1028$lu1.945@reader1.news.jippii.net...

[snip]

> There are people who are too polite to hand up on a telemarketer so they
> buy what he sells just to get rid of him. Hanging up is a big no no to
> some people.

That's their problem..!

Ivor

Archived from groups: uk.telecom.mobile,alt.cellular-phone-tech,alt.cellular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Osmo R <okaro@hotmail.com> wrote:
> When one talks about cost one should not focus only on those who talk
> much. If one here wants just to receive calls it costs nothing besides
> the actual phone.

And if you only count Christmas gifts, socks and aftershave are free.

It is not productive in a discussion of the overall cost paid for phones in
a given system, to fixate on exceptional cases such as people who only
receive and never place calls. If everyone were like that, there would be no
phone calls. Someone has to place them, and that someone is paying far more
than they need to, due to an anti-competetive system.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan

Archived from groups: uk.telecom.mobile,alt.cellular-phone-tech,alt.cellular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:56:48 +0300, Osmo R <okaro@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I never call someone after 9 pm unless that was
>agreed beforehand.

Everything's always me me me with Osmo. It never occurs to him that
not everyone lives in Finland or that everyone has the same calling
habits as he does.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Archived from groups: uk.telecom.mobile,alt.cellular-phone-tech,alt.cellular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:56:48 +0300, Osmo R <okaro@hotmail.com> wrote:

>John R. Levine wrote:
>>>> In the US I was paying about US$25/month (19 euro) for unlimited
>>>> calls to local landlines and mobiles. As you can imagine, calling
>>>> patterns in that environment are quite different - people stay
>>>> on the phone for hours.
>>>
>>> Well one can hope the other party does not have a mobile.
>> Depends when. A lot of US plans now offer either unlimited night and
>> weekend minutes or a large enough number that it might as well be
>> unlimited, e.g., I get 3500/mo. This works fine for me, since during
>> the day I tend to be in the office with my landline at hand, and
>> nights and weekends I'm more likely to be out.
>
>With nights do you mean something like after 5 pm or after 9 pm. That
>makes a huge difference.

The most common is 19:00 to 08:00

>Weekends have never had cheaper prices here. As I
>understand those pricings are result of mobile use still being mainly a
>business use.

An example of "weekends" is from Friday at 19:00 to Monday at 08:00

Archived from groups: uk.telecom.mobile,alt.cellular-phone-tech,alt.cellular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

"Ototin" <bangsit@balay.ca> wrote in message
news:il7n91hm67aunac9694f201i97sun6po70@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:56:48 +0300, Osmo R <okaro@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >John R. Levine wrote:
> >>>> In the US I was paying about US$25/month (19 euro) for unlimited
> >>>> calls to local landlines and mobiles. As you can imagine, calling
> >>>> patterns in that environment are quite different - people stay
> >>>> on the phone for hours.
> >>>
> >>> Well one can hope the other party does not have a mobile.
> >> Depends when. A lot of US plans now offer either unlimited night and
> >> weekend minutes or a large enough number that it might as well be
> >> unlimited, e.g., I get 3500/mo. This works fine for me, since during
> >> the day I tend to be in the office with my landline at hand, and
> >> nights and weekends I'm more likely to be out.
> >
> >With nights do you mean something like after 5 pm or after 9 pm. That
> >makes a huge difference.
>
> The most common is 19:00 to 08:00

Actually it's 21:00-0:700.

Archived from groups: uk.telecom.mobile,alt.cellular-phone-tech,alt.cellular,comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 May 2005 12:38:53 +0100, this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.com
> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
> wrote:
>
> >I don't think that's happened at all, and I don't see any evidence
> >that's going to convince _me_- I'm very happy with what I pay to use my
> >mobile phone. It's a question of whether caller pays is better or worse
> >for the consumer. Well, I'm a consumer too, and I've not seen any
> >argument so far that's convinced me I'd want to pay for incoming calls,
> >or that caller pays is the answer for getting UK companies to _lower_
> >their costs. (I'm certainly not arguing that the costs are reasonable.)
> >If you want to frame that as a 'US vs. Europe' argument, then that's
> >entirely your problem. It's certainly not my motivation.
>
> But one wonders *why* you feel you must have the last word that yours
> is superior when the true fact remains that things are as they are and
> you're not going to change them so why rant and holler that you're so
> superior.

Funny, you seem to be the one popping in to have the 'last word', and
I'm genuinely interested in a discussion on the differences in pricing.
Oddly, I'd assumed I'd be able to have a decent discussion on this
issue. Instead, creepy accusations over superiority etc. seem to seep
in, a lot of it from you. I don't know what your problem is, but it's
getting really tiring.

<plonk>

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk