hobbes79

Given more thought, I could just as easily start a thread:

Mobile phones scandal in the UK!

If you call a mobile, it costs 3 or 4 times more than calling a landline! If you dare leave the UK and receive a call while away, not matter what it's for, they charge the caller more too!

In the US, it doesn't cost a penny extra to call a mobile.

They should change everything in the UK to be just like the US!!

It's a scandal, I tell you!

augigi

I didn't call you a dick - I said you sounded like one. A valid point, I think.

RoadWarriorFromLP

Why do you believe it to be reasonable to pay as much as 5-10 times more to call a mobile in the UK than it does elsewhere?

As an example, my current US land line allows me to call UK landlines free of charge, as part of my monthly fee. Yet placing a call to a UK mobile costs $0.30 per minute. That's how substantial the mobile premium can be -- it's great for the person receiving my call, who is indifferent to it, but not so terrific for me, as the one who has to pay for it.

Most foreign systems gear their pricing to encourage texting. They've fooled customers into believing that SMS is a cool, high-tech thing, when in reality, it's just a gimmick to get customers to conserve bandwidth and increase the phone companies' profits.

When I was in Australia, another developed country, I found that it was actually cheaper to use my mobile to call the US than it was to make calls of any type within Australia. So no, the "free incoming calls" don't come cheap, when you consider the entire package. I ultimately judge my expenses by what I have to pay, not whether it is free to answer my phone.

snowbunny

Nonsense and you know it. However, one point of your comparison is somewhat incorrect. If a US cell phone owner "roams" abroad and receives a call, whether or not it originated in the US, the owner will also pay far more per minute of that call than a call received in the US.

I think that for cultural reasons it's perfectly fine to have different systems, and the caller-pays rule is in effect over all of Europe so far as I can tell; at least in the sense that a US caller will pay far more to a mobile. Trouble is, there's no warning given to the US caller.

Time Warner is running a $20 flat fee per month international calling plan. It works great, unless you want to ring someone's mobile in Europe, something that is NOT covered under the $20 flat fee. You can call mobiles based in India, so I expect that India uses the receiver-pays model.

snowbunny

Read post: it's not just the UK. And $0.30 for a mobile terminated call is a bargain!

It's actually the foreign phone companies that are picking up the call from their landline switches and then forwarding the call to the mobile network. They charge the American LD company a fee, and the LD company passes that fee on to the caller. Both earn handsome profits from a small and captive audience here.

Tarkak9

suffice to say, I am in that '10%'. I gave up landlines yonks ago (b4 the DNCR) - got so fed up of the sales calls... they don't/can't call on the cell

$40 for 1100 mins plus free nights & w/e and I can call the UK if need be (not that bad imo for the ability to do so). Cheap imo.

Ray

but your job ..entails traveling around a fair bit ..

You not office or home bound

Folinskyinla

Hi:

I happen to remember "party lines" with a "private line" being charged extra.

It pays to remember that phone numbers used to be billed on geographical distance from physical location to another physical location. The calling party knew how much they would have to pay for the call.

As an aside, it was possible for a person to have a line which, although a "toll" distance from another area, would be considered a "local" to and from that other area. It would be the owner of that number who would pay extra for that phone. But again, everybody knew where they stood.

The celluar system was grafted onto the prior existing system. In fact, I recall people being upset that toll charges would be imposed even if the actual call between a mobile and a land line even if the phones were less than a mile apart.

Personally, I think that it should be that owner of the phone and the callers should be AWARE of what they are doing. It looks like we disagree on that -- you seem to think that the caller should engage in a crap shoot on what his charges will be as long as YOU don't get bothered. I don't think it is OK that you need not disclose in any way that your phone is a cell phone subject to a premium. I don't like that kind of secrecy.

penguinbar

By the way here is the way to call for information from your cell phone in the USA and not incure the usuall $1.50 charge. This is free.
CELL PHONES-411 Calls

Cell phone companies are charging us $1.00 to $1.75 or more for 411
information calls when they don't have to. Most of us do not carry a
telephone directory in our vehicle, which makes this situation even
more of a problem.

When you need to use the 411 information option, simply dial 1 (800)
FREE 411, or 1 (800) 373-3411 without incurring any charge at all.

Program this into your cell phone now.

This is the kind of information people don't mind receiving, so pass it
on to your family and friends. This works on your home telephone as
well!

RoadWarriorFromLP

It's not a secret. Most countries have mobile-only area codes, that allow you to know that you're calling a mobile when you are calling one.

Anthony919

Same slur in effect.

Anthony919

My issue isn't with how much it costs the caller to make a call, either on a landline or on mobile to mobile calls - the people making those calls know the cost, they desire to make the call and they exercise their free choice to do so. It is their lookout as to how much they pay, as it was with me when I had a mobile in the UK - I accepted the cost of using a mobile and I had free choice to use it if I wanted to.

The issue is that I, as a non-instigating party, are forced, without my agreement to pay to recieve a call (open theft if you ask me).
Sure, I don't have to get a mobile phone and the problem is solved, but the society we have created necessitates a mobile phone for a number of scenarios and so, once you've got one and your number becomes known, pretty soon everyone knows your number, its logged into databases and passed around. If I choose to simply not answer the phone, I'll get the "I called you on your cell but you didn't reply" kind of question and the thought in the person's mind as to why you have a mobile if you won't answer it.

I am happy to pay to make calls when I know the cost and can decide that for myself - but I resent paying to receive calls as it is so unjust.

Anthony919

Great tip!

RoadWarriorFromLP

Alright, then -- take it to a UN civil rights tribunal, then. Oh, the horror, the horror...

RoadWarriorFromLP

Such a clever quip. I take it that you aren't on the receiving end of very many phone calls...