Cost to call mobile phones

Discussion in 'UK VOIP' started by Joao Saraiva, Mar 21, 2006.

  1. Joao Saraiva

    Joao Saraiva Guest

    Hi All

    Is there any technical reason why call to MOBILES are so much more expensive
    than calls to LANDLINES when using voip (skype for example) ?

    Or it is just the case that mobile operators are greedy and charge more ?

    I would appreciate your informed posts ...
    Rgds
    JS
    Joao Saraiva, Mar 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Thus spaketh Joao Saraiva:
    > Hi All
    >
    > Is there any technical reason why call to MOBILES are so much more
    > expensive than calls to LANDLINES when using voip (skype for example)
    > ?
    >
    > Or it is just the case that mobile operators are greedy and charge
    > more ?
    >
    > I would appreciate your informed posts ...
    > Rgds
    > JS



    Mobile phone networks have higher termination fees, therefore the cost is
    higher to call them, though VoIP providers might add a little more than usual
    on top to compensate for the lower (or free) cost to call landlines.


    --
    For £5 when referred to easyMobile contact me via
    www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk
    {{{{{Welcome}}}}}, Mar 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Joao Saraiva

    Paul Cupis Guest

    Joao Saraiva wrote:
    > Is there any technical reason why call to MOBILES are so much more expensive
    > than calls to LANDLINES when using voip (skype for example) ?
    >
    > Or it is just the case that mobile operators are greedy and charge more ?


    Mobile operators charge other telcos (including BT) more to terminate
    calls than landline operators charge. Therefore it costs you as a retail
    customer more as well as your provider has to cover their costs.

    It's probably more complicated than that if you look into price
    regulation etc, but that is the gist of it.
    Paul Cupis, Mar 21, 2006
    #3
  4. Joao Saraiva

    JPG Guest

    On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:48:34 -0000, "Joao Saraiva"
    <> wrote:

    >Hi All
    >
    >Is there any technical reason why call to MOBILES are so much more expensive
    >than calls to LANDLINES when using voip (skype for example) ?
    >
    >Or it is just the case that mobile operators are greedy and charge more ?
    >
    >I would appreciate your informed posts ...



    It's particularly galling when calls to US mobiles are free to about
    3p/min. I notice the new Tesco voip is charging 10p /min to UK
    mobiles - a good deal less than most other methods.

    JPG


    >Rgds
    >JS
    >
    JPG, Mar 21, 2006
    #4
  5. Joao Saraiva

    Joao Saraiva Guest

    Thanks all for your input.

    I was going to make the point of the cost of the calls to USA mobiles ...
    practically the same as to landlines. Is it the case that major landline
    operators are also mobile operators ?

    "JPG" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:48:34 -0000, "Joao Saraiva"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >Hi All
    > >
    > >Is there any technical reason why call to MOBILES are so much more

    expensive
    > >than calls to LANDLINES when using voip (skype for example) ?
    > >
    > >Or it is just the case that mobile operators are greedy and charge more ?
    > >
    > >I would appreciate your informed posts ...

    >
    >
    > It's particularly galling when calls to US mobiles are free to about
    > 3p/min. I notice the new Tesco voip is charging 10p /min to UK
    > mobiles - a good deal less than most other methods.
    >
    > JPG
    >
    >
    > >Rgds
    > >JS
    > >

    >
    Joao Saraiva, Mar 21, 2006
    #5
  6. Joao Saraiva

    Jono Guest

    Joao Saraiva formulated the question :

    > "JPG" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:48:34 -0000, "Joao Saraiva"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Hi All
    >>>
    >>> Is there any technical reason why call to MOBILES are so much more
    >>> expensive than calls to LANDLINES when using voip (skype for example) ?
    >>>
    >>> Or it is just the case that mobile operators are greedy and charge more ?
    >>>
    >>> I would appreciate your informed posts ...

    >>
    >>
    >> It's particularly galling when calls to US mobiles are free to about
    >> 3p/min. I notice the new Tesco voip is charging 10p /min to UK
    >> mobiles - a good deal less than most other methods.
    >>
    >> JPG
    >>
    >>
    >>> Rgds
    >>> JS


    > Thanks all for your input.
    >
    > I was going to make the point of the cost of the calls to USA mobiles ...
    > practically the same as to landlines. Is it the case that major landline
    > operators are also mobile operators ?
    >


    In the US, the vast majority of mobile plans charge the recipient for
    the call (or at least the call comes out out the /recipient's/
    inclusive minutes)

    In addition, there is no real difference between mobile & landline
    number ranges - indeed, you can port a number from one to the other.

    The argument for this model is "if you choose to go out & about, why
    should /I/ have to pay extra for the privilege of calling /you/?"
    Jono, Mar 21, 2006
    #6
  7. Thus spaketh Joao Saraiva:
    > Thanks all for your input.
    >
    > I was going to make the point of the cost of the calls to USA mobiles
    > ... practically the same as to landlines. Is it the case that major
    > landline operators are also mobile operators ?
    >


    USA works differently, and why mobile take up was/is slow.

    The extra cost is passed to the person you are calling, that is they have to
    pay to receive your call, either by a per cent rate or out of bundled minutes.
    {{{{{Welcome}}}}}, Mar 21, 2006
    #7
  8. Joao Saraiva

    Ivor Jones Guest

    "Joao Saraiva" <> wrote in
    message news:dvq0e6$12o$2surf.net
    > Thanks all for your input.
    >
    > I was going to make the point of the cost of the calls to
    > USA mobiles ... practically the same as to landlines. Is
    > it the case that major landline operators are also mobile
    > operators ?


    No, it's that US mobiles are not differentiated from landlines for
    charging as the mobile user pays the mobile part of the call, much as you
    do if you roam abroad (only it's a lot cheaper..!)

    You cannot tell from a US number whether it is mobile or fixed and it
    doesn't matter. Numbers can be ported from one to the other as well.

    Ivor

    --
    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
    A: Top-posting.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?
    Ivor Jones, Mar 22, 2006
    #8
  9. Joao Saraiva

    Tony Guest

    "Joao Saraiva" <> wrote in message
    news:dvpapi$hp2$2surf.net...
    > Hi All
    >
    > Is there any technical reason why call to MOBILES are so much more

    expensive
    > than calls to LANDLINES when using voip (skype for example) ?
    >
    > Or it is just the case that mobile operators are greedy and charge more ?
    >


    Yes its the greedy operators. Mobile phone calls are expensive. because its
    a habit of mobile operators.

    They keep getting away with ripping folks off, because the UK people seem to
    accept whatever cost the operators set.

    If they started kicking up a stink and stopped sing the silly mobile, they
    would soon reduce the costs.

    They would have to, to survive.

    While ever they keep getting dumb UK people making them massive profit, they
    will continue to do so.
    Tony, Mar 22, 2006
    #9
  10. Joao Saraiva

    DMac Guest

    > Mobile phone networks have higher termination fees, therefore the cost is
    > higher to call them, though VoIP providers might add a little more than
    > usual on top to compensate for the lower (or free) cost to call landlines.


    What I cannot understand is you can call uk mobs for 4p on the 0844 number
    but the cheapest
    voip tariff is about 10p/min
    Unless the 0844 co is making a loss (unlikely) how are they managing this -
    and what cannot
    you get anything like this rate on voip?
    DMac, Mar 22, 2006
    #10
  11. Joao Saraiva

    Paul Cupis Guest

    DMac wrote:
    >>Mobile phone networks have higher termination fees, therefore the cost is
    >>higher to call them, though VoIP providers might add a little more than
    >>usual on top to compensate for the lower (or free) cost to call landlines.

    >
    > What I cannot understand is you can call uk mobs for 4p on the 0844 number
    > but the cheapest voip tariff is about 10p/min
    > Unless the 0844 co is making a loss (unlikely) how are they managing this -
    > and what cannot you get anything like this rate on voip?


    They are making a loss.
    Paul Cupis, Mar 23, 2006
    #11
  12. Thus spaketh DMac:
    >> Mobile phone networks have higher termination fees, therefore the
    >> cost is higher to call them, though VoIP providers might add a
    >> little more than usual on top to compensate for the lower (or free)
    >> cost to call landlines.

    >
    > What I cannot understand is you can call uk mobs for 4p on the 0844
    > number but the cheapest
    > voip tariff is about 10p/min
    > Unless the 0844 co is making a loss (unlikely) how are they managing
    > this - and what cannot
    > you get anything like this rate on voip?


    They are making a loss.

    VoIP providers are charging more to pay for the other services they provide
    and to compensate for the free calls, I would have thought.
    {{{{{Welcome}}}}}, Mar 23, 2006
    #12
  13. Joao Saraiva

    Guest

    On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:48:34 -0000, "Joao Saraiva"
    <> wrote:

    >Is there any technical reason why call to MOBILES are so much more expensive
    >than calls to LANDLINES when using voip (skype for example) ?


    Yes, there is.

    The mobile networks charge several pence per minute for delivering the
    call the other mobile, which the calling network has to pay - so they
    charge you for it.

    This is the mobile network's greed. PAYG users on 3 can be credited 5p
    per minute from this charge: that's how big a rip-off it is.

    The solution? Don't call mobiles.
    , Mar 25, 2006
    #13
  14. Joao Saraiva

    Guest

    On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:58:12 -0000, "Joao Saraiva"
    <> wrote:

    >I was going to make the point of the cost of the calls to USA mobiles ...
    >practically the same as to landlines.


    US mobiles are different. The recipient of the call pays for the
    mobile leg at the end of the call: incoming calls are chargeable as
    well as outgoing ones in the US (though they normally come out of
    "inclusive" minutes).
    , Mar 25, 2006
    #14
  15. Joao Saraiva

    Guest

    On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:18:38 GMT, Jono <>
    wrote:

    >The argument for this model is "if you choose to go out & about, why
    >should /I/ have to pay extra for the privilege of calling /you/?"


    Indeed, but the opposite argument is "If you want the convenience of
    being able to call me when I go out & about, why should I pay for it?"
    , Mar 25, 2006
    #15
  16. Joao Saraiva

    Ivor Jones Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:
    > On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:18:38 GMT, Jono
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > The argument for this model is "if you choose to go out
    > > & about, why should /I/ have to pay extra for the
    > > privilege of calling /you/?"

    >
    > Indeed, but the opposite argument is "If you want the
    > convenience of being able to call me when I go out &
    > about, why should I pay for it?"


    That one's easy. You obviously want to be called while you are out you
    wouldn't have a mobile..!

    I don't know when I initially call you on your ordinary geographic number
    whether you are out or not, and to the US user it doesn't matter. The cost
    of incoming calls is included in inclusive minutes on contracts and comes
    from pre-paid credit on PAYG and is far cheaper than here. For example, my
    friends in San Francisco have something like 2000 minutes a month for $40
    or so (I don't recall exactly but it's something like that). At those
    prices who cares if some of those minutes are used for incoming calls..?
    In business it encourages callers and may result in extra work..!

    I just wish it was at least an option here.

    Ivor
    Ivor Jones, Mar 25, 2006
    #16
  17. Joao Saraiva

    Ivor Jones Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:
    > On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:58:12 -0000, "Joao Saraiva"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > I was going to make the point of the cost of the calls
    > > to USA mobiles ... practically the same as to landlines.

    >
    > US mobiles are different. The recipient of the call pays
    > for the mobile leg at the end of the call: incoming calls
    > are chargeable as well as outgoing ones in the US (though
    > they normally come out of "inclusive" minutes).


    Of which there are so many at a much cheaper rate than here so it doesn't
    matter if some of them are used for incoming. I just wish it was at least
    an option here.

    Ivor
    Ivor Jones, Mar 25, 2006
    #17
  18. Joao Saraiva

    Paul Cupis Guest

    Ivor Jones wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:
    >> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:18:38 GMT, Jono
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> The argument for this model is "if you choose to go out
    >>> & about, why should /I/ have to pay extra for the
    >>> privilege of calling /you/?"

    >> Indeed, but the opposite argument is "If you want the
    >> convenience of being able to call me when I go out &
    >> about, why should I pay for it?"

    >
    > That one's easy. You obviously want to be called while you are out you
    > wouldn't have a mobile..!


    What if you carry a mobile for "emergencies" as not as a primary point
    of contact?

    > I don't know when I initially call you on your ordinary geographic number
    > whether you are out or not, and to the US user it doesn't matter. The cost
    > of incoming calls is included in inclusive minutes on contracts and comes
    > from pre-paid credit on PAYG and is far cheaper than here. For example, my
    > friends in San Francisco have something like 2000 minutes a month for $40
    > or so (I don't recall exactly but it's something like that).


    I don't spend $40 a month on my mobile, I don't even spend £10 a month -
    why would this be a benefit to me?

    > In business it encourages callers and may result in extra work..!


    What about non-business users?

    > I just wish it was at least an option here.


    That would be good, but I wouldn't want it to the mandatory, or even the
    default.
    Paul Cupis, Mar 25, 2006
    #18
  19. Joao Saraiva

    alexd Guest

    Paul Cupis wrote:

    > Ivor Jones wrote:


    >> You obviously want to be called while you are out you
    >> wouldn't have a mobile..!


    > What if you carry a mobile for "emergencies" as not as a primary point
    > of contact?


    That's the cost of carrying a mobile, if you're paying for incoming calls.

    >> I don't know when I initially call you on your ordinary geographic number
    >> whether you are out or not, and to the US user it doesn't matter. The
    >> cost of incoming calls is included in inclusive minutes on contracts and
    >> comes from pre-paid credit on PAYG and is far cheaper than here. For
    >> example, my friends in San Francisco have something like 2000 minutes a
    >> month for $40 or so (I don't recall exactly but it's something like
    >> that).


    > I don't spend $40 a month on my mobile, I don't even spend £10 a month -
    > why would this be a benefit to me?


    He didn't say it would - he was just saying he'd like to have a choice. His
    ability to choose won't preclude your ability to carry on doing what you're
    doing.

    --
    <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ()
    10:50:19 up 14 days, 36 min, 2 users, load average: 0.01, 0.09, 0.08
    This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
    alexd, Mar 26, 2006
    #19
  20. Joao Saraiva

    Paul Cupis Guest

    alexd wrote:
    > Paul Cupis wrote:
    >> I don't spend $40 a month on my mobile, I don't even spend £10 a month -
    >> why would this be a benefit to me?

    >
    > He didn't say it would - he was just saying he'd like to have a choice. His
    > ability to choose won't preclude your ability to carry on doing what you're
    > doing.


    Thanks for snipping this from your reply:

    Paul Cupis wrote:
    > Ivor Jones wrote:
    >> I just wish it was at least an option here.

    >
    > That would be good, but I wouldn't want it to the mandatory, or even
    > the default.
    Paul Cupis, Mar 26, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. joseph
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,269
  2. princes

    Mobile reviews,Secrets,mobile venues, mobile themes

    princes, Jun 2, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    488
    princes
    Jun 2, 2007
  3. princes

    Mobile 3GP Videos, Mobile Games, Mobile secrets

    princes, Jun 5, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    443
    princes
    Jun 5, 2007
  4. princess

    Mobile 3GP Videos, Mobile Games, Mobile secrets,

    princess, Jun 5, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    735
    princess
    Jun 5, 2007
  5. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    446
    Ivor Jones
    Dec 26, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page