Slashdot Mirror
Calling Cell Phones Could Cost More
tusixoh writes "CNN.com reports on another reason to keep a close eye on your phone bill. This fall, a subtle realignment in America's phone systems could cause a dramatic increase in what we pay to call cell phones that were once considered local now incur higher toll charges from landlines. The report states that it is unclear how many customers will be affected by these changes. No phone company would provide details on where people could be affected." Update: 10/25 12:31 GMT by M : The IP list carried a couple of informative articles on this: the original situation, and the informed commentary.
Land line telcos are doing what they can to make their money. Look closely at your bill and ensure every fee is accounted for. Or don't and pay something for nothing.
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
Isn't this how it has been in Europe and other countries since the beginning? I remember it costing a lot more to call someone on a cell phone from a landline when I was in England. Just another one of those things that Americans will have to get used to, that everyone else seems to have acclimated to already.
I drink to prepare for a fight; tonight I'm very prepared. -Soda Popinksi
subtle realignment!
Call in the army!
that i'll continue to make my cell my main phone. now if i could just get a bogus number for all the times i don't want to give out my cell number for fear of it being sold... ;)
(Fot those in EU US cell phones have regular numbers and are called at regular rates, often free from your local area code)
Because of this, you can practically get a phone for free with no contract, so this model has its up sides. Personally, I prefer the US approach, he who has the phone foots the (monthly) bill!
I'll start this comment by saying this:
I'm cheap.
I had no features added to my land line and made VERY FEW long distance calls. Either way my bill came out to around 30+ bucks. No caller ID, No Call Waiting, Nothing.
So... I decided to switch to a Cell Phone. It's only 42 bucks WITH TAX. The key is WITH TAX. With nights & weekends I'm always on the phone at night & costs nothing.
The point of my story:
Land lines are going to die!.
I have no desire to ever have a land line. Right now it's just cablemodem & Cell phone. That's all I need. I don't even have a dial-up.
My thoughts...
There must be a letter outlining the new charges and other changes made to your billing plan.
This is not the red herring you're looking for, move along.
Here's how it works:
This is one reason mobiles are more common overseas. They didn't just start as executive toys. For example, workmen on call sites could be given a prepaid phone (with viturally no money on it), and then be reachable.
Madness takes its toll. Exact change please.
... why I don't use phones, period. Well, to be perfectly honest, I call my girlfriend when she really needs/wants me to, but other than that, I stay away from both cell and normal phones.
...
:-D
Cell phones are not very reliable. Calls are dropped all of the time. I've had conversations where one of the two parties involved has had to call back two, three, even four times because of lost reception. Also, many towns don't want cell towers, so you may find while driving down I-95 that certain areas just kill your cell phone's reception.
I also don't *want* to be reached sometimes, especially by a boss or other superior. Cellphones eliminate that freedom because you're always "plugged in" to the (digital)/(rest of the) world. That means eight hour work days turn into 9 hour work days, and you may get a call while at a baseball game on Saturday or church Sunday morning.
I just set-up my personal voicemail box today (2 or 3 months into the school year), but that was only because my mom was about to disown me if I didn't do so. I tell her I prefer email, but she prefers the phone. So, I can't win there, and she's my mom, so
I also don't like people who can barely drive to begin with to use cellphones on the road. I know there have been studies that show it's worse than driving drunk!
Anyway, this ends my rant...sorry for running-on so terribly, but I really hate cellphones
Eric Krout dot com, ya'll...
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
The rate plans in Sweden work the same way. On the flip side, unlike the US, mobile to mobile is free for the callee. I didn't even have a land line when I lived over there.
Any industry where the government has the nerve to charge a 20 to 30 dollar tax every month on your cell phone bill is undeserving of my money anyway.
There was an article in a local NYC newpaper about how most of the "special" taxes for 911 and such don't even goto their intended causes. I don't call em, I don't use em; and I won't until the pricing structure is totally revamped.
It wouldn't suprise me at all if this was an attempt to get more people to use cell phones. The phone companies make more money off of cell phones compaired to your average land line per month. Cell to cell calls are often coverd by special minute deals. Plus then there will be more people to spam with text messages about special offers.
We're going to make information free Mr. Anderson, whether you like it, or not.
So right now I'm sitting in a computer lab (working on an overdue assignment). There is a large sign posted (where everyone can see it) that say's "No Cellphones!".
Guess what? In the past 5 minutes at least 5 cells phones have rang! This is disturbing to those of use trying to work.
On a more serious note. Maybe higher charges would make the inappropriate use of cells phones less common. I've seen numerous car accidents caused by people on cell phones who weren't paying attention to what they were doing.
Maybe it'll also mean less phones ringing during movies!
Here's one grumpy nerd hoping...
"It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
When I lived in Brazil, it was counted per click or unit by Embratel. You usually got about one unit per minute on a local call, but every call to a cell phone would eat units away quickly (about one every seven - ten seconds). Your phone bill would come based on the number of units you used, or the calling card you used on the street was based on units instead of minutes. So, in the end, you paid more for cell calls because they used more units.
There's a 68.71% chance you're right.
this makes sense, however I'm wondering why, with the expanding wireless networks, why the wireless companies haven't managed to places local centers near all existing landline centers...
"It's the Law of the Universe, and I'm the sheriff." Slash-cott 2/10-2/17
Similar article from DaytonDailyNews:
1 9cellphones.html
http://www.activedayton.com/ddn/business/daily/10
Care of Google News: Google News
?sp
I know this will probably never happen, but what would be the upsides/benefits to a universal number- ie a number that goes to your cell and your home phone and maybe even your work phone. You could even take it further by integrating it into other services like .Net
"What we have here is a failure to communicate"
The Warden, Cool Hand Luke
...as more and more people use cells as there only phone. The bill for keeping up the infrastructure will be footed by fewer and fewer people.
The sound quality of land lines pales in comparison to cell phones, if for no other reason than the old digital vs. analog debate.
Why does it matter to the large phone companies if you are calling a cell phone or a landline? Almost all the major phone carriers have wireless entities (SBC and Bellsouth, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint,etc). Pretty soon will probably see stuff like "As a Verizon customer you can call any Verizon wireless customer nationwide for free. Call an AT&T customer though and it'll cost you $25/min and your left kidney). Geez...
what it will means is it won't be free to call from the land line, unless you change your cell phone number to be in the same area code and prefix, or something very close. Call the company and find out what the service area is specifically for your phone... under TDMA it's called the SID code, under GSM it's called the CSA
Ralph: "Um, Miss Hoover? There's a dog in the vent."
Ms. Hoover: "Ralph, remember the time you said Snagglepuss was outside?"
Ralph: "He was using his cellphone."
Well, I can't find out any information about you from your webpage, but I assume from your comment that you're in college. Here's a news flash: In the real world, most people use phones more than email (or instant messaging) for getting in touch.
I thought I didn't need a phone until I had to live without one for two years (couldn't afford the outrageous prices on campus.) Try living without a phone if you need to get your car repaired/towed, for example. Or if you need to get in touch with someone who doesn't have a computer. It's really difficult. A pay phone is not always the answer, because sometimes people need to call you back.
Have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?
Progress... maybe.
Laws are for people with no friends.
All cell phones should come with a "Manner" mode where all sounds are turned off and only vibration is activated.
If your phone and those of those around you don't have this feature, you ought to return it as defective.
Until you as a consumer start demanding that you aren't going to buy phones that are seriously limited in functionality, you will continue to be screwed with subpar products.
The comparison with Europe is pointless, as it's not going there anytime soon. The article says that only zones using reverse billing (very few) will be affected, you will pay LD calling those cells. The rest, paying for airtime when receiving a call, remains. A more important point is that cell. numbers will become portable among carriers. This is much more newsworthy to me!
have you been defaced today?
yeah right, /.
busy working awaying posting messages on
I'm in the process of dropping my Nextel service, and so changed my rate plan to the cheapest they offer. When I did so, the customer service person told me something to the effect of "with this plan, land line callers may pay more to call you". I didn't give it much thought, but this is certainly what they meant. Perhaps more expensive wireless plans cover that fee on behalf of the caller ... ?
Increasing the cost of something will not eliminate stupidity. Just as you cannot legislate against stupidity.
People who can't turn off their phone or set it on vibrate in certain public areas (restaurants, movie theaters, live music events, etc.) just don't have common sense, and you could never raise the cost to a level to keep it away from all of them.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I wouldn't mind this if it meant not being charged or loosing minutes when someone called me on my cell. If they want to talk to me let them pay for it. After all I've been paying to hear them.
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
Maybe this will discourage telephone solicitors from calling cell phones? that would be reason enough to make my main phone a cell-phone.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The title is totaly wrong for this story. It need to change to: "Being interupted 24x7 Could Cost More".
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
The landline companies have yet to offer the calling freedom and rates that are standard with cell phones. They will lose customers if they institute even more charges for what were local calls.
In the UK if i go abroad with my UK cellphone say for arguments sake Spain and you call me from anywhere then you will only pay the standard premium cost (approx 40p per min) but as my phone is officially "roaming" as its in another country, I have to pay for the international part of your call to cover the multiple network operators involved ie: the price of a international call from England to Spain so ineffect its like a reverse charge call !
and you feel ripped off!
a lot of people have been caught out when their friends have called them while they are on holiday and they chat thinking its a regular call until they get home and see their cellphone bill and see hideous charges incurred for other peoples calls, needless to say sales calls get a mouthful of abuse.
as for benefits, I really dont want to make it easier for people to reach me. So no thanks!
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
at least here in England (and Europe I presume from reading the other comments) the calling party pays. Which makes sense. You make the call, you pay for it. I don't want to pay for YOUR DECISION to call me! I primarily don't use my phone to call people, instead, I use it for text messages and for recieving calls. Thus, I am quite happily able to live off £10 of pre-paid credit for months on end (i get free txts) - which suits my meagre budget just fine.
ppl in the US should just stop whining and accept the fact that the most of the other continents are charging more for mobile calls - you guys were just spoilt :-p *pouts*
Fight Crime - Shoot Back!
Cellphones eliminate that freedom because you're always "plugged in" to the (digital)/(rest of the) world.
Cell phones come with an "off" switch these days.
Well, at least we know why your assignment is overdue.
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
For instance, in Texas basic phone service is around $20 a month. That gets you local calls in a local metropolitan area(not the greater metropolitan area), or, if you are in a rural area, perhaps a 10-15 mile radius. If you call outside that small area, you are charged a long distance toll that can easily be twice the interstate long distance toll. You can avoid this toll for the small fee of around $30 a month. If you want the other services, like caller ID, voice mail, etc, that will cost $40. The total, with taxes, is well over $100.
Why again do we have a residential land line? For less than $100 I can get plenty minutes, all the services, plus free long national long distance on my cell phone. I like having a land line so I can have a place that telemarketers and other annoying persons can call, not to mention the DSL. That is sort of worth $25 a month. But $30 more a month to avoid a toll for calling next door. That is crazy.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
This is *exactly* the reason that I switched to Vonage from my phone provider (PacBell) -- because calling cell phones were getting too expensive.
With Vonage you can check your calls online, get any area code prefix you want in the USA (how cool is that), setup voice mail and forwarding online, and lots of other goodies. Plus, having a flat rate per month for the entire US doesn't hurt either :)
The system has worked well for me so far, with only minor artifacts in the sound quality under pretty heavy traffic on the cable modem.
I already got rid of my home phone and just use a cell phone. Also, I will be moving to VoIP at the office as soon as Vonage can get me a Denver area code.
It's nice to be free from those local phone service bastards.
It's been this way in New Zealand for as long as I can remember. I don't understood why cellular communications is still so expensive. Consider a text message - at 150 characters long for 20 cents, that's a bandwidth cost of approx NZ$1400 a megabyte! Someone's raking it in...
This is very localized, but here in New York on Verizon it would cost $30+ a month if I wanted unlimited local calling. Instead, I pay about $17/month and pay about $0.10 per local call. Unless you make 150+ local calls a month, this works out to be better. Seeing as I make about 5, and mostly use it so people can reach me, I like this. I also split this with my roommate so its even cheaper. The reason I don't have a cell phone? I hate them. The reception. The plans. The contracts. The restrictions. Etc, etc. ..and if cable ever goes down, I can dial-up into the university dial-up.
The space unintentionally left unblank.
I used to use a cell phone exclusively, too, until a certain indicent happened about 6 months ago.
What happened is that some drunk redneck or gangbanger or something blew apart the local McDonalds sign with a shotgun.
However, what you didn't know is that cell phone towers are hidden in places like that -- the only indicator is a little notch or a light in the sign.
I spent hours talking on my phone during the time, which I thought was free, but since the McDonalds sign was destroyed, it went ROAMING. I had a $600 phone bill that month, which I tried to explain and still refused to pay, so they disconnected me.
I am now currently phoneless, but with GAIM and email, I'm ok.
CowboyNeal posted this story? and the previous one? I thought he was just a made-up poll answer!
" Because of this, you can practically get a phone for free with no contract, so this model has its up sides. Personally, I prefer the US approach, he who has the phone foots the (monthly) bill! "
One plus of cell phones. No listing in the phone book. Telemarketers would eat me out of house and home if I had to pay for all their calls, plus my own. At least the people on the other end have to pay for their connection.
Personally, if my phone bill is going to have extra charges because I'm calling someone's cell phone, I simply will not call cell phones. I already pay monthly fees and taxes up the wazoola to be connected to the phone system as it is. I will not pay extra to call a cellular phone.
If they implement this, I also expect to be warned when I dial a cell number, as they are currently no different from regular phone numbers to your average Joe. If I hear the warning, oh well, clickity click goes the receiver back on the cradle.
Then there is the issue of someone who has their land line forwarded to a cell number. Who would pick up the tab then, the person making the original call, or the person who has the number forwarded?
You all know how talking on your cell while driving is just as dangerous as drinking, I'm sure. Well, I was doing just that, endangering children and pedestrians and generally being a one-handed menace on the road. I ended up plowing into a Chevron gas-price sign, the kind that is lit up at night to tell you how cheap they are compared to the Texaco down the street.
;-) I guess I completely took out the transmitter because my reception dropped to zero and the phone switched to analog roaming.
Apparently, this sign was a cell tower (albeit a very very low tower
I racked up about $170 in roaming charges from that incident, what with having to call AAA, my wife, the office, and also to finish the call I was on during the accident.
I'm not saying that I would have saved anything by using a landline instead, in fact I wouldn't have been able to call anyone for help except from the Chevron payphone for which I wasn't carrying any coins.
Giving up phones isn't the answer, it's mainly a matter of being aware of where you can use your phone and where you can't.
It's not even a good ATTEMPT at being funny.
P.S. Learn how to spell.
From Websters [m-w.com]
an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount
Or from the OED:
Charged by way of, acquired by virtue of, usury; exorbitant, excessive.
It's only if you are calling a number whose physical switch is outside your local landline calling area.
For example, I'll take Delaware as an example since it's dead simple. Three counties, three rate centers. If you have a cell phone whose number is from county #1, then county #2 and #3 pay normal intra-lata rates to call your number. Users in county #1 will continue to not pay.
In Delaware, cell companies give you a choice what county you want your number from so most people get one in the same county they live.
Let's take another theoretical example. Let's say you live in Benson AZ and your cell phone number is from Tucscon. It's a toll call from Benson to Tucson for landline users, but since Benson isn't big enough to have its own infrastructure for basing cell phone NUMBERS out of it (not towers), then the charges to call a cell phone based in Tucson from a landline in Benson were waived.
(Above just being an example of a small town with no local calling to its neighboring big town that I know, it's not a literal example)
The OED says:
Charged by way of, acquired by virtue of, usury; exorbitant, excessive. Freq. with interest.
Note frequently, but not necessarily.
$20 a month for basic service? that's insane. i pay $14 a month through southwestern bell. it's $25 for a "metro" line that lets you call basically anywhere from mckiney to south dallas, and from misquite to DFW, and anywhere inbetween (the greater metropolitan area,as you called it). the "toll" is about $10. i get free call waiting, and DSL. my total bill was $59.63 last month, and my roomate and i split the bill, making it about $25 a month for everything. we use phone cards for the (few) long distance calls we make (mostly to his girlfriend in austin). he goes through about 1 $10 phone card every other week. total cost? a hell of a lot less than $100 a month.
moox. for a new generation.
i am 99.9% sure in the early days of car phones (and when "portable phones" were bag phones) that in the United States both parties paid. i am thinking early/mid 80's..... since i was about 10 then, i was not using car phones and i was not paying the phone bill. i can not be 100% sure, but i really do think it was the case.
any of the older people remember?
I've maintained for a long-time that the telcos would much rather have residential customers on wireless as opposed to landline. The residential landline service has been subsidized by business customers for decades, and the telcos are salivating over the prospect of putting that money into the profit column.
Since all the RBOC's have their own wireless ventures, changes in pricing structures would prompt the most upwardly mobile (meaning "has discretionary income") customers to transition from landline to mobile. This moves potentially highly profitable customers from a fixed-rate service to a service that is more useage-based. Sure you get 3,000 minutes per month on your cell phone, but even when the billing is the same, the telco should eventually get a return on not having to manage so much copper in residential areas. Or, at the very least, freeing up some of the infrastructure from voice circuits allows the pairs to be used for DSL/other services without the incredulous expense of sending big burly men out to string more cable.
That may not seem like a big deal until you consider that many of the residential areas are using copper that's been hanging on poles or in the wet ground for more than 40 years. Getting away from or recycling for other purposes the existing buried infrastructure seems to be very forward thinking, which would appear to be out of character for telcos.
No phone company would provide details on where people could be affected.
They should have said: the only customers who will be affected are those who call wireless phones from their land lines. If you don't call a wireless phone from your home phone, you have nothing to worry about. You can always tell a wireless phone number from a land phone number because the former has 7 or 10 digits (depending on the inclusion of the area code), wherease a wireless number has 7 or 10 digits (depending on the inclusion of the area code).
moto411.com
In America, how am I supposed to know that a particular phone number is cellular or not? It's not as if they are restricted to a particular area code, or you have to dial a special prefix to reach cellphone numbers (as it is in some other countries). If the phone is based in my city, I can just dial 7 digits as if it were next door. In some circumstances I am not in a position to ask what type of phone it is prior to calling the person. Then it's only weeks after making the call that I find out, after getting hit with a high phone bill for the airtime charges.
This is just another way to rip off consumers by having them run up charges on their phone bill without knowing it until after the fact.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Did anyone read the article? What the phone companies did is *worse* than that. They eliminated something that *will* affect many dialup ISP users. Not to mention all those companies in New York City that pay not to have their area changed (although that's a whole other story)...
What the local phone companies are getting rid of is "reverse billing." This is a service which allows a company located in Region A to offer a phone number in Region B by paying the difference in cost for phone calls made to their Region B number. When cell phone companies first started up, they only had callable offices in relatively few locations, which could have made calling cell phones expensive. Nowadays, this is not a bit deal anymore.
Unfortunately, a lot of other firms like using reverse lookups. ISPs use reverse billing to allow them to have phone numbers all over the place while maintaining only a few central dialup pools. Outreach programs often use these numbers to reach out to communities that they would not have been able to easily call them otherwise.
Personally, I feel (*hope*) that CNN seems to be missing some details. If the phone companies truely are getting rid of reverse billing, one would think that they would be getting rid of all their 800/888/877/866 numbers that are *entirely* reverse billed down to pay phone costs. And if a cell phone provider with a central switch in Region A serves customers in region A', and said switch is located in region A, I don't see why reverse billing would come into play; the cell phone company would be like any other large business that just happened to own a few hundred phone numbers in the area.
This will have zero impact on me, which is one of the reasons why I decided to take control of my phone bill. I was getting pretty sick of SBC trying to stick it to me every way that they could.
My last phone bill? $76.69. Same as the month before it. And that included standard local telephone service, unpublished number, voice mail (with telephone or web access to pick up messages and pager/email notification), caller id, call waiting, 3-way calling, speed dial, anonymous call rejection, and maybe another feature or two I don't remember. (I still remember SBC billing me for "touch tone". Bastards.)
On top of that, I now get free calling 24x7 to anywhere within my area code. And free calling 24x7 to anywhere within my state. And free calling 24x7 to anywhere within the continental United States. Frankly, the only thing I have to worry about is accidently calling a Canadian number.
My last phone bill had 1,739 minutes of long distance in 249 calls, for an added fee of only $0.00. And no, I didn't have to just call members of the plan. This was the rate to absolutely any regular telephone number in the US.
I was on SBC's "local plus" plan, which billed me about $30/month extra on top of basic telephone service to call anywhere within my area code for free. Now, I'm saving money, got tons more features, and don't have to worry about fluctuating phone bills. Thank God.
Yes, I know. This absolutely isn't the perfect plan for everyone. But MCI's The Neighborhood really has a lot going for it if you've got a regular phone bill that is at least $70. I wish their financial condition was better. I'd like to see them tear SBC a new hole.
There's two problems I see with VOIP over cable modem. Most cable is strung from poles. Regular phone and DSL is sometimes on the pole, but usually buried underground. Bad weather, or accident and your connection is history. Two if your phone service is down, I believe that the law requires that phone companies have to fix it in a certain time period. You have no such guarentee with cable. Try doing without cable,internet, and phone. Ouch! Also they give you only 500 minutes. The rest could be at a higher rate. Cell phones with the 3000-4000 minutes can do better.
This is how it works in Japan. I think it's great because when people call you, they hurry up as THEY get the bill.
This is how it should be: If people REALLY want to talk to you, they should pay the price, not you..!
With the current issues involving telemarketers and cell phone users, this is also a great idea to get rid of telemarketers. You can have a fun chat with them while thinking about their phone bill is going up...
-- Leeeter than leet
because like mentioned previously, outside the US calls to mobiles are actually more costly than to land lines. But my post is actually more of a question to US cellphone owners:
How much (on average) does an outgoing call from your mobile costs? Please provide explanation such as within same area code or otherwise, service operator, etc.
Do you get charged for incoming calls as well?
Do you have prepaid packages? How popular is it and what are its pros and cons?
I live in Malaysia and work in Singapore, and I use prepaid packages for cellphone usage. In Malaysia, I'm using the HotLink package from Maxis, where as in Singapore I use the M Card by M1. A significant difference between the two is that in Singapore, they actually charge for incoming calls, something that doesn't happen in Malaysia.
Which method does the mobile operators in your countries follow?
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
this one will come back and bite them in the end. How many people do you see using payphones anymore? Only the desperate. This attempt to bail themselves out will backfire as cellular users give up their home phones; leaving only the desperate (or destitute) to have landlines. After 'deposits' and car-loan style credit checks, there's another nail in the coffin.
I think with the interesting people, their lives can't possibly be wrapped up into a nice little package.
In a perfect world the end user could select the rate for the incoming call. If it was an important call from someone I want to talk to then I don't mind paying my share of the connection time. But if its a pesky hanger oner than they can pay to talk to me and I'll do a revenue share with the phone company. Perhaps, I can turn my phone into a profit center?
It's a shame that vonage isn't available with Missouri Zip codes. I would love to OWN my phone number.
Also, how is the latency?
I personally use my cell phone for almost all my calls. I have no quality or dropped call problems that others mention. I'm on sprint.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Very few people are going to be affected by this change. The issue only applies to geographically large area codes, in which certain numbers within the area code actually constitute long distance calls. For example, if your area code is AAA, then the number:
1-AAA-333-1234
might be local, while
1-AAA-444-1234
is a long distance call. In these area codes, the three digit "prefix" after the area code is what determines where you are calling, and calling between certain pairs of prefixes is long distance.
How does this apply to cell phones? In very geographically spread-out area codes, cell phone service providers do not necessarily have a prefix in every fare zone. Returning to the example, a cell phone company might have the prefix 1-AAA-455, which is local from a 444- phone, but not a 333- phone.
In these situations, people living in the 333 calling area might be assigned 455 cell phone numbers, which would be long distance when called from a local phone. In the past, what happened is that if someone called 455 from a 333 phone, the cell phone provider would be "reverse billed" for the long distance charges. Cell providers didn't mind this because it didn't happen very often, and because they hoped it would lead to cell phone adoption in new markets (in which they might eventually install their own equipment and get their own prefix).
Now what's happening is that the land-line providers want to end the reverse billing, primarily because it is very complicated to implement. In particular, there are going to be some changes whereby people will get to keep their cell phone numbers even if they switch mobile phone companies. When this happens, the existing implementation of reverse billing will not work any more--things are complicated by the fact that now a call to 455 might need to be reverse billed to one of several different cell phone companies.
Since reverse billing is so rare anyway, the land line companies successfully lobbied to stop implementing it.
Note that this is very different from say, Europe, where calling a cell phone is always more expensive than calling a local land line. All that's happening is that there will be some fare zones in which it is impossible to get a cell phone number. So some people may not be able to call any cell phones free from their land lines. However, for any particular cell phone there will always be land lines somewhere that can call it with a local call.
In any event, highly populated areas with overlay area codes (where calling accross area codes is not long distance) should see no change in how calls to cell phones are billed.
Oh goody. I get to post my favorite rant on why "caller pays" isn't better. In a nutshell, here's why:
When the person who owns the cellphone pays for their own calls, they have a strong incentive to seek out the cheapest plan they can get. Hence, they put direct pressure on their cellphone company to be more efficient and keep their operating costs as low as possible.
When the person who owns the cellphone doesn't pay for the call, the charges for the call are "reverse-billed" back to the caller. Since the caller isn't a customer of the cellphone company, the cellphone company has far less incentive to keep the reverse-charges low. (Ever notice that collect calls are more expensive than regular long-distance calls? A similar economic principle is at work.) Typically the government steps in to regulate the prices that companies are allowed to charge, and that's rarely as efficient as direct competition.
I'm convinced that over the long-run, the "caller-pays" system will result in higher costs than a "cellphone-owner-pays" system. This depends, of course, on the remaining competitive barriers coming down: in the US, for instance, it's still too difficult to switch from one provider to the other. Hopefully the new regulations which allow cellphone owners to switch providers without losing their phone number will help in this area.
Incidentally, if my explanation didn't make sense, here's a much more detailed explanation.
From what I understand, if you use Verizon in the Boston area, then it does cost to call 'local' cell phones. I guess they are just getting the jump on everyone
Tibbon
tibbon.com
Now if I only could get an ADSL line without a hardline that would be nice, 18 months ago I had one from Covad, but now they won't even do that oh well. Until then I'll be paying the idiot tax (I mean verizon tax).
They will die, I see no doubt in that fact. Cell phone towers are popping up everywhere. On vacation to my hometown just this past week I recall seeing 6 cell towers that were built in the 3 years since I moved away from that area.
Reception may be a problem in some areas, but I'd say it's rapidly improving.
You werre roaming in an area about the same size as the US, with the same number of people, and your phone bill cost about $150/month?
That's insanely high!
I have a plan with Verizon that gives me 300 minutes during the day, and 4000 on the nights and weeknds, for $35. The calls can be to and from anywhere in the US. There are no other charges (except taxes, of course.) That's it!
Is this unusual? What are typical cell phone rates for people roaming all over the EU like?
No, you're paying for your own calls. Just because somebody calls you doesn't mean that you're not involved in the conversation.
I admit that it can suck if you answer a lot of wrong numbers or undesirable calls... But that's what caller ID and voicemail is for, and they work pretty well for the most part. I'm convinced that the American system is actually better, and you certainly avoid messy situations like the one described by the poster above. When somebody calls me from abroad, I know I'm not paying their international charges.
. . . that since these numbers are long distance, a landline user must dial the access code "1" before the number? Otherwise, the customer could place a toll call without knowing it, which I imagine would result in lots of indignant letters to public utilities commissions, and we know how much the telco's love that.
We have the same deal with Cell Phones in Japan. All incoming calls are free, and the use of email often negates the need for outgoing calls. And yes, I did say email, not that dinky SMS protocol.
Most folks don't even bother getting a land line since you have to actually purchase the line for about $600.00+. Calling a local land line is about 3 cents per minute and calling a cell phone is around 10 to 12 cents per minute. Cell phones have a completely different prefix, so you won't accidentally get raped on the bill. The flip side of course is that outgoing calls on cell phones run about 20 cents per minute and you won't find any 4000 night/weekend plans around here. My plan is 5000 yen/mo. (about $38 at the current rate) and I get around 200 outgoing minutes excluding the 1 to 2 yen per email charge and my daily web activities checking news and weather. If I have a busy social calendar, which is about 4 dates per week plus assorted work functions, my bill is arround $100.00. I never use my land line for anything more than a link to my 12MBit ADSL provider.
I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
"Cell phones are not very reliable."
I haven't had any problems in four years. These problems happen to people who buy crap phones and crap service. The same is true for land lines.
"I also don't *want* to be reached sometimes"
So turn off your phone. Duh.
"I just set-up my personal voicemail box today"
That happens with email and land-line answering machines. It's never happened to me on voicemail or anywhere else, but maybe I'm just lucky.
"I also don't like people who can barely drive to begin with"
There's the real problem. Just because someone's an idiot who uses a cell phone doesn't make cell phones bad.
"...sorry for running-on so terribly, but I really hate cellphones"
If I were to guess, I'd say you're probably just jealous. You associate cell phones with "the burguiose", or maybe the "five-percenters" who own everything. Even if my guess is wrong about you, it's probably right about most cell-haters. They group people by the tools they use: SUV, Macintosh, guns, skateboards. It's not much different from grouping people by ethnicity or nationality.
Well get over it. These people have self-determination, whether they admit it or not, and choose to use their tools in ways which offend the rest of us. Don't hate the tool, hate the abuse. Guns don't kill people, cell phones don't drive, skateboards don't ram into pedestrians and roll into traffic.
Deal directly with the real problems (murder, negligence, carelessness), not the tools involved or the groups of people who use the same tools.
Thank you.
I live in the US and use Vonage VoIP. I've noticed that Vonage charges me only 5 cents/minute to call a UK landline, but a whopping 23 cents/minute to call a UK cellphone. It's possible that Vonage is inserting some sort of markup there, but given that their rates are generally bare-bones low, it would appear that British cellphone companies are charging (close to) 18 cents/minute to simply provide service from the cellphone tower to the handset-- not including the long distance charges. That's a lot.
Here's my question: what do you do if you feel that cost is too high? Under the US system, when my phone bills are too high I look for a cheaper provider (the mere threat of this keeps prices low.) If the prices are too high in the UK, it looks to me like you have a whole lot less recourse. Either you shell out that 18 cents/minute, or you don't call other peoples' cellphones at all. Where are these charges set, anyway-- does the government mandate the charges?
It seems as though you've got a lot more leverage over your cellphone company's charges when you pay for all the costs vs. when there's reverse-billing going on. Theoretically, this should lead to a more competitive and therefore more efficient US cellphone industry, which benefits us all.
I don't understand the concept here. Raise the general cost of a land phone line and how many more people will just ditch them altogether and use only a cell phone?
People seem much brighter once you light them on fire.
I'm sure there's a way to hook up the alarm system to a cell phone, but that's not cost effective. That's one of the main reasons for me not to do what you suggest.
- sigs are for wimps.
When I dial a number that's in my area code but outside my local calling area, I have to prefix my call with "1" and my area code. Won't this take place for cell phones, too? Won't this alert people that calling that phone will result in an additional charge?
I switched to Vonage a couple of months ago and canceled my landlines. They're great. I slashed my phonebill in half and I got a cool 212 number to boot.
I would highly recommend them. Just make sure your ISP is reliable and fast enough.
Just like leaving your home phone behind, you can leave your cell phone behind by turning it off! Or just not carrynig it with you!
I'm on Cingular. I signed up almost a year ago for the following plan:
500 anytime + 3500 night-weekend minutes with free nationwide roaming / long distance for $50/month
The same plan now?
350 anytime + ZERO night-weekend minutes with free nationwide roaming / long distance $50/month
WTF?
If you want 500 anytime + ZERO it's $70/month!
Ben
Why do these services have to get constatlly more expensive (ie:cellphone and conventional ISP access) when technology is obeying moors law etc, when in 20 years, most sysems will fit into a matchbox, cost $2 and run off a D cell battery and have 2million Gbyts of permanent storage AND these people have the nerve to constantlly increase costs forever!!! This includes that rediculouse OS made in redmond too!!!!
>Cell phone towers are popping up everywhere.
You are so right on that one.
I can't even get a stable 24k connection in my hometown, the local school has about a 35 km fiber run, but, dammit, my GSM cell phone works (as long as I'm outside).
And to think at one point I thought GSM sucked. Well, it still does, the analog phone covers the parts GSM doesn't, but it's getting better.
I think eventually I'll end up seeing what kind of a deal I can get on GPRS. I mean, 46k is better than 21.6k.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
True, I switched from Nextel to AT&T, and even though my monthly rate is cheaper (Roughly $40) I'm on a 2 year contract, and my off-peak time doesn't start until 9pm, even on Fridays which is right before the weekend period (which is also off-peak). Not to mention, I pay .10 cents per text-message, which adds up little by little (unless I want to pay an additional $5 for 100 text messages).
.15 cents per message, based on Orange's rates.)
I believe though that it's cheaper than the UK, where text messages are 10p per text (Roughtly
WOW! And when your done with that, how about getting a chip? Ones waiting for you...
http://www.adsx.com/
I live in sunny South Africa, and over here, its cheaper to make a 1000 mile fixed line call, than to call someone sitting next to you on a cell phone, yet EVERYONE has cellphones, AND uses them.
The only thing more expensive than a cellphone call is an international call....
I don't know what that attitude sounds more like; a slave or a dog.
Here, boy. Good boy. Sit. Stay still. ON YOUR VACATION. ANYWAY. Good dog.
Egad, man. Have you no self respect? Unless they're paying you to be on-call, work can stay at the office, thank you. Work is where you make your living, not where you live.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
As you said, in Europe the general system is based around the fact the the calling party pays. However, since it's more costly to make international calls and since you do not always know where someone is when you call his cell phone, this system does not always apply when calling cell phones.
In Belgium (and I think in other European countries as well), when you call somebody's cell phone when he's abroad, the caller pays the normal rate for calling a cell phone locally whereas the callee pays the extra charge for the international call.
"Son, in a sporting event, it's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get" - Homer J. Simpson
So right now I'm sitting in a computer lab (working on an overdue assignment). There is a large sign posted (where everyone can see it) that says "No Cellphones!".
The problem is that most people mentally add the amendment ``... except for you'' to signs like this.
Thus, ``No parking'' becomes ``No parking except for you'', for example.
Virgin Trains, in the UK, started designating one carriage as a `Quiet Coach' in which mobile 'phones and personal stereos were prohibited.
Nobody takes the slightest notice.
I've stopped travelling in the quiet coach now, because I found that mobile 'phones ringing there irritate and distract me far more than they do if I'm in one of the normal coaches.
nicholas
Of course you are forgetting phone numbe portability where you can keep your own number. You can in UK and Australia. Want to switch contract or provider but dont want the problem of an old number, well keep your old number.
Cameron
-- Cheer, Cheer, The Red and the White.
And do you pay for receiving foreign letters?
I know in NZ rural dwellers have to pay to receive mail, but this is a fixed fee yearly amount, and they get pickup as well. It still upsets my mum (she trekked to the "local" post office to pick up her mail for months in protest).
Where all mobile phones are in the "07" area. The networks are all nation-wide, so different call charges may depend on which network you call (i.e. it is more expensive to call a different mobile network than the same network, or a landline) but the location of the phone is irrelevant, unless it is out of the country. In which case the US system applies ("Roaming rates") and both the caller and callee pay for the call. This means if you are in greece and your friend is in greece and you both use your UK phones to call each other, the operators think "Ka-ching!". But at least you get to meet up easily.
Would someone kindly explain how this works in the US? Does a US caller from a land line to a cellphone have some sort of notice that they will be billed extra for calling a cellphone? Do US cellphones have a special area code or number?
This just seems like a mistake to me. Recently, many friends of mine have opted for cell phones instead of landlines and I can only see this increasing if phone companies start charging their customers to call cell phones. Cell phones are becoming more and more common and I would be very upset if I had to pay extra to call most people I know. Seems like it would just be cheaper to get a cell phone myself.
when I lived in northern NJ it was a toll call to call my girlfriend 17 miles away - same area code.
Now I live in Atlanta. There are 4 whole area codes who are 100% local to me - and it is probably about half the state (a little less).
Go figure.
So they are doing this to make cell phones more attractive, right? Or did the price of operating a connection from a land-line to a cell phone suddenly increase, for magical, mystical reasons?
You will never get good service when the provider is in it for profits alone.
Why stick up for big business?
I live in Germany and I think my cell company really has the right ideas. O2 (the former Viag Interkom) is offering the so-called Homezone plan.
This means that whenever I am at home I have special conditions. "Being home" here depends on the density of the cell network in your area (sometimes the homezone has a radius of 2km).
The phone will have the common mobile prefix, which costs more, if you call that number. However, when I am in the homezone, I can also be reached under a local fixed-line number. When I'm on the road, calls to that number will be forwarded to voice mail for free or to the phone (but I will have to pay the transfer then). You probably think this might be super-expensive. Let me just quote some prices from their site (all in Euro, but Euro:$ is almost 1:1 anyway atm):
monthly fee: 12.95
local minute price (homezone): 0.03-0.05
long distance (homezone): 0.04-0.07
on the road minute price: 0.07-0.49
calls to other mobiles: 0.19-0.59
http://www.genion.de/genion/genion/genion__product s/genion__home/tarife/index.html
The ranges depend on time of day and week, as well as other options you choose (local, city, mobile)
Oh, and when I extended my contract for another 24 months, I only had to pay 200 Euro for a brand new SonyEricsson T68i.
when i was on vacation in italy, the same thing applied. call any cellphone, get tagged! what a gyp! the people most affected (like me) don't have extended local calling plans (yet) that are offered by deregulated local service providers.
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
I agree that teens use a lot of text messages but I don't think they account for the majority of the messages sent. For example I usually send maybe 2-10 text messages during a work day. One actually a very good use is during business meetings: Let's say I don't remeber some figure or technical detail during the meeting, but I do not wan't to make the call publicly (during the meeting). So I send a text message to a co-worker, for example "how much did the license for software x cost". He/she will then send a message back and I get the information discreetly.
One other typical use might be that there's something a bit more urgent than an e-mail, but you still don't wan't to bother the other party by calling him (he might be in a meeting, on the phone etc.) A text message is something you don't have to answer right away but usually you do answer soon; an e-mail might lay around in my Inbox for days un-answered.
Yes, I agree that the sms messages are a very good business for the network providers. They are however quite usefull to me also.
The cell phone user receiving this hypothetical call is the one who introduced the additional expense... why would it be appropriate for the land-line caller to cover this? It's just a subsidy from the sensible, land-line using folks (you know them... the ones you can understand when they speak to you) to increase usage of the terrible North American wireless notwork. tone
tone
Hell yes. In fact, I wish this was the American system-- our phone bills would be lower. Here's why:
Under our system, the local phone company gets to charge some gov't mandated fee for connecting a local call. For example, when I use my 7 cents/minute plan to call from a phone in California to a phone in New York, I'm paying a gov't mandated 2.5 cents to the California local phone company, and another 2.5 cents to the New York local phone company. Once you've factored in those charges, which are not set by competition but rather by gov't fiat, something becomes obvious: a long distance company can't charge less than 5 cents/minute and make money.
Here's the funny part: all of the local companies and long distance companies realize that they can provide that local connection for much less than the gov't mandated 2.5 cents/minute. So the long distance companies are racing to get into local phone service (very difficult and expensive), and the local companies are racing to get into long distance (lots of government deregulation to buy.)
But the alternative to doing this is disaster. If a local company like Verizon provides can provide long-distance and also provide the service to at least one of the phones on the connection, they don't have to pay themselves that gov't mandated 2.5 cents and can therefore significantly reduce their charges (forcing long-distance companies out of business.) If Verizon provides service to both phones on the connection, they get an even bigger advantage (and Verizon is a big local phone company.)
The government means well by setting those call-termination fees, and they seem pretty low. But the industry's actions have made it clear that they're probably not reflective of real costs.
If I paid for receiving calls on my landline, this wouldn't be an issue. If I could pick out the carrier with the lower call charges, I would, and this would put direct pressure on the phone companies to keep rates low rather than leaving it up to government regulation. The only problem with this scenario is that lack of competition in local land-line phones-- this, however, is not a problem with cellphones, so I'm glad the US companies do it the way they do.
Note that under my proposed system, I would simply pay the local portion of an incoming call. The other party would pay their local and long-distance costs. Essentially I would pay the same per-minute charge for receiving calls whether the call was local, long-distance or international; it would be up to the caller to pay for the long-distance charges.
I pay 55$ CDN a month. This gives me voicemail 100 incoming/outgoing SMS/Email, 400 first-incoming daytime minutes, 200 daytime minutes, unlimited evenings and weekends (M-F, 09:00 to 18:00 are daytime). I can roam anywhere AT&T has support (Boston, NYC, Hawaii no problem -- I only pay for airtime), and SMS with any AT&T customer anywhere in the world is flat rate past my first 100. I'm glad about the SMS thing, because new plans require that you allow AT&T to SMS you messages that may be advertisements, in exchange for free incoming SMS (as many as you want).
:)
My minutes don't roll over, not that I've ever gone past them
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
"Good", that it is. "Goof" as well, I guess...
A "Caller Pays" button on your phone. Or maybe a "Bill Caller $3" button. Everyone who has this phone can exact punative damages from people they don't like calling them. --"Take that telemarketer!"
Seriously, the caller has chosen to call you so they've agreed to pay "something" for this call. This is effectively automating billing for phone consultation, the same as your lawyer bills you when you call them. Your lawyer can choose not to bill his mom, and so can you. People who bill a lot, stop getting calls.
Whether the money just goes to the phone company or gets credited to your account would be left to the market. [I think spliting the money will be the final result.]
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
At least here in Southern California, the voice rates (GSM) are staying competitive. My plan is $35.00 (compared to $40 with TDMA) for about 500 minutes with national coverage and more weekend minutes than I could ever possibly use.
GPRS is charged by the kilobyte. It's not as fast as the CDPD which was unlimited. The data plans are not realistic. Average use with CDPD for me (and other friends) was about 8-10 MB per month just using IM and e-mail and we consider ourselves moderate users. The phones companies were saying to expect usage under 4MB. Considering that they should have a good idea what usage people will want from CDPD it sounds like the left hand (T/CDMA) doesn't seem to know what the right hand (GSM/GPRS) is doing.
This happened to my parents (using SBC), when all of sudden they started getting long distance changes everytime they called their cell phones from home. While not bankrupting, the cost was closer to $5/month, not just the few pennies that Verizon claims in the article.
There solution was to change the cell phone numbers so that they were local calls instead.
Cell phone towers are popping up everywhere. On vacation to my hometown just this past week I recall seeing 6 cell towers that were built in the 3 years since I moved away from that area.
A tower is simply a suitable structure to put a transciever. In many parts of Europe planners tend to discourage putting up new towers and masts if possible. The general position is that if it can go on an existing tower, mast or building then it can go there. Which had lead to some fuss being made, especially about small low power cellsites, which are simply small boxes which will go anywhere.
Maybe planning rules are different in parts of the US.
Reception may be a problem in some areas, but I'd say it's rapidly improving.
Unless this is a huge town 6 purpose built towers should give you very good reception.
My 68-year-old father loves his internet and cell phone. His telco provides both in addition to his landline, and just put him on a special combination package:
- Unlimited fibre-optic internet
- Unlimited local cell calling
- Package long-distance minutes shared between the landline, fax and cell numbers at the same bulk rate
- Single bill
CAD:$100/mo (about USD$65/mo).Die, negroid.
Err, I mean, fuck you, E r i c.