Using mobiles in an aeroplane... NOT dangerous after all! (apparently)

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:22:12 +0100, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:54:03 -0500, (Miguel Cruz)
wrote:

There's no provision for extra call charges to be passed
back through to the caller on "normal" numbers

What makes you think there should be any extra call charges?

If mobile networks cost more, how come that countries with no
telecomms infrastructure are getting cellular rather than fixed line
networks installed?

They cost more because the cost of all that copper in the ground has
already been paid before, where they don't already have copper it's a
lot cheaper to go mobile.

Jim.

"Jim Ley" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:34:38 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
wrote:

[snip]

I've personally never understood why we can't have the *option* of the
US
system - those of us who like it could use it, and have landline numbers
for our mobiles, paying for incoming calls from them, those that don't
could stick with the expensive system we currently have.

You can, it's easy, just get a regularly landline number permanently
redirected to a mobile, and assuming "here" is the UK you could pick
an 0800 or 0845 or 07 or 09 and pick a rate just about whatever you
want.

You're not listening..! I want the option of paying for incoming calls
*from inclusive minutes* like the American system does. I can divert my
landline now, but I have to pay extra over and above my minutes for doing
so.

Ivor

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:25:27 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
wrote:

You're not listening..! I want the option of paying for incoming calls
*from inclusive minutes* like the American system does. I can divert my
landline now, but I have to pay extra over and above my minutes for doing
so.

but so get a PAYG - no inclusive minutes, but then no contract at all,
and use the money that saves you to pay for them to call you - where's
the cost difference?

Or is it purely some particular contract style you want, rather than
something that is identical in what it costs both you and the people
who call you?

Jim.

wrote:
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
There's no provision for extra call charges to be passed
back through to the caller on "normal" numbers

What makes you think there should be any extra call charges?

If mobile networks cost more, how come that countries with no
telecomms infrastructure are getting cellular rather than fixed line
networks installed?

Immature capital markets or no stomach for long-term finance.

The startup costs for mobile infrastructure with a given level of coverage
are lower than for fixed line infrastructure covering the same area and
number of subscribers.

However, over the long term the fixed-line system is cheaper to maintain and
operate and offers far more bandwidth (which is going to start being a real
issue as more bandwidth-intensive data services grow in popularity).

Each has its purpose but pointing to poor countries and asking why they pour
all their money into mobile phone systems is like pointing at a poor family
and asking why they rent furniture instead of buying it.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:02:44 -0500, (Miguel Cruz)
wrote:

However, over the long term the fixed-line system is cheaper to maintain

I'm not so sure about that, the cost of maintenance is a lot more with
copper in the ground or up on poles, especially in areas with poor
associated infrastructure or bad weather - if a storm blows down your
one GSM tower, it's a lot quicker and cheaper to replace it than it is
to rebuild the 50 poles carrying wires that went down - especially if
getting men and machines to that location is hampered by poor roads
etc.

dataservices perhaps, but data isn't a big market in the emerging
markets at the moment, and even in lots of countries the investment
cost of getting more bandwidth into the system relies on improving the
data rates over the existing cables than getting any more cables in.

Jim.

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:02:44 -0500, (Miguel Cruz)
wrote:

However, over the long term the fixed-line system is cheaper to maintain

I'm not so sure about that, the cost of maintenance is a lot more with
copper in the ground or up on poles, especially in areas with poor
associated infrastructure or bad weather - if a storm blows down your
one GSM tower, it's a lot quicker and cheaper to replace it than it is
to rebuild the 50 poles carrying wires that went down - especially if
getting men and machines to that location is hampered by poor roads
etc.

dataservices perhaps, but data isn't a big market in the emerging
markets at the moment, and even in lots of countries the investment
cost of getting more bandwidth into the system relies on improving the
data rates over the existing cables than getting any more cables in.

Jim.

"Retired" wrote in message
...

"Tristán White" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:44:38 -0400, nobody wrote:

SNIP

And of course I take it you had to pay to receive those calls!

Sorry, but I couldn't ever see how the US method is fairer than the UK
one (assuming that in the US, hypothetically, you could tell it was a
mobile number as you can in the UK). And I've listened to all your
arguments! :-)


It's not because I am used to the British cellphone system but I just
can't
believe that in the US the person who receive a call has to pay part
(whatever part) of the cost of the call...

That's just always been the system in the U.S. Generally, our cell phone
systems have lagged behind the rest of the world, largely because our
landline systems have been much superior and cheaper. There has not been
the incentive to invest in cellphones (although, nowadays, everybody seems
to have at least one).

Here, and in 2 areas that I know well (Europe and South Africa) the caller
pays for the call, full stop; to my knowledge it's always been like that.
The caller is the decision maker and naturally pays for the call/service.

When residents in the US make a land-line call to another person
on a landline in mainland USA, does the person receiving the call
have to pay part of the call????
if not, why not???

No. Most U.S. phones are unlimited usage, which means that you don't pay a
per minute charge at either end. The only exceptions are in a few areas
where they limit you to so many units, and for long distance. But I would
venture to guess that 95% of all landlines in the U.S. are unlimited.

retired/uk.

"Tristán White" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:56:27 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
wrote:
Oh God, somewhere else I have to sit while listening to "allo Tracey, I'm
on the train. yeh it's crowded, someone just felt my bum" or something
equally inane.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of phones, I have 5 of them, but
they *don't* get used on public transport.

Hmmm I don't know. The train from London to Leeds for example, has got
a couple of mobile-free carriages and a few smoking-free carriages
too. And I think the rules, whilst voluntary, are pretty well adhered
to.

You can spot the Orange users, their phones work in the tunnels on the west
coast line

Steve Terry

Jim Ley wrote:
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
However, over the long term the fixed-line system is cheaper to maintain

I'm not so sure about that, the cost of maintenance is a lot more with
copper in the ground or up on poles, especially in areas with poor
associated infrastructure or bad weather - if a storm blows down your
one GSM tower, it's a lot quicker and cheaper to replace it than it is
to rebuild the 50 poles carrying wires that went down - especially if
getting men and machines to that location is hampered by poor roads
etc.

In most cases the ideal situation is underground. Whether that's
substantially more expensive than poles depends on whether it's a matter of
leasing space (or having it given to you by administrative fiat) or
tunneling yourself.

But what I'm talking about is cost per quantity of traffic capacity.

dataservices perhaps, but data isn't a big market in the emerging
markets at the moment, and even in lots of countries the investment
cost of getting more bandwidth into the system relies on improving the
data rates over the existing cables than getting any more cables in.

Either way it's cheaper - and in many cases the technological possibility
doesn't even exist with wireless (depending on the amount of bandwidth and
concentration of demand).

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

Jim Ley wrote:
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
However, over the long term the fixed-line system is cheaper to maintain

I'm not so sure about that, the cost of maintenance is a lot more with
copper in the ground or up on poles, especially in areas with poor
associated infrastructure or bad weather - if a storm blows down your
one GSM tower, it's a lot quicker and cheaper to replace it than it is
to rebuild the 50 poles carrying wires that went down - especially if
getting men and machines to that location is hampered by poor roads
etc.

In most cases the ideal situation is underground. Whether that's
substantially more expensive than poles depends on whether it's a matter of
leasing space (or having it given to you by administrative fiat) or
tunneling yourself.

But what I'm talking about is cost per quantity of traffic capacity.

dataservices perhaps, but data isn't a big market in the emerging
markets at the moment, and even in lots of countries the investment
cost of getting more bandwidth into the system relies on improving the
data rates over the existing cables than getting any more cables in.

Either way it's cheaper - and in many cases the technological possibility
doesn't even exist with wireless (depending on the amount of bandwidth and
concentration of demand).

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu