[geeks] International calling question

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 10:00:45PM +0100, Mike Meredith wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 23:04:10 +0300, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
>> Mostly landlines. What do people have? 
>
>Mostly both I'd imagine. Conservative people are likely to have a
>landline because mobiles are "expensive" (because of inclusive minutes
>they're not really). Others are likely to have it because broadband
>(a rough guess calculated from the 23.7% of the population subscribe to
>broadband would come to about 80% have access to broadband) typically
>comes bundled with a landline.

It depends upon your calling paterns. My wife was told by Orange to
drop her inclusive minutes plan as it would be cheaper for her to have
the "free" (no calls/no charge) plan and pay by the minute. We cut her
bill in half by doing so.


>As to how many people have mobiles in the UK, well about 115% of the
>population apparently! There's some very odd people in the UK :)

No, some of the people have phones where they bought them and have to
keep them due to their contract, but long since lost the phone, switched
carriers, etc.

We have that here, I have 4 phones still connected because over the years
I earned bonus points for them, have no idea of what to do with the points,
but if I canceled the phones I would loose them. The Orange rep told me
to keep them, although it must cost them something I'm not paying for.

However since it still costs more money to call from one network to the
other, and an obscure loophole in the tax law (you have to pay income tax
on a company provided phone unless you have your own), you see people 
carrying two or three cell phones. I did it for 3 years.


>Without looking into it deeply I don't think you have a choice. Except
>to choose a 'geographically independent' number for businesses that
>want to look cool.

But since they cost more money, your average home user won't bother.

>
>I'm not sure (I'm not really a landline user). I don't think cheaper
>rates for international numbers are typically bundled in with ordinary
>packages. Many people are aware that special offers exist (you can pick
>up phone cards at most corner shops that also give cheaper rates), but
>unless they do phone internationally aren't going to bother.
>
>Nifty way for the telcos to rip off those people! I'd imagine my
>parents would never make an international call except for those
>emergencies where money doesn't matter ("fly home! your dad is dying in
>hospital").

Yes, but in that case, you probably have your cell phone with you and are
roaming, so they would call a "local" number.

>Bundled texts. And of course texting has the advantage that you don't
>have to be sure the other person is there waiting for your call. But
>yes you do have to wonder why texts are so expensive when they aren't
>bundled; after all the lack of a need for a virtual circuit would seem
>to indicate that they would be cheaper to deal with.

It's to rip off people who think they are saving money without having
a text plan. In my case it actually was cheaper, because I hate texting
and never send texts. I also hate reading them, so when I get one I
tell people not to do it again.

My son (13) complained that I told him texts were too expensive to use
on his phone and not to do it. I also told him I could give him another
phone with free texts (use up those bonus points), but he said not to 
bother.

Geoff.

-- 
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm at mendelson.com  N3OWJ/4X1GM