Ofcom has published an assessment of the UK's mobile industry, which is all looking rosy we are told - but it wants to hear from the public on a range of issues including whether we should pay to receive calls. The report calls for "fresh strategic thinking" on call termination charges - the current rules expire in 2011, so …
Different should have read difficult in last comment
Don't just whinge - complain to Ofcom's PayMaster.........
Complain about Ofcom having nothing better to do:-
Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
Tel: 0845 015 4033 (enquiry line)
Fax: 020 7217 4000
It isn't hard to distribute costs
I worked for the international calls part of a big European telco some years ago. The charging is modelled on the way airline carriers work and is based on trust. In essence you say how many minutes you routed where, the other companies say the same, you reconcile the minutes and whoever is left in deficit pays the other.
But, of course, it's based on *trust*. You have to believe the other operators aren't pulling your chain and their accounting and call management aren't unreliable rubbish. Making me pay for calls because a bunch of very rich companies that have lots of very expensive exchange equipment that should be able to do this accounting actually can't is ever so slightly crap. I actually don't believe it, to be honest, the accounting mechanisms go back to the ark and have worked for ever. I wonder if we have a dishonest supplier somewhere who are making it different for everyone else and no-one is willing to spill the beans?
re: Am I the only freak without a mobile phone?! Help!
"Anti-mobile friends, I know we are legion, we must join up...."
It always amuses me when I meet people who don't have a mobile and think it is a proud and noble thing. My reaction is usually frankly, who cares? Your choice etc but please drop the "look at me! I'm special!" stance
@The Dark Lord
Well fool you if you want to cough up £25+ a month.
PAYG customers like me are the sensible ones, so dont whinge.
I would get rid of my phone if I was forced to pay for incoming calls.
"I never come close enough"
"average per-minute cost is around six little US cents"
Contradicting yourself a little bit aren't you? If you don't use all or close to all of your minutes, your cost is not six cents per minute. Domestic roaming is a non-feature too, it's just a product of the initial fragmentation of the US mobile market, and you can't roam on Verizon network with an AT&T phone anyway. So $100 is pretty steep for what you really get. But then again, there are people who think that a $100+ cable TV subscription is worth it too and then complain about $4 gas. Yes, I don't have cable, yes, I'm on a prepaid phone at <$10/month, and yes, I drive a 15mpg minivan :-). Different priorities :)
OFCOM really do need to get a life.
"... all they have to do is make it illegal for business customers to withhold Caller ID (punishable with blanket ban from the operator, very hefty fines and preferably jail time), implement free unlimited call blocking by number at the network operator, and give free (i.e. 0800) unlimited voicemail to all contract subscribers, and it'd work."
And this would deter foreign call centres HOW? especially those that are now spoofing UK 01xxx/02xxx codes in caller ID... If OFCOM want something to occupy their obviously empty days.. this is one issue they should be looking at, rather than looking for a way to milk us out of more of our hard earned.
If someone wants to call me, that is THEIR choice... not mine, why should I pay for it? This is clearly another example of a body with too much time on its hands looking to "fix" things that are not broken. Business needs to realise markets are finite, they cannot grow perpetually. I thought OFCOM was supposed to improve telecoms not drag things back to the dark ages.
If this comes in I will no longer be using a mobile phone.
It only works well with the current options cellcos offer if you can justify the cost of one of the packages with vast numbers of minutes to spare. I can't; I just don't use the thing enough to spend $100/month on it and that wouldn't change even if I had more minutes than I could ever use.
I'd happily pay full retail price for a *non-subsidized* phone, add a *non-expiring* PAYG package to it and yes, pay to receive calls too, for those situations where a cellphone is invaluable. Being non-subsidized I'm sure they could make some money on such a setup, but they don't offer it and instead I had to opt for the most basic contract plan which works out cheaper than the limited PAYG options anyway, if you watch your minutes.
What this ends up meaning is, between 7am and 7pm, when calls in either direction use up minutes from the meager monthly allowance, I just don't make or answer calls without good reason.
This mostly defeats the purpose of having a cellphone though, making me question whether I should even keep the stupid thing when the contract expires.
Landline No & ATMs
RE: Needing a landline contact number when without landline, for those who are able to drop the landline due to their broadband being cable for example, you can simply get a phone number from Sipgate that's a regular number, have it set to voicemail at all times or just use it as a VoIP line to receive calls.
As for ATMs not charging customers for using other banks for long, I think you are confused they charged customers for not using their own bank or later a few banks in a group for years and year and years, it wasn't that long ago they actually dropped the charges, granted they wanted to reintroduce them, but the had been charging for many times longer than they haven't.
Comment where it counts.
Instead of commenting here, perhaps you should tell ofcom this is a bad idea using the links provided in the article. It really doesn't take much time at all. At least that way there is a chance of OFCOM hearing your objections.
"Adequate" for whom?
I love when some think tank decides what is the new standard for being a human. At least it's not the Vatican anymore.
Its gonna be a said day if this gets pushed thou :(
I receive far more calls then i make on my mobile, something in the region of 10 incoming to every outgoing. This is cause i'm the I.T. guy and quite often find that i'm on the phone for an hour trying to explain to someone that they need to plug in the small round purple back in.
Because these calls are paid for by the customer and that i can deal with peps on the phone while working on other system I've been providing this telephone support for free (Well the customer has to pay his phone bill) Looks like i'll have to change this.
I think the most annoying thing will be bloody stupit BT contrators.
I get atleast one call me a week - the call always starts off nice and i try to help by telling them whats wrong there wiring which i would of fixed on the spot if it would of been legal :p but always ends up with me saying "Hang on, your the one getting paid for this job. Pay me or figure it out yourself" and now i'm gonna have to pay to tell someone who is getting paid how to do there job. Screw it i'm getting a 09 number.
What about 0800 numbers?
Why is it that I can't get freephone on 0800 when I call from my mobile.? In fact, I can't even get it included in the (effectively infinite) number of free minutes that I have. From a mobile, it costs *more* to dial an 0800 (allegedly freephone) line than a standard landline!
It is just a coincidence that...
the EU and Ofcom are looking at termination fees at the same time?
I think not!
One ring to rule them all, one ring to bind them...
No cellphone = Anti Social Behavior?
>The Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported that a mobile phone is now essential "to adequately participate in society" - so while some people don't want to actively join in, it's a concern that so many people aren't able to.<
Logically, then, those who refuse to go cellular are committing an Anti-Social act.
Isn't the fine the same as paying for a cellular 'phone? Without getting one?
@Pay As You Boo Hoo
contract customers are scabs who cant afford a phone for themselves, the only thing payg users dont get on tmobile is free mins
On PAYG - and very happy
I dropped my £27pcm contract a year ago; I now spend £5-£10 per month on PAYG with the same use. Bargain!
If I had to pay to receive, I'd see what the benefits might be - maybe cheaper outgoing calls or free intra-network calls, who knows?
I'll tell you one thing that will happen if termination fee's come about in the UK or EU for that matter Bt phone boxes will suddenly start to be very busy once again also the sale of prepaid phone cards will once again be popular.still got one or two somewhere.
I stand corrected
It shouldn't be termination fee's but paying to recieve and make mobile calls.
If that comes about I think Damm I know that mine will deffinately be shown the big hammer.
Charge to receive calls would be better.
With a 'free code' you can give out to people you know.
A 10-minute long sales call to have some 'free' windows fitted would not be so bad knowing you would get a few quid from it.
- Analysis iPhone 6: The final straw for Android makers eaten alive by the data parasite?
- First Crack Bloke buys iPHONE 6 and DROPS IT to SMASH on PURPOSE
- First Fondle Register journo battles Sydney iPHONE queue, FONDLES BIG 'UN
- Early result from Scots indyref vote? NAW, Jimmy - it's a SCAM
- TOR users become FBI's No.1 hacking target after legal power grab