TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: America the Worst For Cell Rates and Plans

Re: America the Worst For Cell Rates and Plans

Rob (
1 Feb 2005 01:43:29 -0800

Marcus Didius Falco wrote:

> Steve Sobol <> wrote about Re: America the Worst
> For Cell Rates and Plans on Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:17:23 -0800

>> earle robinson wrote:

>>> If callee pays were the norm for landline phones Bell Telephone would
>>> never have reached the 100% market penetration it did.

>> What on earth are you talking about -- The callee DOES pay for
>> landline calls here. If you have a residential line, you normally get
>> flat-rate calling but businesses get metered rates. That's metered per
>> call in many places, but here it's per minute. You can get metered
>> rates for residential lines too -- if you don't make a ton of calls
>> and pay a lower monthly rate.

> Surely you mean "caller pays" is the norm in the US. It's always
> "free" to receive calls (be the callee) on a land line.

>>> phone books either. The European system employs a distinct area code
>>> for cell phones so there is no confusion. Not so in the states. If I
>>> call a 305 or a 917 area code I don't know if it is a cell phone or a
>>> landline one.

>> Ironically, 917 used to be mobile/pager numbers only. I don't recall
>> why that was changed.

>> But I can tell you that if we were to adopt the system you speak of,
>> we'd probably have run out of area codes long ago and had to add a
>> digit to new phone numbers like the UK did.

> In particular, the FCC required that cell phones be accommodated
> within the standard area codes so that they would not be
> "disadvantaged" or subjected to "discrimination." Then, when the
> splits and overlays started to be common, the FCC directed that
> cellular, faxes, and other special numbers NOT be segregated into the
> new area codes. Thus, the problem of its being impossible to identify
> cell phones is of the FCC's making, in an effort to encourage cellular
> use by treating them "just like land lines."

> I do not recall the details of whether and why the FCC promoted
> "called party pays" for calls to cell phones. It was probably in part
> a natural consequence of the inability for the caller to distinguish
> the cost of the call. Possibly, it was in part an effort to promote
> calling cell phones as being "just like land lines." The former reason
> has an analog in the required message informing people that they have
> called a "calling party pays" number, such as a 900 number or a sex
> line.

> The latter, of course, is the reason few of us give out our cell phone
> numbers very freely. I have started to do so for a few people, only
> after several years experience showing that I rarely use more than 1/3
> my basic allowance of "anytime" minutes, and never more than 2/3 (I
> have the smallest allowance my carrier sold at the time I acquired the
> phone).

The biggest difference between having a cellphone in Europe and having
one in the USA and other NANP countries has to be that we
differentiate numbers for cellphones by giving them alternate prefixes
to our landline numbers. For example, my home number is on area code
01685, while my cellphone has the prefix 07906. By dialling any
number whose prefix starts with '07' you automatically know that it's
a cellphone and not a landline, and are therefore charged accordingly.
In my case, where I'm not charged for landline calls, it can mean
anything up to 20p/36c per minute.

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Earle Robinson: "Re: America the Worst For Cell Rates and Plans"
Go to Previous message: Steve Sobol: "Re: America the Worst For Cell Rates and Plans"
May be in reply to: kansaskon: "America the Worst For Cell Rates and Plans"
Next in thread: Earle Robinson: "Re: America the Worst For Cell Rates and Plans"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page