http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008868/Orange-Vodafone-users-hit-mobile...


Orange and Vodafone users hit as mobile call charges soar 66 per cent

By Sean Poulter

Last updated at 11:31 PM on 27th June 2011

   
Soaring bills: Orange customers face an increase in charges by 25 per cent from Friday, while Vodafone is increasing some minimum call tariffs from 15p to 25p

Soaring bills: Orange customers face an increase in charges by 25 per cent from Friday, while Vodafone is increasing some minimum call tariffs from 15p to 25p

Mobile phone charges will rise by up to 66 per cent in a punishing new blow for consumers.

Millions of users signed to Orange and Vodafone will be hit with inflation-busting increases in contract and pay-as-you-go tariffs.

The moves appear to be a direct retaliation against attempts by watchdogs to crack down on rip-off pricing in the industry.

And they come as families are already suffering the biggest squeeze on living costs since the 1870s as price rises have outpaced increases in incomes for four years in a row.

Orange is putting up its minimum call charge for pay-as-you-go customers from 20p to 25p from Friday – a rise of 25 per cent.

Vodafone, meanwhile, is increasing the minimum call charge on some contracts from 15p to 25p – or 66 per cent. These charges apply to calls made outside of those allowed by a customer’s monthly contract.

Its pay-as-you-go users will see the cost of a text rise from 10p to 12p, while calls to mobiles and landlines will go up from 21p a minute to 25p.
The Vodafone increases take effect on July 14.

They are the latest in a series of increases by the major networks, who had vowed to recoup costs elsewhere if watchdogs in Britain and Europe curbed existing pricing structures.


Between them, Vodafone and Orange share just under half the market. Given their clout, the other providers such as O2 are likely to follow suit.

UK telecoms regulator Ofcom is forcing companies to reduce the amount they take from incoming calls to customers. Until earlier this year, the networks received 4.18p a minute from incoming calls through the so-called termination rate. That figure was cut to 2.66p a minute in April and will be further reduced.


Separately, the European Union is forcing down the cost of using mobiles when visiting other member states – so-called roaming rates.

The net effect of the fresh price rises is that, despite the promises of regulators, consumers are no better off.

Ernest Doku, of uSwitch.com, said: 'In the face of other rising living costs these will be a slap in the face to pre-pay consumers who will be counting the cost of every single mobile call.

'With both local calls and text prices increasing, pay-as-you-go users will probably have to do quite a bit more topping up for their credit to go as far.

'These increases beg the question of whether a contract might be better value for money for some pre-pay users.

'If you are spending more than £20 each month topping up your mobile, seriously consider opting for a pay monthly or SIM-only solution.

'With lower call rates, free texts and data, as well as the option to get a free phone in many cases, a pay monthly contract can work  out significantly cheaper in the long run.'

Vodafone blamed the price rise on Ofcom.

It said: 'We believe we continue to offer great value for all pay-as-you-go customers compared with our competitors. This price rise comes after recent regulatory changes.

'During our discussions with Ofcom over mobile termination rates, we stressed that if the rates came down rapidly and dramatically, the cost of pay-as-you-go was likely to rise as a consequence.'

Vodafone said customers who buy regular monthly top-ups of at least £10 ----- Continues............

The reduction in mobile termination charges, brought about by Ofcom, not only means a reduction in the revenue on incoming calls from other (mobile and landline) networks, but a reduction in the cost of passing calls to other mobile networks.

So mobile operators suffer a loss of revenue on incoming calls but benefit through lower payments to connect calls when their customers call those on other mobile networks.

Dave wrote on Jun 28^th, 2011 at 9:39am:
It was probably the reduction of revenue from roaming more so than reduction of termination rate revenue.

Put both together and the networks are getting less profit so they just increase prices in other areas.  This isn't right but it happens all the time and I believe it happened last time the termination rates were reduced.

Other networks prob will follow suit and just use the excuse of 'aligning/simplifying' their costs with those of their competitors.

idb wrote on Jun 29^th, 2011 at 12:46am:

It is surely down the mobile operators to decide that this is the "choice" they wish to offer us.

They may wish to offer plans with incoming call charges in return for lower outgoing charges. However, if both were to be on offer in the marketplace at the same time, savy mobile users would have two mobiles, one for outgoing calls (the one with incoming call charges) and one for incoming calls (the one with no incoming charges).

bbb_uk wrote on Jun 29^th, 2011 at 12:28pm:
Fair use limitations are uncommon(*) here for voice calls, although data is another matter. The $40 tariff (MetroPCS) covers unlimited inclusive calls with little or no restriction within the contiguous 48 states plus the District of Columbia. Unusually for the US, this tariff also includes taxes, fees and surcharges, which often add 10% to 30% to a monthly bill, depending on location. Given such a tariff, with unlimited calling nationwide, it is irrelevant as to whether incoming calls are chargeable. A big advantage is that, assuming your caller is in the same calling area and is calling from a residential line, then the call will be free to the calling party (as we have free local calling). So a caller from a Miami residential land line calling a MetroPCS customer with a number that is local with respect to the landline will not have to pay a call charge, even if the Miami MetroPCS customer is located in California.

Having used both systems (UK and US model), I would certainly take the one here. Yes, there are some drawbacks, but I would argue there are significant benefits, including the free local calling described above. My family plan provides more than enough minutes, plus unlimited nights and weekends, so the fact that I 'pay' airtime for incoming calls is largely irrelevant, and if I really wanted to switch to MetroPCS, which I don't, then I could have unlimited incoming and outgoing cellular calls for the equivalent of twenty five quid, and toll-free calls treated in exactly the same way as regular numbers.


(*) MetroPCS does appear to limit its unlimited long distance to personal use:

Unlimited Long Distance (“LD”) Services provided by MetroPCS is intended for your personal use and not for commercial use or for resale. Loaning or renting your handset to third parties for their use is not considered personal use. We will presume certain usage, dialing, or calling patterns indicate that you are not using the LD service for your personal use and we reserve the right to suspend, terminate or restrict your services within no prior notice. If you believe that we are in error, you may contact customer service at 1-888-8metro8 and depending on the circumstances we may reactivate your LD Service. However, if the usage, dialing or calling patterns we deem connote non-personal use continues, we reserve the right to suspend, terminate or restrict your services within no prior notice and not allow you to reactivate service.

Dave wrote on Jun 30^th, 2011 at 9:49am:
There has always been a reluctance on the part of some people to give out mobile phone numbers for two main reasons - the cost of receiving calls and to avoid telemarketers. Because calling plans have, over time, made more airtime available for a given cost, it is now perhaps not as much as an issue for post-paid plans. Pre-paid plan holders may still be reluctant to publicize their numbers as each call or SMS received, even junk ones, will incur a cost. On the second aspect, telemarketing, we have a do-not-call register that actually appears to work and is enforced by the FCC. While not perfect, the register appears far more effective than the TPS-administered UK equivalent based on my recollection from prior to 2004. The FCC complaint procedure does appear to be effective, and on the few occasions that I have used it, subsequent calls from the violators have ceased. I do not avoid giving out my cellphone number, but prefer the landline simply because cell reception at home is lousy, and dropped calls can be an issue.

Overage (airtime outside of bundled and rollover minutes) will typically cost 45c/minute for voice calls on AT&T plans.


Dave wrote on Jun 30^th, 2011 at 9:49am:
Because we have full number portability between cellular and landline services (assuming the same location/exchange), it is generally not possible to determine the use of the number outside of an initial allocation. Reverse number lookups, which are commonplace here, usually give an accurate determination of number allocation to specific provider. Entering my own cellular number into such a system gives a valid listing:

(561) xxx-xxxx is a Cell Phone

Likely Location:
   Florida (West Palm Beach, Lake Worth)
   South Florida/Gold Coast metro area, Palm Beach County

Repeating with a VOIP number allocated to me gives:

(305) xxx-xxxx is a Landline

Likely Location:
   Florida (Miami)
   South Florida/Gold Coast metro area, Miami-Dade County

Entering my home number reveals my name and address.

Dave wrote on Jul 1^st, 2011 at 3:18pm:
I could be wrong but I thought the first two operators out there (Vodafone and now what is o2, previously bt cellnet) that operate on the lower 900mhz frequency were given the spectrum/licence for either a reduced price or for free (I'm sure I read it was free but can't be sure) compared to those running on 1800mhz+ frequencies.

Dave wrote on Jul 1^st, 2011 at 3:18pm:
I think there was a tendency rather than there being a current one - subscribers wished to avoid expensive overages. In the past, there may have not been sufficient inclusive airtime to prevent this. Now, bundled plans include more airtime, and those with overages are either using the wrong plan, or simply cannot be bothered to change to something more suitable.

An article in yesterday's Palm Beach post,  http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/phone-deregulation-droopy-drawer-regulat... , provides the following statistic relating to the state of Florida:

<<
In a state of 18.1 million residents, 21 million cell phones are in use compared to 5.7 million traditional land lines.
And just one in five Floridians still uses only a land line. Of the land lines, only about 160,000 have only basic services.
The rest have "bundled" packages, meaning their land lines are linked to other services like the internet or safety alerts.
>>

One can perhaps infer that a substantial number of people only have cellphone service, and one can further infer that they provide and promote these numbers, and anecdotally, many of my acquaintances only have cellphone service. The transient nature of the state demographics, plus the potential for credit checks and deposits for land line service, will also determine a particular telephone provision.


Dave wrote on Jul 1^st, 2011 at 3:18pm:
Answering your points as best I can, there are four national cellular phone providers as of June 2011 - AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon and Sprint. Subject to government approval, AT&T intends to buy T-Mobile for $39bn, which will leave us with three nationwide providers. AT&T and T-Mobile use GSM technology for 2G, AT&T using 850MHz and 1900MHz frequencies for both its 2G and 3G services and T-Mobile using 850MHz and 1900MHz for its 2G services and 1700MHz and 2100MHz for its 3G and 4G services. Sprint and Verizon use the CDMA standards.

Frequency auctions have occurred in the past. I do not recall any recent ones.

Coverage can be patchy, especially with the growth of data traffic. A frequent complaint is call dropping. When I was at LAX airport last year, on two separate occasions, it was very difficult to access data on AT&T's network. Similarly in New York City last month, data access was not always available, presumably due to capacity. Signal strength at my home is poor. AT&T provided a free 3G Microcell which connects to the internet, and that has certainly helped, boosting the 3G signal, but yes, coverage in rural areas can be patchy, and coverage in metro areas can run into trouble with capacity.

In addition to the four/three national providers, we also have regional providers such as the earlier discussed MetroPCS and U.S. Cellular. There are also other smaller regional carriers as well as virtual services such as Virgin Mobile and TracFone.

Obviously the four nationwide companies compete throughout the country in locations where they provide service. As far as I know, there is no regulatory barrier to prevent say Verizon providing coverage in an area that it doesn't currently serve. There may well be restrictions placed on regional carriers - I simply do not know.

Cellular phone numbering uses exactly the same format as with landline numbering, and there is full number portability between them, subject to geographical area.