[old bill2]

If this story is true then Vodafone plan to charge PAYG low users a monthly fee.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...n-charges.html

[lee18xx]

to be honest, its probably a sensible business decision. the networks, all of them by the way - not just vodafone, will be affected by yet another bit of meddling from OFCOM.

at the end of the day, if you have a mobile phone sat on the network for 6months on end drawing resources, you should contribute to network upkeep. In my opinion anyway!

[legends wear 7]

TBH he's spot on, none of the networks are a charity and they need to replace the lost revenue somehow.

[taurus_67]

As ever the people who are affected by any of the changes that may be made will make choices. Some might give up their mobiles, some might go on cheap contracts, some might give up their landlines.

OFCOM should really know by now that if they reduce a revenue stream from one area of a business, then that business will try and recoup the income somewhere else.

[Appleseed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee18xx

to be honest, its probably a sensible business decision. the networks, all of them by the way - not just vodafone, will be affected by yet another bit of meddling from OFCOM.

at the end of the day, if you have a mobile phone sat on the network for 6months on end drawing resources, you should contribute to network upkeep. In my opinion anyway!

Drawing what resources? Each time someone calls the phone, Vodafone receive a termination fee simply for connecting the call.

To help with network upkeep all the networks should perhaps set the minimum top-up at £10, and if no outbound activity is recorded for 6 months then the phone number is lost. This would guarantee an income of £20 per year from every PAYG customer. I think we'll see something happening when termination fees are cut again.

[carguy143]

I get the feeling we'll end up with a similar system they have in the states, mobile users pay to make AND receive calls regardless of location and who is calling them.

[Appleseed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by carguy143

I get the feeling we'll end up with a similar system they have in the states, mobile users pay to make AND receive calls regardless of location and who is calling them.

I think that's highly unlikely - unless all of the networks got together and changed things all at the same time.

The problem is with termination fees - they are a bit like me stopping the postman delivering mail unless he gives me money per item.
The networks pay each other huge sums every year in these fees. Why not just scrap them altogether? '3' reckon that if there were no termination fees they would be able to give every customer unlimited texts and calls for a flat fee of £30/month and I assume the other networks could too.

[lost boy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by carguy143

I get the feeling we'll end up with a similar system they have in the states, mobile users pay to make AND receive calls regardless of location and who is calling them.

I don't know. I think the only thing we can be sure of - depressingly - is that we'll end up paying more one way or the other.

Personally I agree with Appleseed and think that paying to receive calls will only happen if enough of the networks get together to do it, otherwise there's likely to be a stampede elsewhere.

As for monthly charges, as opposed to minimum topup, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they happened. Vodafone for one have had them before - remember Vodafone original?

[Jon_S]

Quote:

Originally Posted by carguy143

I get the feeling we'll end up with a similar system they have in the states, mobile users pay to make AND receive calls regardless of location and who is calling them.

Possibly but in the States it costs the same to call a mobile as a landline - mobiles have the same dialling codes as landlines so you might not even know which type of phone you're calling. One of the reasons mobile phones didn't take off as quicly over there was because it wasn't viable to have a phone just to receive calls.

Point being the networks have to get money from one side or t'other - either charging more to call a mobile or charging mobile users for incoming calls.

It's typical "regulators logic" to say we're removing £xm of revenue from the networks - therefore the consumer will be better off. Never works. The consumer will pay the same overall - just that some users will gain and as many lose.

[Jon_S]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Appleseed

Why not just scrap them altogether? '3' reckon that if there were no termination fees they would be able to give every customer unlimited texts and calls for a flat fee of £30/month and I assume the other networks could too.

They couldn't. 3 could only do that because their network is so small - less users means they pay out much more for their customers to phone other networks than they receive for other networks customers phoning them.

Scrap termination fees and 3 would be laughing but the other networks would lose out

[prking]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon_S

They couldn't. 3 could only do that because their network is so small - less users means they pay out much more for their customers to phone other networks than they receive for other networks customers phoning them.

Scrap termination fees and 3 would be laughing but the other networks would lose out

Exactly, it costs to connect and incoming call to your phone. At the moment the caller pays. If termination fees are abolished then that cost will have to be bourne by the receiving network.
So either they absorb that cost, charge for incoming calls/texts or increase prices elsewhere.
If I were to bet, when combined with the forced reduction in EU roaming charges, we will see an increase in call costs for PAYG customers and a reduction in handset subsidy and size of allowance for Pay Monthly Customers.