United Mobile+ (new service with +44 Jersey number)

[DRNewcomb]

Originally Posted by Eilasor

Has anyone used the new UM card to call a US cell phone? The quoted rates on the UM page for calling the US do not distinguish between fixed and mobile phones, and I wanted to make sure that they meant that there is one rate for both, not that it only works to landlines.

It would be virtually impossible for them to distinguish US cellular phones from landlines.

[inquisitor]

Originally Posted by DRNewcomb

It would be virtually impossible for them to distinguish US cellular phones from landlines.

There's no need to distinguish in the case of the US, as mobile and landline calls are terminated at the same rate.
United Mobile don't charge higher rates for mobile calls in other countries because they think it's funny, but because termination rates (the price the receiving operator demands) of those networks are higher.
Whereas in the US the called mobile subscribers pay the extra cost for the transfer to their mobile phone, in the rest of the world callers pay the price for the whole connection.
The high costs for American mobile subscribers, who also pay for incoming calls, are a main reason why mobile phone penetration is relatively low in the US.
The low penetration again is the reason, why prices for mobile telephony are higher - American operators must finance their large networks by a relatively small number of subscibers and further there are quite few players in the GSM market, so competition is limited. Beyond that the geographical expanse of the US requires more basestations and so results in more costs then in other places, where population density is higher. Also in European countries the investment in GSM networks has already amortized years ago, while US operators, of whom some migrated to GSM recently, still wait for the return.
All this makes mobile telephony more expensive in the US than in other places.

[Bossman]

Pretty much every thing you said is correct except the ones relating to the cost of mobile telephony in the US. We pay a whole lot less for mobile services than almost any other country. As already mentioned, even though we pay for incoming calls, its virtually a no issue because we get so much minutes and unlimited nights/weekends than we know what to do with it. A typical plan in the US considering all the minutes included will probably cost at least double in any other country.

Also, the reason why the US does not have heavy mobile penetration is definitely not because of cost. It's because the land line system is so efficient and cheap it's almost unbelievable! Obviously because of it's size/population, there are whole lot more mobile users in the US than a lot of other countries combined.

Originally Posted by inquisitor

There's no need to distinguish in the case of the US, as mobile and landline calls are terminated at the same rate.
United Mobile don't charge higher rates for mobile calls in other countries because they think it's funny, but because termination rates (the price the receiving operator demands) of those networks are higher.
Whereas in the US the called mobile subscribers pay the extra cost for the transfer to their mobile phone, in the rest of the world callers pay the price for the whole connection.
The high costs for American mobile subscribers, who also pay for incoming calls, are a main reason why mobile phone penetration is relatively low in the US.
The low penetration again is the reason, why prices for mobile telephony are higher - American operators must finance their large networks by a relatively small number of subscibers and further there are quite few players in the GSM market, so competition is limited. Beyond that the geographical expanse of the US requires more basestations and so results in more costs then in other places, where population density is higher. Also in European countries the investment in GSM networks has already amortized years ago, while US operators, of whom some migrated to GSM recently, still wait for the return.
All this makes mobile telephony more expensive in the US than in other places.

[Stu]

I honestly haven't compared the mobile penetration rates in the US versus Western Europe, but what I would note is that in countries like the UK, there are a huge number of extra SIMs that people have in their dressers because the buy in for the SIM is so cheap.

Prepaid in the US is getting better, but it is still not like most places. I don't know of anyone (personallY) in the US over the age of 13 who doesn't own a mobile and I know of many preteens who do own mobiles.

My wife and I have fought about the landline argument outlined above. She pointed out in many countries it can be several months for a working landline to get installed. She pointed to France. I question that assumption with companies like Free, but there might be some legitimacy in her position.

[DRNewcomb]

Originally Posted by inquisitor

The high costs for American mobile subscribers, who also pay for incoming calls, are a main reason why mobile phone penetration is relatively low in the US.

If the US has "low" mobile penetration, I'd hate to see "high" penetration. I only know one or two people over the age of 15 who don't have cell phones. Everyone you see has a cell phone glued to his ear. I think that high "penetration" in many countries must be due to people keeping 6 or 7 prepaid SIMs for travel, etc because they are cheap to keep active. In the US most prepaids do "clock out" after a few months because the carriers have to pay a monthly government fee for each active line.