Should MSE Support the Terminatetherate campaign

brunix

Martin,

in light of the comments so far there is considerable interest on this topic. Most MSs support a reduction in termination rates, but possibly not to zero (as in fixed TLC). Many share concerns that the Terminate the rate campaign has a strong Three marketing element, probably not to the taste of all.

I would humbly suggest to put something up on number 10 along the lines of: support for (further) reductions in termination rates. Then if Three wants to support it too..

B.

unionjack81

I have voted no on the basis there isn't a great deal of certainty as to what the medium to long-term effects to the pricing structure of mobile phones will be.

I'm not sure of the market share that each network provider has but surely it's the big guys that are likely to lose out here on the basis they have more mobile phones to be called and thus allow charging the 5p rate?

Sounds like 3 is attempting an pretty nifty marketing ploy!? :rotfl:

starbump

What would this mean for PAYG users? People trying to balance their budgets are more likely to use PAYG rather than contracts. If you don't make calls then you don't get charged. If that were to change... then you'd have to keep topping up your PAYG phone all the time because even if you switched it off you'd presumably still be charged when it went to voicemail. PAYG would become unaffordable for lots of low/light usage people and they would have to stop owning cell phones. Doesn't seem fair - I've voted "no". (And, yes, I use a PAYG cell phone.)

andrewsavedexpert

I don't think MSE should support the campaign.

It seems likely that if termination charges are decreased the money will be made back in line rental charges.

This seems most likely to hurt the consumer - whose number is more likely to be called by cold callers (their costs will decrease) and make no difference for friends - whose minutes are likely to be included, and whose line rental may increase.

I cant see that network operators will tolerate a reduction in profits!

Sid_Harper

I personally prefer to have cheaper mobile-mobile calls than landline-mobile. Get rid of termination rates and your spam mobile calls will go up too, as well as operators introducing charges to receive calls like in the US. So I don't support it and I don't think MSE should either.

Foneman

This isn't a consumer-focussed campaign - it's run by 3 and BT to benefit 3 and BT to the detriment of their competitors. I think it's to the shame of the Plain English Campaign that they've been dragged in.

djacobson82

I don't think MSE should support this campaign!

This campaign is being run by 3 because their customers are very different to most normal mobile customers. Whilst approximately 70% of the mobile subscribers are PAYG customers, H3G only have about 30% PAYG customers.

PAYG customers tend to receive a lot more calls than they make, whilst contract customers tend to make more calls than they receive. Therefore H3G as a whole tend to make many more calls than they receive. Therefore they end up paying out to other operators for call termination. However this is not the result of them being small and Vodafone being big, but rather the result of them focussing their offers only on high-value customers with very large call packages. Other equally small companies like Virgin and Tesco mostly have PAYG customers.

If termination rates were reduced below the level of costs (which Ofcom currently set them at) then the current PAYG tariffs will be unaffordable as operators will get no money to cover their costs of receiving calls. In one way or another, prices for PAYG customers would rise.

The country that has the most comparable system to what 3 are advocating is USA. Whilst it is true that there are unlimited call bundles available there, there are also no truly PAYG tariffs available. You also need to pay to receive calls. As a result about many more people (who would be on PAYG here) cannot afford to have a phone.

MSE needs to think whether it wants to supports a campaign that may help some high-value customers get £35 unlimited call packages but also means that PAYG customers (the majority of the UK including the most needy and those on lowest income who can't pass credit checks) will be significantly worse off and may not be able to afford a phone. Is that the kind of income distribution that MSE is in favour of?????

hamedb0001

3 are truly awful: why support their campaign? If MSE feels that there is a fight to be fought here (or on something similar) then why not start a separate campaign that doesn't serve 3's own agenda?

Wouldn't a more sensible approach be for Ofcom to impose a standard termination charge for mobile operators? That way the smaller operators wouldn't be able to top-up their income by having higher termination charges (as 3 were), so they would have to target new customers through cutting prices, therefore pushing the big networks to cut theirs. It might be a little simplistic, but it seems like a better route than eliminating the termination charges altogether.

And anyway: mobile telecoms are relatively expensive to operate, much more so than fixed-line, and yet there are many subscribers (myself included) who get mobile-to-mobile calls for a few pence per minute, plus a free phone every 18 months. Sim only contracts are even cheaper. To me the more important issues are getting 0870/0845 numbers included in monthly allowances and international roaming. I'd put my name to petitions any time.

moneysavingpete

djacobson82 wrote: »

I don't think MSE should support this campaign!

If termination rates were reduced below the level of costs (which Ofcom currently set them at) then the current PAYG tariffs will be unaffordable as operators will get no money to cover their costs of receiving calls. In one way or another, prices for PAYG customers would rise.

Im completely in favour of driving these costs down.

Reading this thread is the first I had ever heard of these charges. I have just read through every part of the terminatetherate site so I can make an informed decision.

From what I can tell the main companies who have put their name to this are campaigning for a reduction in the cost of termination fees to just above cost level. Surely this will therefore mean that the networks will not need to charge for incoming calls as their costs will still be covered??

There also seems to be a lot of 3 bashing throughout this thread. Dont get me wrong I am hardly their biggest fan (customer services especially) but three dont appear to be the only organisation supporting this. What financial gain will carersUK and mobilechoice make in this reduction?????

Everyone is welcome to their opinion obviously but lets put the 3 factor to one side and vote on the reduction rather than if we like 3 or not????

almillar

A lot of people seem to say no because they don't like Three - that's no reason to be against the campaign! Plenty of good points above about PAYG customers etc.
As above, Three's point is that the current system favours big operators, since as well as getting more money because of more customers, they get more money from people calling these customers from other networks.
You don't usually know what network the person you are calling is on, so you could be costing your network money.
I just think it's a really un-transparent charge that is made, and is outdated, especially in these days when the mobile operators are sharing masts etc.