Should MSE Support the Terminatetherate campaign

gjchester

The mobileco's want there profits, they are shareholder driven. Cutting profit from one area and it will push a price up elsewhere. The EU capped roaming rates and Three removed the three like home service, Coinicidence maybe but when they lost the profitable roaming payments then they cut other services.

Does anyone honestly expect if this comes to pass we'll all get lower bills as the savings are passed ot the end user?

Gentoo_2

Do not support - Stay Neutral and consider the customers not the corporations

This is an internal matter between the telecoms companies, the site should concentrate on the consumer.

In addition it is logical that the person who makes the call pays, it is perverse to expect the cost of the call to be covered by the receiving network, that could result in US style pricing where a person pays to receive calls and text messages.

Imagine a similar situation with mail. Whereby the post office charge the recipient for receiving mail. It is clearly correct that it is the sender who pays.

Otherwise someone could create a very cheap method for making outgoing calls only (e.g. via the internet) and offers the service to companies who can junk call at will.

Anyway, my point is that this is not a matter for consumers to care about at present. I do not thing this site should take sides, it should concentrate on what deals will be available and how customers will be treated.

The economics of the change would take a bit of thought, a bit of modeling and some considerations of this paticular market (where economies of scale benefit the consumer as much as competition). I do not believe that this is something which suits the 'Fight the System' mentality that '3' are trying to whip up.

-Alex-

I'll personally support it - but I don't think MSE should support it at this point in time.

The rather high cost of calling mobile phones from landlines is rather nasty, it's something which could easily be reduced by terminating the MTR. I'd like to be able to phone a mobile phone without having to watching the clock and keep the calls short.

However I would be concerned at the networks trying to charge for receiving calls. The site says that 3 wouldn't, but it could quite easily change down the road with PAYG having to pay to receive and contract users having it included as a perk. Who knows?

jb478914

Strongly against - reiterate what a previous poster said about junk/spam/marketing phone calls would increase exponentially

It could get like emails, having to change addresses etc......

TurkishDelight

I say no. As a non-mobile phone user the idea of being charged for incoming mobile calls is ridiculous (even if it is only a possibility). Also I am sceptical if the costs would actually go down, or if the companies would just make more profit...

redux

In a few weeks time, BT's rates for calling landlines will increase to 5.25 pence a minute, up in several stages from 3 pence a minute. No doubt the sheep-like TalkTalk and other so-called competitors will yet again soon follow

There have been no underlying wholesale price increases that would explain this, so there unlikely to be any guarantee that decreases in trade rates would cause any drop in rates from landlines to mobiles


Oh, and another 3 increase recently was their leap from 12p to 20p for PAYG calls to landlines and mobiles, which has naff-all to do with what the destination network charges them. And they've dumped their Flat12 tariff for new entrants, and the so-called Stretch bundles are poorer value than a while ago.

Yes, they've got free Skype calls, without any obligation to ever top up, but having customers who earn them little no revenue at all is their decision, no-one else's.

jsanthony

As I live in a low coverage area I need to use the landline to make calls to mobiles, the cost is ridiculous and I am on a very competitive landline tariff. I am very for this campaign even with Three administrating it - they can't use petitioners details for marketing purposes if they have not been collected for that purpose.

student100

This would surely lead to a situation like that in the US, where you have to pay to receive calls on mobiles. Amongst other things, not only would there probably be a marked increase in telemarketing and junk calls to your mobile, but you'd have to pay to receive them!

cannysaver09

I know its operated by three. and love or hate them they must have some interest in this. But ... they cost the most to call from a landline as previous posters have commented, but they have good coverage and offer free skype calls unlimited 3 to 3 calls(well 3000 mins a month) where do they make money out of that or is it just a gimmic no one actually uses much. I have had a 3 mobile for 4 years and made 1 skype call as no one uses their skype all the time and 3 to 3 is free anyway.

Martin I support the aim but would love you to look into what the companies are up to and how this will affect mobile users we all want to save but we dont want to see line rental up to cover the MTR..... What are 3 really up to ?????

almillar

There's no way they can start charging you to receive calls - that won't be tolerated - can't believe that it is in USA. Maybe I've misunderstood, but it doesn't look like this is about consumers being charged to receive, it's about what looks like an out of date and inefficient system of telcos (over)charging each other for accepting calls onto their network. Get rid of this charge (using the argument that o2 paying voda £10m and vice versa is a waste) would surely be more efficient and drive DOWN charges. Big networks like o2 would receive more calls than small ones like Three, but then that's because o2 have more customers, and take in more money.