Should MSE Support the Terminatetherate campaign

redux

almillar wrote: »

... it's about what looks like an out of date and inefficient system of telcos (over)charging each other for accepting calls onto their network.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.

To avoid misunderstandings that perhaps some previous posts imply:- the termination fee revenue is not a separated-out tax * to another party that ideally ought to be streamlined, it is a method of trading between the parties involved.

It is quite possible that all telecoms networks have charging arrangements for incoming calls, and it is absolutely certain in any case that all networks need to bill their customers and therefore keep and cannot abandon systems that generate call records, so I don't understand how or why you think it is out of date, or that giving up such revenue would make things cheaper, when the overall cost of running a phone network, and therefore its need to generate income, would be the same.


* with some exceptions: in the case of for example Pakistan landlines, the increases in the last couple of years are indeed tax

lazer

Personally i like the idea as it will help lead the way for new mobile companies and more the more competition the cheaper the prices

And as a contract customer - i'm tired of paying extortionate contract rates to support the PAYG customers.

How many of us know people on PAYG that phone and hang up becasue they are PAYG? Maybe its about time we also brought in paying to receive calls!

Piku

Would there be a way for an independent group to start and organise a campaign?

tabbycat2k

I agree that 3's running of this campaign (and their ownership of the campaign's domain) isn't transparent enough. I also agree that the charges will come in somewhere and I am quite clear that it will cost me 8p to call any phone from my new ASDA sim, and 4p to text. Quite happy with that - fairly good value, straightforward charging and I don't want to fry my brain using my phone too much anyway. So no for me.

almillar

Sorry, perhaps I should have explained my out-of-date comment - I was referring to the cost of mobile telecoms - to consumers and companies, has fallen greatly since the charges were introduced. Good points though.

Sid_Harper

Piku wrote: »

Would there be a way for an independent group to start and organise a campaign?

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ perhaps?

Though as I've said before, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to have some termination rates and if anything it keeps mobile-mobile calls competitive and discourages nuisance telemarketing calls and suchlike

john46jac46

Alonso14 wrote: »

Surely getting rid of termination rates is a good thing - to simplify the scenario, I will only consider MTR's between UK networks. There would be no net flow of money out of the industry as a whole, however, it would perhaps bring smaller networks on to a level playing field - why should a bigger network gain an exponential advantage simply for being bigger? ie. the revenue they get from having a larger customer base should be enough, without gaining extra because more people will be calling their network from outside because a bigger proportion of the population is now on their network!

As for saying that prices would go up... really? Three have already mooted a £35 as-much-as-you-like possibility, so if the other networks didnt match or beat this, then there would be a large exodus to the likes of Three, which they couldnt allow to happen. It would be interesting to see which networks benefit from MTR's (and inevitably, which lose out, as it is a "zero-sum" game (assuming UK isolation)), and by how much.

It's only a zero sum game for mobile to mobile calls. For landline to mobile calls, it's a charge to the landline bill, and a profit to the mobile companies.
(I can see why BT supports the campaign)

I voted no, mainly out of suspicion of 3's motives, and a little worried that my £20 per month bill would increase.

It's a diversion from Martin's question, but I'd rather see Ofcom insist on FREE UK roaming, so that you'd get the strongest signal in the area, regardless of network. The network companies would have to agree the charges of letting others use their network. That would be a zero sum game which would really benefit the consumer, with better coverage and an incentive for ongoing investment.

Alonso14

john46jac46 wrote: »

It's only a zero sum game for mobile to mobile calls. For landline to mobile calls, it's a charge to the landline bill, and a profit to the mobile companies.
(I can see why BT supports the campaign)

I voted no, mainly out of suspicion of 3's motives, and a little worried that my £20 per month bill would increase.

It's a diversion from Martin's question, but I'd rather see Ofcom insist on FREE UK roaming, so that you'd get the strongest signal in the area, regardless of network. The network companies would have to agree the charges of letting others use their network. That would be a zero sum game which would really benefit the consumer, with better coverage and an incentive for ongoing investment.

You are correct in that I only considered mobile to mobile calls, but do landline companies not impose a similar charge when a mobile calls a landline, which would make the mobile+landline industry zero-sum? Edit: the mobile-to-landline is about 10x less than the MTR, so yes the mobile companies do make money from MTR's. But then you would have to take into account the likely increase in landline-to-mobile calls if MTR's were reduced, so the mobile companies wouldnt lose all of that revenue necessarily. (BT: “Bearing in mind the cost of Mobile Termination Rates, it’s easy to see how cheap calls to mobiles could be if termination rates were reduced to around a penny or less.”)

Anyhow, I still think the big operators oppose the idea since they will lose revenue to Three, who being the smallest operator, would clearly benefit from such a reduction, although in my opinion it would be justified since they shouldnt be penalised twice for being small (ie. smallest income + pay most in MTR (net)). If the likes of O2, Vodafone etc started increasing their prices, especially in a recession, then how long do you think they would last? Finally, people who are under contract will not suddenly be charged more or start paying for incoming calls whilst under contract, else you could terminate the contract like people have been doing with Orange recently.

This is taken from the Terminate the rate website:

With low MTRs, we will be able to offer you a guaranteed, revolutionary new type of contract:

£35 a month for ‘all-you-can-eat’ unlimited calls to standard landlines and UK mobiles. This would also include unlimited texts to UK mobiles and unlimited use of internet communication services, such as Skype and Windows Live Messenger in the UK, which we can already offer today.

This would be available with a choice of free mobile phones and have no hidden or unfair charges and a very fair “fair use policy”.

Now that would really bring the internet and mobile together!

Some of our rivals who make a lot of money from MTRs claim that lower MTRs will lead to charges to receive calls on mobile. We think that’s nonsense. We don’t charge for incoming calls now and we never will. If MTRs are lowered in line with actual costs, 3 promises that along with offering all you can eat deals:

"We'll never charge you for receiving a call on your mobile phone!"

evansor

Can I just correct a couple of points:

“A campaign has been set up by mobile phone company three, to argue for the abolition of mobile termination rates.”

The terminate the rate campaign is NOT arguing for the abolition of mobile termination rates but for “ …Ofcom, to lower the rate to reflect actual costs.”

“There is a chance some mobile phone companies … no longer making revenue when someone calls you, will start charging when you receive calls…”

This is a risk but, as above, mobile phone companies would still make revenue from when someone calls one of their customers (to cover their costs) but would no longer make the massive profits they currently do.

There is no guarantee that companies would pass on any savings to customers (there never is) but reducing the termination rate would enable companies to offer customers cheaper calls to mobiles without loosing money on each call made. I am sure that, in the highly competitive telecoms market, some companies would do just that, which would be good news for anyone who wants to call mobile phones.

Snakeeyes21

Its quite amazing that some people think that a reduction in MTRs will lead to charges for recieving calls and higher monthly tariffs, just look whats happened since 2002, the market has never been more competative.
it wont happen here in the uk, not ever, and id put my house on it.
the first network to introduce a charge for recieving calls is the network that will go down the pan over night