mobile phone bill :-(

NFH

That's very interesting but bundles allowing unlimited usage are very fair. Instead of charging on a usage basis, they charge on a time period basis.

However, mobile bundles are nearly always limited to both a usage amount and a time period, meaning that if you don't use up all of your allowance within the time period, the result is that you pay for usage that you don't consume; this is unfair to the consumer and is of benefit only to the supplier. Equally, if you use up all of the usage period but not the usage allowance, you are penalised unreasonably at a non-pro-rata rate.

If bundles are to be sold, then they should be either for a fixed period of time, irrespective of usage, or for a fixed period of usage, irrespective of time period.

It is unreasonable of suppliers to expect consumers to predict precisely how much usage they will consume within a given time period.

mobilejunkie

In YOUR opinion. Not mine and many others, methinks! I believe the present abundance of options on both PAYG and contracts are ideal for me and most people.

NFH

What is the benefit to the consumer of a limited-allowance bundle vs a postpaid contract (like a corporate tariff) where you pay only for what you use?

For example, isn't it better to pay a flat 1p/MB rather than £9 for a 1GB bundle with any extra charged at 20p/MB?

gjchester

NFH wrote: »

If bundles are to be sold, then they should be either for a fixed period of time, irrespective of usage, or for a fixed period of usage, irrespective of time period.

How would you manage people that top up with a bundle then don't use the phone, we'd run out of numbers before long if they are not recycled?


Or would you like it as it used to be (and still is in the US) where you need to buy airtime credit and service credit as discreet items and need both to be in the back to use the phone?

mobilejunkie

The benefit to me is 100%. Currently I run 8 contracts and never pay more than the bundle cost. It doesn't bother me in the least if I don't use all the allowances - only that I don't exceed any of them. And it costs me... zilch.

NFH

gjchester wrote: »

How would you manage people that top up with a bundle then don't use the phone, we'd run out of numbers before long if they are not recycled?

I'm not suggesting any change to the requirement for usage every six months to maintain the validity of prepaid accounts. In any case, I'm talking more about postpaid accounts than prepaid accounts.

NFH

mobilejunkie wrote: »

The benefit to me is 100%. Currently I run 8 contracts and never pay more than the bundle cost. It doesn't bother me in the least if I don't use all the allowances - only that I don't exceed any of them. And it costs me... zilch.

It doesn't cost you zilch. It costs you the full price of the bundle, even if you don't use all of it. Why should you pay for more than you've used? Would you accept such a system with gas and electricity? If not, why not?

cookie365

NFH wrote: »

You can't.

Seriously?

It's your belief that you can't look at the prices before you sign up and choose another option if you don't like them?

You need to move house then, if your manor is full of roaming mobile phone salesmen kidnapping people and forcing them into signing mobile phone contracts that they don't actually want. Vodafone is the worst, I hear. Apparently they put life size photos of Bieber and Cyrus next to their price lists, so nobody ever looks at what they'll be paying.

NFH wrote: »

Almost all the networks have jumped on the bundle bandwagon. It is almost impossible to pay a reasonable price for any type of usage without buying a bundle, unless you're lucky enough to get a corporate tariff.

Lots and lots of people seem quite happy on pay as you go tariffs. Perhaps we should be employing these people as forensic detectives, as they seem to have achieved the almost impossible by discovering pay as you go tariffs that offer them the best value. My alternative explanation: that there are loads of tariffs out there, you just go and pick the one that's best for you, whether it's a bundle or pay as you go, is I'm afraid very dull by comparison.

NFH wrote: »

You still haven't answered my point about why consumers accept bundles on mobile phone usage but they wouldn't accept them on energy supply.

No, I haven't have I? Maybe that's because I'm talking about mobile phone prices. If you want a discussion about energy prices, pop over to the Utilities forum where I believe you'll find lots of people who care about such things.

And they'll love chatting with people who pass off their own conclusions as the premises of their arguments

mobilejunkie

NFH wrote: »

It doesn't cost you zilch. It costs you the full price of the bundle, even if you don't use all of it. Why should you pay for more than you've used? Would you accept such a system with gas and electricity? If not, why not?

Funny. My latest contract will cost me £25.92 for 24 months (not per month), I sold the phone tonight for just over £170 and got cashback for ordering the deal. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to work out that (after the costs of selling and posting the phone) I will end up with a profit of around £160. I will use some of the bundle but it doesn't bother me in the slightest if I don't use it fully. After all, the networks are paying for it (and the dealers).

I'm so angry at those networks taking advantage of me; I'm so grateful for you telling them not to - then I could end up paying for my mobiles and bundles - and I never do that. In fact, I also save by never paying for land line calls either, get all my 08 numbers free and a LOT more. I do like assumptions and crusaders - they always mess it up for people whilst claiming they are "helping".

NFH

There are all kinds of ways of arbitraging contracts etc. I'm not talking about that, but about the way that bundles have become the only way to pay a reasonable price per unit of usage for those average consumers who are not arbitraging.