Consumers In U.S., Canada Pay More For Wireless Wireless industry respectfully requests that you ignore this The latest OECD data suggests consumers in Canada, Spain and the United States pay the most for calls and text messages of all 30 ranked OECD nations. Unlike Europe, callers in Canada and the US pay to receive messages -- but even factored in North American customers are paying considerably more than dozens of other countries. On average, the OECD found that Americans pay $635.85 on cell phone service, compared to $131.44 per year in the Netherlands or $137.94 per year in Sweden.

The study highlights how prices have decreased 21% for low-usage (360 calls per year, 390 SMS, 8 MMS) consumers, 28% for medium usage, and by about 32% for high usage (1680 calls per year, 660 SMS)consumers. Still, a medium use customer in the United States (780 calls per year, 600 SMS, and eight MMS) pays $53 a month for service, compared to $11 a month for service in the Netherlands. As you might expect, the wireless industry issued a press release proclaiming the study was based on "flawed assumptions" that "just don’t make sense." If you look at the data the way carriers would like, you're getting quite the bargain. The CTIA does have a point that the OECD's usage categories seem low -- particularly when it comes to MMS use. Another reason U.S. prices seem high? Carriers charge a hell of a lot of money for service. They also spend millions on lobbyists who tirelessly work to eliminate consumer protections and price controls. Carriers had a Carriers had a similar response when recently asked why exactly SMS prices have jumped 200% in just two years despite the service costing virtually nothing to provide (160 byte data is already transferred via tower control channels). Verizon went so far as to deny SMS prices had risen at all -- and that if consumers looked at the data the way Verizon would like, SMS prices have actually decreased. How? By jacking up SMS prices, carriers got consumers to flock to bundle SMS packages ranging from $5-$15 per month.







News Jump SpaceX Providing Internet To Towns Hit by Wildfires; Verizon Launches New 5G Home Hardware In Twin Cities; + more news Stark New Reality In The Telco Business: Dumb Pipes No Longer Cut It; AT&T Unveils Mix and Match Plans; + more news AT&T Extends Overage Charge Waiver; Verizon And T-Mobile Each Insist Their 5G Strategy Is The Right One; + more news War Of Words Heats Up: T-Mobile Fires Back At Verizon, AT&T; Amazon Intros Gaming Service To Take On Stadia; + more news Starlink's Network Faces Huge Limitations; AT&T Whines T-Mobile Merger Put Too Much Spectrum In One Place; + more news WISPs Get CBRS Range As Great As Six Miles At 100 Mbps Speeds; Windstream Officially Exits Bankruptcy; + more news Charter Relaunches Free 60-day Internet And Wi-Fi Offer; NCTA: FCC Should Stick With 25/3 Speed Threshold; + more news Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed view:

topics flat nest

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25

Sussex, NJ fifty nine Member Calling party pays In some countries the calling party pays more, sometimes much more when they call a mobile. We don't.



This could at least in part explain the reason why our wireless costs more. Luminaris

join:2005-12-01

Waterford, VA Luminaris Member Re: Calling party pays This maybe true but still, the price difference per year is, astonishing to me.

BACONATOR26

Premium Member

join:2000-11-25

Nepean, ON BACONATOR26 to fifty nine

Premium Member to fifty nine

But also consider (and it's been a while since I've looked at pricing over there) but you also get more minutes for the same pricing as our plans in Canada, in many cases unlimited national mobile to mobile calling, cheaper long distance and much better roaming rates.

en102

Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26

Valencia, CA en102 Member Re: Calling party pays Canada has a LOT of extra fees.

SAF, long distance, caller id, voicemail are all extras in Canada.

If I'm not mistaken, in Canada, you pay long distance even on a received call.



US has a LARGE geographical area covered. Most other countries are the size of a US state, and pay roaming through the nose... in the US - its all bundled.

pnh102

Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty

Premium Member

join:2002-05-02

Mount Airy, MD pnh102 Premium Member Re: Calling party pays said by en102:



If I'm not mistaken, in Canada, you pay long distance even on a received call. If I'm not mistaken, in Canada, you pay long distance even on a received call. said by en102:



US has a LARGE geographical area covered. Most other countries are the size of a US state, and pay roaming through the nose... in the US - its all bundled. US has a LARGE geographical area covered. Most other countries are the size of a US state, and pay roaming through the nose... in the US - its all bundled. Oy... the service I had from Bell Atlantic Mobile back in the mid-1990s was like that. If I was outside of my local calling area I had some sort of inbound long distance per-minute fee tacked onto the call, and that was on top of roaming. If I remember correctly there was also a "termination fee" for ever completed outbound call.True. Paying extra for roaming within the USA for domestic plans is almost unheard of these days.

Ignite

Premium Member

join:2004-03-18

UK Ignite to fifty nine

Premium Member to fifty nine

said by fifty nine:



In some countries the calling party pays more, sometimes much more when they call a mobile. We don't.



This could at least in part explain the reason why our wireless costs more.

In some countries the calling party pays more, sometimes much more when they call a mobile. We don't.This could at least in part explain the reason why our wireless costs more. Paying to receive probably doesn't help. You guys, err, take it both ways

Rob

Premium Member

join:2001-08-25

Miami, FL Rob Premium Member All this money and still not the best networks.. I could understand if Canada/U.S. consumers pay more for wireless while having the best networks in their respective countries, but foreign countries where it's cheaper tend to have much more advance networks.

SpaethCo

Digital Plumber

MVM

join:2001-04-21

Minneapolis, MN 1 recommendation SpaethCo MVM Re: All this money and still not the best networks.. said by Rob:



I could understand if Canada/U.S. consumers pay more for wireless while having the best networks in their respective countries, but foreign countries where it's cheaper tend to have much more advance networks. I could understand if Canada/U.S. consumers pay more for wireless while having the best networks in their respective countries, but foreign countries where it's cheaper tend to have much more advance networks.



We all want the best technology available, unless it means there might be something not aesthetically pleasing (be it a VRAD cabinet or cell tower) placed in my neighborhood. Both the US and Canada have relatively low population density across the massive landmass they need to cover, and you also have the problem of "not in my back yard" zoning restricting the placement of infrastructure.We all want the best technology available, unless it means there might be something not aesthetically pleasing (be it a VRAD cabinet or cell tower) placed in my neighborhood.

pnh102

Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty

Premium Member

join:2002-05-02

Mount Airy, MD pnh102 Premium Member Re: All this money and still not the best networks.. said by SpaethCo:



Both the US and Canada have relatively low population density across the massive landmass they need to cover, and you also have the problem of "not in my back yard" zoning restricting the placement of infrastructure. Both the US and Canada have relatively low population density across the massive landmass they need to cover, and you also have the problem of "not in my back yard" zoning restricting the placement of infrastructure.



People who are opposed to the placement of cell towers for any reason should be banned from ever having a cell phone. I am not sure how much of a problem this NIMBY stupidity when it comes to cell phone towers is in Canada, but in the USA, I get sick and tired of people complaining about cell phone tower placement. We allow for ugly utility poles to go up and down streets because we need to be able to get electricity, cable TV and conventional phone service from one place to another, what is the big deal about cell towers?People who are opposed to the placement of cell towers for any reason should be banned from ever having a cell phone.

DeathK

Premium Member

join:2002-06-16

Cincinnati, OH DeathK Premium Member Re: All this money and still not the best networks.. said by SpaethCo:



We allow for ugly utility poles to go up and down streets because we need to be able to get electricity, cable TV and conventional phone service from one place to another, what is the big deal about cell towers? We allow for ugly utility poles to go up and down streets because we need to be able to get electricity, cable TV and conventional phone service from one place to another, what is the big deal about cell towers?



Personally I don't give a damn. Give me better service. People have grown up with all their lives with telephone poles running along roads everywhere. They're used to it. Having a cell tower pop up where there never used to be one is a scary propositionPersonally I don't give a damn. Give me better service.

pnh102

Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty

Premium Member

join:2002-05-02

Mount Airy, MD pnh102 Premium Member Re: All this money and still not the best networks.. said by DeathK:



Personally I don't give a damn. Give me better service. Personally I don't give a damn. Give me better service.



These must be the world's most pathetic people. Who even notices a cell tower? No kidding. I'll let any cell company that wants to rent property from me to build a tower do it.These must be the world's most pathetic people. Who even notices a cell tower?

nixen

Rockin' the Boxen

Premium Member

join:2002-10-04

Alexandria, VA nixen to DeathK

Premium Member to DeathK

said by DeathK:



People have grown up with all their lives with telephone poles running along roads everywhere. They're used to it. Having a cell tower pop up where there never used to be one is a scary proposition



Personally I don't give a damn. Give me better service.

People have grown up with all their lives with telephone poles running along roads everywhere. They're used to it. Having a cell tower pop up where there never used to be one is a scary propositionPersonally I don't give a damn. Give me better service. People used to grow up with different "telephone" poles for each pole-user (competing telephone providers each had their own, as did power companies). It was an aesthetic nightmare that was solved by making the various utilities share poles (and, in some locations, running all wired utilities underground). Some of the cell-phone mess might be solved by putting small cell pads on the currently existing poles in much the same way that they put them on the upper parts of buildings. Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO 1 recommendation Skippy25 to SpaethCo

Member to SpaethCo

Here we go..... when ever our country looks bad compared to the rest of the world and we can't logically justify it lets through out the "we are really big and dispersed" argument that makes it seem like everything is OK here.

DaCheetah

@usyd.edu.au DaCheetah Anon Re: All this money and still not the best networks.. Agreed, it's a poor excuse.

The US has ~10 times the population density of Australia, and last I checked we (Australians) pay less for SMS messages. (We pay slightly more to send them, but nothing, not a cent, to receive them, unless they are "premium SMS" messages like the $10/month horror-scopes that are a total waste of time and money)

This also doesn't take into account that most people here are on "cap" plans, where as long as you don't go over the "included credit" you only pay about a quarter of the total you "spend", making the ~$0.20 SMS more like 5c (Which would be about 4c US at the moment)

These plans also often have ~150 free SMS messages per month and ~100 hours of free talk time to others on the same network. sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24

Cleveland, OH sonicmerlin to SpaethCo

Member to SpaethCo

said by SpaethCo:



said by Rob:



I could understand if Canada/U.S. consumers pay more for wireless while having the best networks in their respective countries, but foreign countries where it's cheaper tend to have much more advance networks. I could understand if Canada/U.S. consumers pay more for wireless while having the best networks in their respective countries, but foreign countries where it's cheaper tend to have much more advance networks.



We all want the best technology available, unless it means there might be something not aesthetically pleasing (be it a VRAD cabinet or cell tower) placed in my neighborhood.

Both the US and Canada have relatively low population density across the massive landmass they need to cover, and you also have the problem of "not in my back yard" zoning restricting the placement of infrastructure.We all want the best technology available, unless it means there might be something not aesthetically pleasing (be it a VRAD cabinet or cell tower) placed in my neighborhood.



Uh, here in central Europe (Austria) I'm paying EUR 19.50 per month for virtually unlimited voice and data (1000min/month and 3GB/month, both of which I can never reach). Something is seriously wrong over there on your side.



Well, actually the big chunk of Austria are thinly populated mountains.



According to the CIA factbook, ~15% of the land is arable (which probably includes also the mountain farmers that are basically surviving on EU subsidies).



Same source: urban population: 67% of total population (2008)



Now all GSM/UMTS licenses include a rule that forces the mobile carriers to offer service to over 90% (not sure about the exact values, they might even vary depending upon the license) of the population, so not offering the mountain population service is not an option.



That's probably more painful to some than others, e.g. 3 (drei.at) has no GSM license, so they have to fulfill their service requirements via UMTS that tend to need more base stations. Allow me to quote someone whose experience disputes your claims:Uh, here in central Europe (Austria) I'm paying EUR 19.50 per month for virtually unlimited voice and data (1000min/month and 3GB/month, both of which I can never reach). Something is seriously wrong over there on your side.Well, actually the big chunk of Austria are thinly populated mountains.According to the CIA factbook, ~15% of the land is arable (which probably includes also the mountain farmers that are basically surviving on EU subsidies).Same source: urban population: 67% of total population (2008)Now all GSM/UMTS licenses include a rule that forces the mobile carriers to offer service to over 90% (not sure about the exact values, they might even vary depending upon the license) of the population, so not offering the mountain population service is not an option.That's probably more painful to some than others, e.g. 3 (drei.at) has no GSM license, so they have to fulfill their service requirements via UMTS that tend to need more base stations.

nixen

Rockin' the Boxen

Premium Member

join:2002-10-04

Alexandria, VA nixen Premium Member Re: All this money and still not the best networks.. Also, I don't really recall the SIM card I got for my BlackBerry costing me for out-of-country roaming when I called from outside Germany (e.g., while driving through Belgium or Amsterdam). Granted, it was a few months ago, so I don't have the usage bill in front of me. Maybe it did, I just don't recall precipitous fund drains happening when traveling outside Germany with my German SIM.

Uncle Remus

@shawcable.net Uncle Remus Anon Re: All this money and still not the best networks.. re: Bertrand Russell



How true that is!

Parogadi

What? Stop Looking At Me Like That

Premium Member

join:2003-03-31

Racine, WI Parogadi to SpaethCo

Premium Member to SpaethCo

Oh not that same lame tired ass argument again, how long did it take them to wire up 3G in most of the normal sized cities in the US? the population density can't be that much lower then most small cities around the world, I'll give you back woods Nebraska, but it should take 5 years to cover the decent sized cities. Same thing with their cherry picking of internet speeds. If they can run phone power, water, cable and sewage they can put up a cell tower... WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04

Sugar Land, TX WernerSchutz to Rob

Member to Rob

said by Rob:



I could understand if Canada/U.S. consumers pay more for wireless while having the best networks in their respective countries, but foreign countries where it's cheaper tend to have much more advance networks.

I could understand if Canada/U.S. consumers pay more for wireless while having the best networks in their respective countries, but foreign countries where it's cheaper tend to have much more advance networks. Same as with Internet access via, say, cable. Poor service/high price. Same politics used to rip off the customer.

jmn1207

Premium Member

join:2000-07-19

Sterling, VA 1 recommendation jmn1207 Premium Member How Much For That Phone In The Window? Sure we pay more, but how is it compared when you throw in the price of the phones? We often see higher priced plans because the phone's cost is being subsidized by them.



Also, my plan covers a significant area. A plan that covers most of Europe would have to be considered to be comparable, not just individual countries like the Netherlands. I could probably find a cheaper plan if it only covered an area the size of Maryland.



Yes, Europe tends to have more advanced communications, and their trains rock, but the numbers aren't as far off as it might seem. What about taxes? Have any taxes been added to the cost of these plans? Some of these countries have taken a lot of money from their people to finance the infrastructure. This cost would also have to be included to the overall price being paid for service.



Find me a total percentage of a person's income spent to support their wireless service after everything has been more accurately calculated, and then we might have a comparison that is useful and fair. sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24

Cleveland, OH sonicmerlin Member Re: How Much For That Phone In The Window? said by jmn1207:



Sure we pay more, but how is it compared when you throw in the price of the phones? We often see higher priced plans because the phone's cost is being subsidized by them.



Also, my plan covers a significant area. A plan that covers most of Europe would have to be considered to be comparable, not just individual countries like the Netherlands. I could probably find a cheaper plan if it only covered an area the size of Maryland.



Yes, Europe tends to have more advanced communications, and their trains rock, but the numbers aren't as far off as it might seem. What about taxes? Have any taxes been added to the cost of these plans? Some of these countries have taken a lot of money from their people to finance the infrastructure. This cost would also have to be included to the overall price being paid for service.



Find me a total percentage of a person's income spent to support their wireless service after everything has been more accurately calculated, and then we might have a comparison that is useful and fair.

Sure we pay more, but how is it compared when you throw in the price of the phones? We often see higher priced plans because the phone's cost is being subsidized by them.Also, my plan covers a significant area. A plan that covers most of Europe would have to be considered to be comparable, not just individual countries like the Netherlands. I could probably find a cheaper plan if it only covered an area the size of Maryland.Yes, Europe tends to have more advanced communications, and their trains rock, but the numbers aren't as far off as it might seem. What about taxes? Have any taxes been added to the cost of these plans? Some of these countries have taken a lot of money from their people to finance the infrastructure. This cost would also have to be included to the overall price being paid for service.Find me a total percentage of a person's income spent to support their wireless service after everything has been more accurately calculated, and then we might have a comparison that is useful and fair.



So yes, actually, in the US taxpayers have indeed funded most of the infrastructure already.



Let's not forget the huge markups Verizon and AT&T charge on special access lines, completely abusing their duopolistic control over the middle mile.



It is incredibly frustrating to be paying so much to these greedy thugs after paying for the infrastructure. Umm...remember the $200 billion dollars of tax payer money the ISP incumbents stole over the last decade or so? It didn't just vanish into thin air. They spent most of that money on building out their wireless infrastructure.So yes, actually, in the US taxpayers have indeed funded most of the infrastructure already.Let's not forget the huge markups Verizon and AT&T charge on special access lines, completely abusing their duopolistic control over the middle mile.It is incredibly frustrating to be paying so much to these greedy thugs after paying for the infrastructure.

jmn1207

Premium Member

join:2000-07-19

Sterling, VA jmn1207 Premium Member Re: How Much For That Phone In The Window? What is $200 billion dollars in a percentage of our total income when compared to others? Face it, our conglomerates are just better at price gouging customers than the European corporations. We win! Gardener

Premium Member

join:2006-10-19

Burnaby, BC ·TELUS

Gardener Premium Member Try CDN$ 134.40 per year Most of my family is on "pay-and-talk" that costs $11.20 per month, including taxes. $0.25/minute for voice and $0.15/text in or out. Seems reasonable for casual use. I'm in the age group that was brought up to call only when necessary and to keep calls short; my kids pay for their own service.



When I bought the phone, incoming text messages were free, then Telus began charging for incoming texts. Now we find that a short voice call is more cost-effective than exchanging several text messages, so we've adapted our use to the greed of the carrier.

yock

TFTC

Premium Member

join:2000-11-21

Miamisburg, OH 1 recommendation yock Premium Member Subsidized? I wonder how subsidized the networks are in the "cheapest" parts of the world. Lower bills are irrelevant if you're making up for it in taxes. hoyleysox

Premium Member

join:2003-11-07

Long Beach, CA hoyleysox Premium Member Coverage areas The netherlands is a small country relative to the US so I reason it would take fewer cell towers to cover the country.



The US has a lot more rural areas to cover...



Not really sure about sweden.

Parogadi

What? Stop Looking At Me Like That

Premium Member

join:2003-03-31

Racine, WI Parogadi Premium Member Re: Coverage areas we don't have to and neither do they, they at least put up towers where people actually are, unlike the us where we maybe, just might get around to it 3 years after we claim we cover your small to mid sized city with minimum 500k people in it...



your argument is still a straw man as if the place already has power, water, sewage, road, natural gas, phone cable the whole works then theres no reason internet and cell service should be any harder t put in, in fact it should be even easier to put in as phone and cable lines are there thus fios connections should be at some nodes in the area. Hell cell is about the easiest of these things to install, you only need a few antennas, you don't need to run wiring or pipes to each and every home and business...



so GTFO corporate shill. hoyleysox

Premium Member

join:2003-11-07

Long Beach, CA hoyleysox Premium Member Re: Coverage areas said by Parogadi:



we don't have to and neither do they, they at least put up towers where people actually are, unlike the us where we maybe, just might get around to it 3 years after we claim we cover your small to mid sized city with minimum 500k people in it...



your argument is still a straw man as if the place already has power, water, sewage, road, natural gas, phone cable the whole works then theres no reason internet and cell service should be any harder t put in, in fact it should be even easier to put in as phone and cable lines are there thus fios connections should be at some nodes in the area. Hell cell is about the easiest of these things to install, you only need a few antennas, you don't need to run wiring or pipes to each and every home and business...



so GTFO corporate shill.

we don't have to and neither do they, they at least put up towers where people actually are, unlike the us where we maybe, just might get around to it 3 years after we claim we cover your small to mid sized city with minimum 500k people in it...your argument is still a straw man as if the place already has power, water, sewage, road, natural gas, phone cable the whole works then theres no reason internet and cell service should be any harder t put in, in fact it should be even easier to put in as phone and cable lines are there thus fios connections should be at some nodes in the area. Hell cell is about the easiest of these things to install, you only need a few antennas, you don't need to run wiring or pipes to each and every home and business...so GTFO corporate shill.

I am not talking about how difficult it is to install a cell tower, I am talking how many you have to put up to cover an area: a lot more in the US than the Netherlands.



Btw: see below for definition of a straw man argument, then reread your post.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man



Personal attacks with signature vouching for free speech. sheesh. must be a late night. I am not talking about how difficult it is to install a cell tower, I am talking how many you have to put up to cover an area: a lot more in the US than the Netherlands.Btw: see below for definition of a straw man argument, then reread your post.Personal attacks with signature vouching for free speech. sheesh. must be a late night.

Parogadi

What? Stop Looking At Me Like That

Premium Member

join:2003-03-31

Racine, WI Parogadi Premium Member Re: Coverage areas sure because you need to have a 3g capable cell tower everywhere in the us... if your population density for a given area is 1 person per mile fucket, no tower needed, that guy is bear food for all anyone cares, but for any place with a decent amount of people it should cost this much or take this long for them to install a tower. If a place has a population density high enough for all the other utilities and amenities then cell with at least 3g should be installed promptly.



landmass of the Netherlands has nothing to do with it as the install cost is about the same anywhere and everywhere.



You got any more strawmen to set ablaze? hoyleysox

Premium Member

join:2003-11-07

Long Beach, CA hoyleysox Premium Member Re: Coverage areas said by Parogadi:



sure because you need to have a 3g capable cell tower everywhere in the us... if your population density for a given area is 1 person per mile fucket, no tower needed, that guy is bear food for all anyone cares, but for any place with a decent amount of people it should cost this much or take this long for them to install a tower. If a place has a population density high enough for all the other utilities and amenities then cell with at least 3g should be installed promptly.



landmass of the Netherlands has nothing to do with it as the install cost is about the same anywhere and everywhere.



You got any more strawmen to set ablaze?

sure because you need to have a 3g capable cell tower everywhere in the us... if your population density for a given area is 1 person per mile fucket, no tower needed, that guy is bear food for all anyone cares, but for any place with a decent amount of people it should cost this much or take this long for them to install a tower. If a place has a population density high enough for all the other utilities and amenities then cell with at least 3g should be installed promptly.landmass of the Netherlands has nothing to do with it as the install cost is about the same anywhere and everywhere.You got any more strawmen to set ablaze?



You are correct that the land mass alone is not the issue. I should have elaborated that low population density areas coupled with land mass is the issue that makes costs higher in the US than the Netherlands, thus driving up rates.



I reread my initial post and I still don't see how it constitutes a straw man argument, not that I don't make them. Usually straw man arguments include phrases like "some people say..." I did not try to twist anyone else's argument, my point was my own. I felt like ending with an ad hominem argument but thought it would not show class. Your first paragraph summarizes my point pretty well.You are correct that the land mass alone is not the issue. I should have elaborated that low population density areas coupled with land mass is the issue that makes costs higher in the US than the Netherlands, thus driving up rates.I reread my initial post and I still don't see how it constitutes a straw man argument, not that I don't make them. Usually straw man arguments include phrases like "some people say..." I did not try to twist anyone else's argument, my point was my own. I felt like ending with an ad hominem argument but thought it would not show class.

Parogadi

What? Stop Looking At Me Like That

Premium Member

join:2003-03-31

Racine, WI Parogadi Premium Member Re: Coverage areas because you're still making the assumption that these other countries are putting up a cell tower no matter the population density which with a certainty I can assure you they aren't. Their deployments follow a logical path that you'd expect. You make the assumption that we somehow have to pay 5x as much simply because we have more places to put towers, thats crap because you only need to put the towers where the people are which would mean you won't have tower that aren't making money, the towers in your large cities would end up subsidizing the deployment of the ones in areas that aren't packed like sardines. but you still wont be putting up cell towers in bat country.



So yes, your argument is still a straw man as it still holds no water. The expenses in the US still don't justify those costs, what does? greedy ass execs that need another 15 150k cars and million dollar house every year. hoyleysox

Premium Member

join:2003-11-07

Long Beach, CA hoyleysox Premium Member Re: Coverage areas said by Parogadi:



because you're still making the assumption that these other countries are putting up a cell tower no matter the population density which with a certainty I can assure you they aren't. Their deployments follow a logical path that you'd expect. You make the assumption that we somehow have to pay 5x as much simply because we have more places to put towers, thats crap because you only need to put the towers where the people are which would mean you won't have tower that aren't making money, the towers in your large cities would end up subsidizing the deployment of the ones in areas that aren't packed like sardines. but you still wont be putting up cell towers in bat country.



So yes, your argument is still a straw man as it still holds no water. The expenses in the US still don't justify those costs, what does? greedy ass execs that need another 15 150k cars and million dollar house every year.

because you're still making the assumption that these other countries are putting up a cell tower no matter the population density which with a certainty I can assure you they aren't. Their deployments follow a logical path that you'd expect. You make the assumption that we somehow have to pay 5x as much simply because we have more places to put towers, thats crap because you only need to put the towers where the people are which would mean you won't have tower that aren't making money, the towers in your large cities would end up subsidizing the deployment of the ones in areas that aren't packed like sardines. but you still wont be putting up cell towers in bat country.So yes, your argument is still a straw man as it still holds no water. The expenses in the US still don't justify those costs, what does? greedy ass execs that need another 15 150k cars and million dollar house every year.



I am going to let this one rest. Talking about greedy people with cars & mansions is not a very sophisticated argument either. I consider my statement vague since you interpreted it differently than I intended. I could have been more specific about what I meant by "cover the country." What you are pointing out is different from a straw man argument. It could be called a false assumption. It would be a straw man argument for me to suggest that everyone I disagree with makes a straw man argument.I am going to let this one rest. Talking about greedy people with cars & mansions is not a very sophisticated argument either.

djdanska

Rudie32

Premium Member

join:2001-04-21

San Diego, CA djdanska Premium Member About right... $635.85 per year? My last month cell bill was higher than that! (Did not help that my brother bought a blackberry 8900.)



With 5 lines, i pay about $3000 a year for just service. I have 5 lines so that is about right. I do have 3 full data plans, a cheap data plan, unlimited messaging, myfaves, m2m, and 1800 monthly minutes. I bet most people don't have that. I can only imagine how much someone on verizon would pay for the same thing. openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 Premium Member Re: About right... $3,000/5=$600 per year. You're doing better than avg axiomatic

join:2006-08-23

Tomball, TX axiomatic Member Features Then when you throw in all the extra cool network features other countries get that America doesn't the situation looks even more dire for the US.



Come on Wireless company executives... you don't need another vacation home in the Hampton's. Really, you don't!

Time

Premium Member

join:2003-07-05

Irvine, CA Time Premium Member The only cost effective carrier is.. Sprint, at least partially.



I'm on their $69.99 Everything Data plan + taxes - 15% Armed Forces discount. Comes out to about $63 a month in total. I was paying over $100 a month for my iPhone, so I can't complain too much.

en102

Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26

Valencia, CA en102 Member Re: The only cost effective carrier is.. I thought Boost and MetroPCS were cheaper.

Time

Premium Member

join:2003-07-05

Irvine, CA Time Premium Member Re: The only cost effective carrier is.. said by en102:



I thought Boost and MetroPCS were cheaper.

I thought Boost and MetroPCS were cheaper.



You're from Valencia, I'm jealous. My girlfriend lives in Northshire. Absolutely love the area. I was speaking in terms of postpaid providers. Boost and Metro have their own audiences.You're from Valencia, I'm jealous. My girlfriend lives in Northshire. Absolutely love the area.

CheapCell

@comcast.net CheapCell Anon How about a comparision with India and China Prepaid cell phone calls in India are about 2 cents to 4 cents a minute. Text messages are 400 messages for a dollar. Incoming calls and texts are free.

Also the US has a larger area and hence more costs theory is bogus. India has more cell phone towers then the US and has about 450 million cell phone users.



Telecoms in the US have bought (or at best hoodwinked) Congress and squelched such comparisons

••• show 3 replies iansltx

join:2007-02-19

Austin, TX ·Time Warner Cable

iansltx Member Only sheeple pay that much for wireless these days If you can stick around their coverage area, a semilocal provider down here (Pocket Communications) offers unlimited talk, text and pix for $25 (plus taxes = around $30) per month.



Page Plus Cellular now offers unlimited talk, text, some web and picture messaging on Verizon's network for $40 per month, straight-up.



Straight Talk offers 1000 minutes, 1000 texts and 30 MB of data/MMS access for $30.



There's really no reason why 99% of the country should be paying more than $50 for their cell...oh wait, more than 1% are on the iPhone.



As for cellular rates around $11 per month, not gonna happen unless you're on prepaid and only use maybe 100 minutes and a few texts per month. That said, I have one family member whose cell service runs around $6.50 per month (prepaid, doesn't talk much), two family members whose service runs around $20-$25 per month (they talk more, still prepaid) and myself, whose cellular service runs around $42 per month including data, taxes and fees. Plus another $10 for TeleNav, but that gets billed through TeleNav and I can turn it off whenever.



All four phones are either out of contract (mine) or had no contract in the first place. The cell company is making money off of all of us (including me, even though I'll use 1.2 GB of data per month on my phone every once in awhile).



About the Netherlands comparison though, they use phones differently than we do. They're very skewed toward prepaid, whereas we're skewed toward postpaid. They don't use a lot of minutes. We do. They don't have exclusive phones with 2-year contracts that still give you relatively high prices for the phone you want. We do. They have calling-party-pays. We don't.

•••• show 4 replies bsoft

join:2004-03-28

Boulder, CO bsoft Member Calls per year? Calls per year is a pretty bad metric, because it doesn't take into account the length of the calls.



In the US, many (if not most) postpaid plans have "free" night, weekend, and same carrier minutes.



I can talk as long as I want with immediate family without paying, if I call them on their mobile phone.



I regularly have one-hour plus calls. I use over 1200 minutes per month on a "500 minute" plan because of this (plus free nights/weekends).



That would tend to skew the call distribution in the wrong direction. While I probably only make about 1200 calls per year, I use about 15000 minutes per year.



Also consider that roaming is considerably cheaper in the US - specifically, there's pretty much no roaming charges whatsoever. I am not billed extra for using GSM service anywhere in the US, which, I might add, is considerably larger than all of Europe (excluding Russia).



Someone in the UK going to Belgium has to pay extra to make/receive calls. But I can drive 600 miles in any direction without paying roaming (it helps to live in Colorado).



Now, as for low-usage subscribers, the US model sucks. If you like to save money by texting, well, sorry, that's expensive here. And our prepaid plans stink, although they are getting better. sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24

Cleveland, OH 1 recommendation sonicmerlin Member Re: Calls per year? Um, cell phone plans are cheaper in India and China than in the US. They have pretty large landmasses and happen to be 3rd-world countries.



The landmass argument is retarded. While we have larger amounts of land than most of the countries in the OECD, we also have larger populations, much of which are concentrated in urban environments. tuminatr9

join:2003-03-19

Saint Paul, MN tuminatr9 Member the countrys we are compaired to are the size of one state yes it costs more people demand free long distance and nationwide roaming if there were cell plans like landlines say $20 per month unlimited but you pay roaming and long distance this would be best for most Americans but people are stupid and they wont ever change

SysOp

join:2001-04-18

Atlanta, GA SysOp Member Check out Boost Mobile $50 a month x 12 = $600 a year



Nation wide unlimited voice, web, and mms. No extra fees, all tax is included. antidelldude

join:2003-12-22

Beverly Hills, CA antidelldude Member I pay alot, but not as much as some. I pay $280 a month to those thieves at Sprint for unlimited data (5gb...what a scam)/unlimited text/1500minutes/unlimited airave minutes/5 lines/and the complete scam insurance is (they replace my $500 phone with a POS that is more broken then the original, on replacement phone #4 now, getting ready for a lawsuit because this is the second time I had to go through a bunch replacements before they did anything). Being that Verizon quoted me $450 and didn't have the unlimited femtocell option, and ATT is just junk in my area and also quoting in the upper $400's, (Ha, You think I looked at t-mobile?) I feel like $280 is a bargain in our current market, but still way overpriced for the services rendered even if performance is decent. Something will have to change soon, but if the public keeps paying these ridiculous prices and living with the issues crap wireless service causes as if it was a normal trait of a cellphone, we will get nowhere fast.

bUU

join:2007-05-10

Alpharetta, GA bUU Member This is just yet another "Woe is the consumer" whine don't subscribe.



It is that easy.



BTW, without regard to whether wireless is more or less expensive in Canada, Spain and the United States, there are a lot of things that are. Prices are based on perceived value; and different people in different countries perceive value differently. (One wouldn't think that this was big news. ) If you don't think a service is worth the price it is offered to you, thenIt is that easy.BTW, without regard to whether wireless is more or less expensive in Canada, Spain and the United States, there are a lot of things that are. Prices are based on perceived value; and different people in different countries perceive value differently. (One wouldn't think that this was big news. rodlaben0

join:2009-08-13

united state rodlaben0 Member this looks like a seriously flawed report My two cents:



While I think U.S. operators offer too little flexibility in pricing--for example forcing subscribers to buy large buckets of minutes--this OECD report appears to greatly overstate the disparity between the most expensive and least expensive markets.



The biggest flaw is that the report appears to completely ignore the cost of receiving calls in the caller pays markets. This is a HUGE omission.



Take for example the high use example in the Netherlands. While it is true that the mobile phone subscriber does not pay for incoming calls, it is not fair to say that these calls are free. There is a real cost to these calls--a cost that should be included to reach an equitable comparison.



I know all of two Dutch words, but I was able to navigate around KPNs website. On an analog home phone line, calls to mobiles are approx. 0.18 (or $0.26) per minute. The OECD report assumes for high users, 1680 outgoing minutes and 1272 incoming minutes per year (the report isnt totally clear; I assume this is the difference between total and outgoing). If we assume just half of these minutes are calls placed from a home fixed line to a mobile, the added cost is actually approx. $165 (1272 ÷ 2 x $0.26).



This is just one of the apparent flaws in this report.



Even more basic, just do the math.



The high survey assumes 140 minutes per month, of those 84 are at peak times. In the notes, the report indicates in the Netherlands, fixed costs are $15 per month with NO usage charges. Can someone who knows better Dutch provide a link to a non-prepaid plan (report notes specify high plans are not pre-paid) that costs $15 a month that includes at least 140 minutes--including calls to other mobile networks?



Oh, and dont get me started on the nickel-and-dime charges on my T-Mobile Germany bill. Its not all perfect in Europe. Try paying 0.49 to call customer service or 1.50 for an itemized bill--or being stuck in a dead zone with no ability to roam domestically.

Dylan

@rr.com Dylan Anon let's lower those cell bills...



For more info, check out Validas in the national news media, most recently on Fox News at »



Good luck to everyone reading on cutting your wireless costs.



Dylan

Consumer Marketing Manager, FixMyCellBill.com Karl, nice (albeit depressing) post. I wanted to add that there's no reason we should be overpaying so much for cell phones when there are alternative methods to reducing wireless expenses. I'm not trying to overtly plug here, but I think this is relevant: I work for the consumer advocacy division of the company Validas, where we electronically audit and subsequently reduce the average cell bill by 22 percent through our website, » www.fixmycellbill.com . Put simply, Validas guards against frivolous and unnecessary charges that inflate your cell bill more than it should be for your usage. You can find out for free if fixmycellbill.com can modify your plan to better suit your needs by going to the website. The key thing here is that we can optimize a cell plan, to better suit someone's usage than their current plan. By tinkering with the plan, rather than changing it, you avoid early termination fees and the hassle of switching.For more info, check out Validas in the national news media, most recently on Fox News at » www.myfoxtampabay.com/dp ··· s_072409 Good luck to everyone reading on cutting your wireless costs.DylanConsumer Marketing Manager, FixMyCellBill.com Infantabella

join:2009-09-10

Miami, FL Infantabella Member Pre-paid cell phones offer the best value right now. The reason why we are charged more in the US right now is because most consumers think they need to sign a two year contract with a major carrier for service. That's not how the rest of the world operates and it's no longer necessary in the Us either.



I just switched to a pre-paid cell phone called StraighTalk, available at any Walmart, and got unlimited talk and text for $45 a month. I used to spend upwards of $120 monthly for this before!



I researched for best cell phone value and found out that StraighTalk is considered the best network option because it's serviced by Verizon, which means the most reliable, Consumer Report rated, cell phone company in the US.



You can check out their website straightalk.com or walmart.com and figure out that by paying less you'll get more. your comment..

