US Cell Phone Plans Among World's Most Expensive 827
Albanach writes "An OECD report published today has shown moderate cell phone users in the United States are paying some of the highest rates in the world . Average US plans cost $52.99 per month compared to an average of $10.95 in Finland. The full report is available only to subscribers, however Excel sheets of the raw data are available to download." (You'll find those Excel sheets — which open just fine in OpenOffice — on the summary page linked above.)
Stupid prices (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what I've always wondered, but learned from Slashdot comments. Why the hell mobile plans are so costly in US? I have the largest plan available from my phone company, 2500 minutes / 2500 sms per month and unlimited 3G internet. And that's still only 29 euro per month. And I did actually use that 3G internet connection for a month while waiting for adsl connection to be set up for my new apartment (hell, even running a server from it). No transfer limits or anything like that.
Yeah, mobile companies have extra costs from providing their infrastructure, but it just seems a lot what they ask in US. Sweden is mostly woods and non-urban areas too, so why is it done better here?
Maybe voice your opinion to the companies so they stop charging so much?
Re:Stupid prices (Score:5, Insightful)
It's because US carriers compete based on who has the iPhone and who has the Pre rather than network price/quality. Then users "buy" $800 devices for "$99" and make fun of uncrippled foreign cell phone brands because they're "so expensive", and have useless features like application downloads from Sourceforge.
Re:Stupid prices (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, companies should try to maximize profits. However, what you just described is a monopolistic profit maximizer. Understandable with a new wonderdrug that cost billions to develop, but it should absolutely not happen with general health care and phone network cartels of all things.
Re:Stupid prices (Score:5, Informative)
A great deal of consumer relations in big business nowadays boils down to this Frederick Douglas quote:
Re:Stupid prices (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you happen to know that Pharma spends more for advertising in the US than R&D?
How about we get like almost every other country in the world, and ban prescription drug advertising, that would cut down on their costs dramatically, and make drugs cheaper for everyone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you happen to know that Pharma spends more for advertising in the US than R&D?
Its worse than just advertising, its marketing in general: which includes buying politicians, doctors and paying hospitals to give away "free" samples of baby formula to parents who are then told "don't change the formula, it can be bad for your baby". And then there is all the advertising. Frequently this is for new drugs that aren't as good as existing ones but of course we're expecting that the newer the better, and so are the doctors that don't do their homework too.
We're screwed. We know we're screw
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How about we get like almost every other country in the world, and ban prescription drug advertising, that would cut down on their costs dramatically, and make drugs cheaper for everyone.
Amen to that. I spent a couple of months in Dallas at the beginning of year, and I remember being utterly shocked by seeing a TV advert for a prescription antidepressant, aimed at depressed people. 'Ask your doctor about !' Yeah, let's condition mentally ill people to ignore medical advice and instead opt for the medication that'll increase your profit margin.
Here in the UK our advertising watchdog would have the people responsible for that taken out and shot, simply as a public hygiene measure --- people
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, it simply isn't. No matter how deluded you are, there is no measure by which your system is even close to average.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Did you happen to know that Pharma spends more for advertising in the US than R&D?
How about we get like almost every other country in the world, and ban prescription drug advertising, that would cut down on their costs dramatically, and make drugs cheaper for everyone.
wasn't there a good groklaw article on the subject just today?
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090809231252693 [groklaw.net]
Re:Stupid prices (Score:5, Insightful)
In 1986, EU pharmaceutical R&D exceeded U.S. R&D by about 24 percent, but by 2004, EU R&D trailed U.S. R&D by about 15 percent. During these 19 years, U.S. R&D spending grew at a real annual compound rate of 8.8 percent, while EU R&D spending grew at a real 5.4 percent rate.
The US spends 15% more on pharmaceutical R&D than the EU. Other regions also invest in medical R&D. The USA is certainly not paying for the entire world's pharmaceutical R&D.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately the contract phones have been making inroads in Europe too, but the situation isn't nearly as bad because enough people still want the phones separately. Due to this, the carriers can't actually cripple the phones they provide or charge exorbitant prices for simple network service. Basically, you're only limiting yourself to the 24-month billing lock in, but the Americans are also getting higher prices, less choice in hardware, crippled software, and no realistic option to buy separately.
Plu
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
All these companies need to pay for health insurance for all their full time employees. They dont get it via 20+% taxes like you do in Europe. So things cost more but you pay less taxes. I'll leave it up the reader which solution is best.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Unfortunately, it looks like we have a real chance of switching to just such coverage here in the US too. Yep, we'll get that extra 20+% taxation (I even hear they're bandying about a VAT tax here too, to go with the current income tax)...and yet, those prices the compa
Re:Stupid prices (Score:5, Interesting)
We need a VAT in the US.
We need to tax the bad (over-spending/under-saving) and not the good (working and earning).
This is not true around the world (Germany for example could arguably be blamed for over-saving), but the US desperately needs to tax consumption rather than production.
Re:Stupid prices (Score:5, Insightful)
Except the odd thing is, a value added tax is a tax on creation, not consumption. You don't "add value" by consuming, you add it by creating. A sales tax is, in fact, the best consumption tax. After all, would you rather be taxed because you built an addition onto your house, or taxed when you sold the house for profit?
That said, all forms of "consumption tax" (either sales or VAT) are regressive because they disproportionately tax people who spend higher percentages of their incomes on consumables. You want to make it progressive, you make the sales (or VAT) rate proportional to total price, so you pay more tax on more expensive things.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
. You want to make it progressive, you make the sales (or VAT) rate proportional to total price, so you pay more tax on more expensive things.
That will never happen, because unlike income tax the truly wealthy will actually be expected to pay VAT (probably one of the reasons that it has never gotten serious traction up until now).
Re:Stupid prices (Score:5, Informative)
News alert... The wealthy in the US already pay a lot of income taxes as the system is highly progressive. [snip] 39% of the ...total personal income taxes came from top 1%
While you are likely technically correct, there's a nuance that needs to stated: Warren Buffett noted that there are significant inequities in this so-called "progressive" tax system:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
For those who do not RTFA, Warren notes that it's essentially ridiculous that he pays more as a percentage of his wealth than his secretary (who makes about $60K/year) and who has substantially less disposable income. Roughly summarized, Warren has essentially noted "tax the rich--it's OK, we'll figure out a way to make more."
Re:in the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, I don't know what he's smoking. I pay roughly the same in income tax here in the US (once you add up federal, state and things like social security tax) as I did in the UK, but also get to pay for medical. Awesome!
Re:Stupid prices (Score:5, Insightful)
.
Ok, I'll take the bite and go offtopic, since I'm not the first one.
Born in Europe, lived there 25 years, I've lived in the U.S. 13 years so allow me to know exactly what goes on in both places.
You DO NOT pay less taxes in the U.S., it just seems so. Wanna crunch some numbers?
Using Sweden as an example, feel free to use any other country
Sweden minimum wage: $20/hour
U.S. minimum wage: $6.75/hour
Sweden taxes off the paycheck: 50%
US taxes off the paycheck: (depends on which state you live in: 20% to 30%)
Sweden health care system: excellent
US Health care system: Excellent if you are rich. Add $200/month (my plan with $500 deductible, which is ridiculous that I still have to pay the first $500 and also doctor visits) or more for medical plan. That's $2500/year. Pretend that it's coming out of your paycheck as part of your taxes and see how much higher your tax percentage goes)
Sweden education system: Universities (less than $5000 for 5 years including books, much less with scholarships)
U.S. education system: Universities ($50,000 to $400,000+). $50,000 gets you a degree in a low quality university. Add that to your taxes.
Swedish High Schools system: very good
U.S. High School system: Mediocre
Sweden paid vacation: 5 weeks/year
U.S. paid vacation: 2 weeks/year (when you're lucky, I don't get any, only unpaid time off).
Street lights in Sweden: really good. Even rural areas are well lit.
US: not even big cities are well lit everywhere, nearly nonexistent in rural areas.
Want me to go on? Nobody likes to pay more taxes, but comparing tax rates directly without taking into account everything else is pure fiction.
By the way, I'm not swedish. I could have used any other country as an example.
Another comparison (Score:5, Interesting)
Swedish heavy metal: Lots of excellent black metal, power metal, symphonic metal, death metal and Opeth (whatever they fall in)
U.S. heavy metal: Thrash and some of everything else, for about the same total good quality output. But we have 30 times the population.
Now, Finland has at least as much good heavy metal production as Sweden (no Opeth, but Sonata Arctica is almost as good), and they have a little more than half Sweden's population.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you sure?
I'm sure that some people would pay more in taxes, others, perhaps, less. So how do you know into which group I fall?
P.S.: If you count health insurance, and what my employer pays in health insurance, I suspect that we pay more for less. Naturally I can't assert that as truth, as the actual numbers involved are secret. (I.e., I know what I am charged, and I know what my employer claims it pays, but I have no way to verify the claims.)
My suspicion is that with full governmental health covera
Re:Stupid prices (Score:5, Funny)
That sounds pretty socialist there. I bet the Government even helped setup some towers.
Here in the good ole USA. We have Competition. None of that GSM only crap. We have true competition between carriers with CDMA, GSM, iDEN, etc. That way for any given area of good reception, there's 3x the number of towers. TRUE competition.
Re:Stupid prices (Score:5, Informative)
True competition? Then why are your prices so high?
In a truly competitive market prices for comparable items converge towards a low price, as long as they aren't luxury items.
Look around in your supermarket. You can probably find ten different brands of bread, all costing roughly the same per unit of weight. The price will be fairly comparative to European prices (should be lower in the US as you have lower taxes and lower wages). That's true competition.
Not so in your cellphone market.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think he was being sarcastic. (A dangerous thing to do in a post, as you'll likely be misunderstood.)
Note that he did point out that the different towers handled different protocols. Probably by this he meant it would be three times as expensive to have the same coverage. I don't think he meant to imply that there were actually three times as many towers. Rather that the areas of good coverage were segmented into micro-monopolies.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because a tower is a tower. If you make it tall enough, then you can put multiple sets of equipment up there.
Re:Stupid prices (Score:5, Informative)
It costs money to put up these towers.
Europe has a larger population compared to US, yet it has a lesser amount of land to cover with cell sites.
As a result, people/tower ratio is quite good in Europe and partially contributes to better plans.
We have the exact opposite here in Canada, where the population is 10 times lesser than USA and land is larger. You should look at our plans. I am paying 25$/month for 500MB, plus anoter 45$ for voice (I'm rather lucky as I have a grand fathered plan which gives me unlimmited voice).
Today, for the kind of money (about 90$/month). I would get 1000 min and 500 MB and 250 SMS.
Re:Stupid prices (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I bet Finland has the highest level of public Transportation usage per person as well...
Re:Stupid prices (Score:5, Insightful)
What I'd be intrested to see. .instead of how much we all pay is.. how many customers are served Per tower - and how many towers vs area vs coverage.
You maay have the largest plan for sweeden.. but do you roam when you go to the UK? even if not.. all of Western Europe is ~1/3 the size of the US and has 1/3 MORE people
comes out to be:
Western Europe | 514 people/mi^2
United States | 86.5 people/mi^2
Basicly it takes 5 times the area to hold the same numebr of people - asume population was evenly spread (i know it isn't) it should cost 5 times as much to provide for the same number of people..
"Average US plans cost $52.99 per month compared to an average of $10.95 in Finland."
Assume the Finland price for all of western Europe - and we pay 5x the cost for something 5x as expensive to provide..
People don't realize how large the US is.. and that most plans now days there is no roaming from sea to sea.. thats alot of area to provide for..
Re:Stupid prices (Score:5, Funny)
That's amazing. I knew that people in the USA were bigger than usual, but I had no idea they were that big.
Re:Stupid prices (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Stupid prices (Score:5, Insightful)
Or how about you use Finland's population density instead, which turns out to be almost exactly half of that of the U.S. That pretty much destroys your argument.
Re:Stupid prices (Score:4, Informative)
It would be interesting to know how much coverage all of Finland gets. Sure, the plan is great when you're in a city... but how good is it when you go to a random part of the country? What's the cell coverage like?
Coverage is almost same everywhere, 99.6% for whole country. And like you said, the northern parts dont have a lot people living nearly, but they still cover those areas.
Re:Stupid prices (Score:4, Informative)
You maay have the largest plan for sweeden.. but do you roam when you go to the UK? even if not.. all of Western Europe is ~1/3 the size of the US and has 1/3 MORE people
United States | 86.5 people/mi^2
At 450,000 km2 (173,746 sq mi), Sweden is the third largest country in the European Union in terms of area, and it has a total population of over 9.2 million. Sweden has a low population density of 53 per square mile.
Re:Stupid prices (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand I think US carriers are guilty of heavy upselling. If I live in a dense city in a dense area (Boston, New York, DC, etc) and do 99% of my calling from there why can't I pay for a local plan and avoid subsidizing the tower/person costs of residents of Wyoming?
Re:Stupid prices (Score:5, Funny)
I can't drive from UVA to Washington DC on a 4 lane state highway without loosing signal. We don't all drive in circles around LA.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I've been there. Could have fooled me.
Comparing Apples to Oranges (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US, the monthly fee includes:
So we pay more, but we get more. You have to buy your own phone, and you have to pay to call mobile phones. Also, our plans don't have to be so expensive. By way of example, I have a 4 line family plan that costs $31.87 per line. All 4 lines have:
Now I look at what I get for $31.87/mo vs. what you get for 29 Euro/mo, and I am not seeing why I should be so outraged. Which is a shame really, because I do so enjoy getting worked up.
You failed to read my post (Score:4, Informative)
First off, incoming calls are not free, well it depends on the carrier, but ATT, Tmobile, Verizon and Sprint, you pay for both incoming and outgoing.
I clearly wrote "free to the caller". In Europe (and much of the rest of the world), the caller pays a fee to call a mobile phone. In the US, it costs the same as an ordinary call (typically free).
Your free calling statements, are not really free, they are built into the pricing structure of the plan, another reason why the plans are more costly.
Of course they are built in. That was the whole point of my post was to point out all the extras that are included in the cost of the line.
Unlimited SMS is not free, its a addon that you pay for, ATT for example is $20 for unlimited, $5 for 200
With Sprint, it is not an add-on and is included in the cost of the plan. The $31.87 figure I quoted was the cost of my plan per line.
Data is not unlimited, it is capped at 5G a month for nearly all of the cellular providers in the US (Soft cap for now)
It's not like OP's plan is "unlimited" in the strictest sense. Every data plan on the planet is limited by the throughput limit of the device itself. With Sprint, the soft limit is pretty soft. If you use over 5GB/mo for three months straight, you'll get a politely-worded letter to please get a data card. Ooooooh. Scary!
Also, the price point does not change if you bring your own phone to the table rather then paying for the subsidized one.
This is true. But if you're bringing your own device, why not activate it on a prepaid plan and get unmetered (there, I didn't use the "unlimited" word. Happy now, Herr Pedant?) voice/data/SMS for $45/mo or metered airtime @ $0.10/min?
Missing the point (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, in that case you'll be pleased to know that there are plans even cheaper than yours in Europe. For the summer, I'm using a pretty nice flip phone that cost me 50 CHF (~ $45) up front and costs me about 10 CHF/month, also with unlimited text. But I also get a lot more talk time than you. Also, keep in mind that Switzerland is one of the most expensive countries in Europe.
The point is that the same American plans can generally be found in Europe for cheaper. There is no reason that those "outrageous plans" (as you put it) need to cost so much.
Re:Stupid prices (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing is very simple: Competition. This market is so heavily regulated that it clutters competition. In france we are one of the worst country in terms of competition and we have 3 nationwide providers. A 4th one is coming in next year.
It is the same in the DSL market. Back in the 90s, we had only the historic provider. Plans were horrendous: about 50â/month for 512/128kb nude DSL. They have opened up the market and now we get 30â/month for 20MB/1MB, unlimited TV (100channels), and a voip land
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I dunno, I use them because:
I guess if I just made a few quick calls now and then to chat wit
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, TMobile is cheaper, but the coverage sucks here, so its not worth it for most people. My company just made the painful switch from TMobile to AT&T for the coverage reason.
Interesting to note that when my ATT using friends have coverage issues, I always have full signal on T-Mobile.
Missing Data, Towers Probably Influence Cost (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It must be the extraordinary customer service that is driving the costs up!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Finland has 17 inhabitants per square kilometre on average. US is at 30. I would expect that Finland has universal cell phone coverage like the other Nordic countries, but unlike the US.
It also seems quite unlikely that the US has "more harsh weather conditions than Finland".
Re: (Score:2)
It also seems quite unlikely that the US has "more harsh weather conditions than Finland".
Finland has over a thousand tornadoes every year?
Re:Missing Data, Towers Probably Influence Cost (Score:4, Informative)
You'd be wrong. The average population density in Finland is half that of the U.S. The U.S. has, on average, 31 people per square km; FInland has, on average, 16 people per square km. This according to Google. The total size of the area to cover shouldn't be relevant assuming similar percentages of the population use the service. Besides, the U.S. cell providers leave large swaths of the U.S. uncovered anyway....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, let's imagine that coverage of the country directly affects cost. This might not be so outlandish as cell phone towers need to be erected to cover area. I would venture to say that Americans & Canadians suffer from sprawl much more than Finland and total area of dense population is probably more than five times that of Finland's. So let's assume that those cell phone tower maintenance (more harsh weather conditions across the US than Finland also) and building costs are passed on to the consumer.
Eh, you obviously dont know much how nordic countries are. Most of the area is forest and not urban cities. Theres no tornadoes or such, but the weather changes a lot between summer and winter. Finland also only has 3 cities that passes 200k people living and the land area is large and many people live in smaller cities/towns. I would even argua that the cost of having cell phone network covered is more than on USA's area.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is really difficult to explain to most Europeans just how incredibly moderate your weather is. Minneapolis is south of Milan but colder
Re: (Score:2)
So let's assume that those cell phone tower maintenance (more harsh weather conditions across the US than Finland also) and building costs are passed on to the consumer....Of course this isn't the only factor, for example: I would assume China's median household income would affect their cell phone charges and cause them to drop despite country size.
Well aren't these two different explanations as to why cell phone prices are expensive? In the first one, you're assuming that the cost to the consumer is pretty close to the cost to the carriers for providing the service. If that's the case then yes, increased costs to the carriers would require them to pass those costs along to consumers.
But in the second explanation, China could only lower their charges to make it affordable to people with low incomes if you assume that the profit margin is wide to be
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't. The average population density of the United States (31/km2) is twice that of Finland (16/km2).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As someone else pointed out, Finland [wikipedia.org] has a population density of 16/km2) (40/mile2) whereas the US has 31/km2 (80/mile2).
Some will say "apples to oranges" so let's compare comparative things then:
California [wikipedia.org] vs Sweden [wikipedia.org]
Size: Sweden is 449,964 km2, California is 423,970km^2.
Population density: Sweden: 20.6/km2, California 90.49
Or how about the fact that every single EU country is at a lower price than the US?
Stop making weak excuses about how tough it is in the US, and how it's unfair to compare it to anywhere
Re:Missing Data, Towers Probably Influence Cost (Score:4, Informative)
Well, at it's good to know we don't have a monopoly on mindless, nationalistic arrogance here in the USA. I was starting to worry. Thanks for making me feel better.
Yeah! We're number one! (Score:5, Funny)
So we aim to be number one in everything:
healthcare costs
shortest vacations
.
.
.
Re:Yeah! We're number one! (Score:5, Insightful)
> about 70% of the people in the US LIKE what they have
As a European living in the United States, I think that is because the people suffering by far the most in the US are so ill-informed about other Western democracies and so brain-washed from an early age, that they actually are proud of the abuse they're suffering in this country! After all they constantly hear they're "no. 1". What they generally don't hear is that the US is "no. 1" in the percentage of uninsured children etc. Even the ability to legally bribe politician here, called "campaign contributions", is called "freedom of speech." I guess corporations and rich people have much more "freedom of speech" than someone with a median income.
.
Re:Yeah! We're number one! (Score:4, Insightful)
What they generally don't hear is that the US is "no. 1" in the percentage of uninsured children etc.
Uninsured does not equal no health care. The US has universal health care, it's just way too expensive because it is generally done in the ER. It also misses out on the cost savings that occur when you do preventative care. This is why it is so infuriating to see the left and right wing nuts going on about "socialized health care". We already have it! Let's sit down and figure out a way to cut some of the costs.
Even the ability to legally bribe politician here, called "campaign contributions", is called "freedom of speech."
The alternative is the "Silvio Berlusconi" model, where only the super-rich can afford to run. Limits to contributions and the wide-open nature of US campaign finance limits the corruption. The hardest part is the "soft money", which is constantly an issue here.
I guess corporations and rich people have much more "freedom of speech" than someone with a median income.
Rich people, in general, have more of everything than someone with a median income. Those are the breaks. Even in colonial days, a rich person could print up more pamphlets than a poor person. I suggest accepting this fact and working around it rather than fighting it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Universal in the sense of "well just give us everything you DO have and we won't actually let you die till we discharge you"? Apparently the procedure is to camp out in the hospital parking lot until your condition worsens enough to be life threatening, then go in.
You can actually feel the derision dripping in the hallways if you go to the ER 'uninsured' even if you're ready, willing, and able to pay in full with cash. They see the 'none' under insurance and flee the area. Followup care will not happen, you
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
getting these days...that I would have seen something about this on tv??
Why? It happens every day. It's not news. There's nothing sensational about it. Especially not compared to a "presidential death board". Unless you dig way deeper than a 30 second sound bite allows, it's indistinguishable from any other death. Just someone nobody's ever heard of dying from pneumonia.
Have you ever tried going through the hospital needing treatment but uninsured (with or without the ability to pay cash)?
You haven't lived until you go to the hospital with your wrist slashed open (construction
Re:Yeah! We're number one! (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't THAT bad over here...at the worst you see on any polls, about 70% of the people in the US LIKE what they have. I dare say you can't hardly come up with any other topic that many Americans would agree on. So, why try to chuck the whole system, that the majority of people are seemingly happy with? Why not just fix what parts of the current system are broken?
Because your health care system, such as it is, is the least efficient health care system in the developed world. Health care in the US costs twice as much per capita as the next worst nation, for what amounts to roughly comparable service. And really, the service is only roughly comparable if you ignore the significant numbers of people in the US who aren't insured at all (in the neighbourhood of 45M people, last time I checked), and don't really get any service unless they're catastrophically ill.
Just because your corporate masters have made you eat shit and like it, doesn't mean the shit is good for you.
Dutch second cheapest (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, that's a first! At last we're cheap in something else than marihuana...
Apparently the privatization of mobile networks worked out really well here!
X.
Re:Dutch second cheapest (Score:4, Informative)
Probably Government "Fees" (Score:2)
Or at least, that's what the cell companies will claim... "It's the FCC! They charge us $1.00 for every square mile we cover per month in fees!!11!11!"
Either way, it's greed, and it's the basis for our capitalistic society, so it's not going to change.
Re:Probably Government "Fees" (Score:4, Insightful)
I would wager that some government taxes or fees on the infrastructure is what is causing the high prices.
Or at least, that's what the cell companies will claim...
Oh I'm convinced that very large portions of telecom money go to congress... just not in taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
You underestimate how much money they make, compared to their "donations". I doubt the donations are a very large portion at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Huge difference =P
USA area most other countries (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:USA area most other countries (Score:5, Informative)
Re:USA area most other countries (Score:4, Insightful)
But providers often don't cover sparsely populated areas, even when they are licensed to do so. They might cover only the major highways in the area, or provide just enough coverage to meet any licensing requirements.
The carriers with the best rural coverage might cost more - but is this because their costs are actually higher, or because their customers are willing to pay more for better service? Verizon has a distinct advantage over the other carriers in the USA, as they have more 800 MHz licenses than the others - so they can build less towers to provide usable service in rural areas.
How is that free market working for us? (Score:3, Insightful)
Among the most expensive and not even for a service that is advanced compared to other countries systems. And so called competition between carries is for which carrier can offer you which features for a high price ($55) plan. There is no real competition when it comes lower cost plans. And finally, my opinion for the most expensive, the lack of open systems. Carriers lock people into certain models of phones. Those lock-ins not only keep customers from shopping for the best service/price, but requires the carriers to earn even more profit to subsidize the exclusive contracts with the phone vendors.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuses, excuses. Free market jihadists are like communists: it can never fail, it can only be failed.
The entire we reason we have regulations and oversight is that yes, we tried "the free market" - and it was called the Gilded Age.
Infrastructure is part of it ... (Score:2, Informative)
The area of Finland is 131,000 square miles [joensuu.fi].
Re:Infrastructure is part of it ... (Score:5, Informative)
Russia: 17,075,400 km^2. Population density: 8.3/km^2
Phone plans: still cheaper than in the US.
$50? (Score:2)
I pay $29 but then I guess I'm not a phone whore and only need 200 minutes/month. It does make sense though, the stretch of I10 going from Phoenix to Los Angeles (where nothing but desert stretches for miles) is probably the length of Finland itself.
comparing apples and oranges..... (Score:5, Informative)
In Europe (and most other regions outside of the US and Canada for that matter) the cellular user is not expected to pay the full cost of having wireless service. This is why other users who call your cell phone pay a premium for doing so and why the wireless customers over there often have free incoming calls. This is known as a "caller pays" model.
The US has (for better or worse) adopted a "subscriber pays" model wherein the wireless customer pays a higher price and for incoming minutes but those who call him and do so at the same rate as any other phone call (free in many/most cases). The US also has many perks that aren't part of most calling plans in other countries -- unlimited calling to X numbers, unlimited nights and weekends, unlimited mobile to mobile, etc, etc. Add in all of these perks and break down the monthly rate by the number of minutes used and many Americans wind up paying around $0.02-$0.03 per minute for their cellular phones.
It doesn't really tell us much to see a per month cost break down without looking at all of these other factors. In any case if you want to copy something from the rest of the world regarding wireless business models I would look at copying the concept of unlocked phones that are separate from contracts long before I'd look at copying their rate plans. I rather like to be able to call my friends who have cell phones without paying a penalty for doing so.
Re:comparing apples and oranges..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh.. those perks have been available in England for years. Plus when we get a phone with a contract, the phone is usually free. And can be upgraded every year, for free.
I'm visiting America for a couple months right now, so I've bought a cell phone for while I'm here, and I've been appalled at how bad your cell service is. You guys have phone companies boasting in adverts that they drop your call less than any other network. FFS, why do you put up with them dropping your call at all?!? Unless you drive through a lot of tunnels or live in serious wilderness, if your phone dropped a call in England as often as they seem to over here, the network responsible would be out of business long before your contract had a chance to expire.
And the nuisance calls.. I bought a brand new phone and gave my number to maybe three people. I've received over a dozen calls from unknown numbers, all of which Google has identified as scam callers. And I've been charged for being called by these so-and-so's.
Cell phone services over here are just dreadful. Why you all pay so much for such mediocre service, I really don't know.
Re:comparing apples and oranges..... (Score:4, Informative)
Why you all pay so much for such mediocre service, I really don't know
Because it's a wonderful free market and we all have a choice. Oh, wait...
I live in the US but I'm British, so I know exactly what you mean. Orange wasn't great but it beat the crap out of AT&T...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:comparing apples and oranges..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cell phone services over here are just dreadful. Why you all pay so much for such mediocre service, I really don't know.
Do you know how to pay less for better service in the US?
I didn't think so.
There's your answer. In the US, you have the choice of high-priced, mediocre service or no service at all. To make matters worse, a cell phone has almost become an essential tool for most Americans. So if you want better and cheaper service, your only (unrealistic) choice is to leave the country.
Ideally, our capitalist economy should keep all the prices down, but the cellular giants collude to keep prices high and service poor. They also lobby the government to prevent any mandated change.
It's completely appalling, but very very hard to change as a voter choosing from an extremely limited subset of corrupt politicians. That said, no country is perfect. I am sure there are some things about the US that you find superior to Britain as well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually over here it's illegal to call cell phones with such calls. I've never received any SMS Spam and the only unsolicited phone calls I've ever received on my cell phone were from a company that just got shut down by the FTC a few weeks ago (the auto warranty nonsense).
I came over here for a visit a month ago & bought a cell to use whilst I'm out here - my EU phone doesn't work over here.
Brand new phone, and I've given the number to maybe three people. I get a call every day or two, on average, from unknown numbers. In fact, I had one just minutes ago, from 228-209-9560
Maybe it is illegal to make all these nuisance calls, but I've had more of them with my new phone over here in a month than I've had in over a decade of owning the same number in England.
I have it under 50$ (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I have it under 50$ (Score:4, Interesting)
And when I called about it, it is because the number is a Michigan number.. because it is they can charge a sales tax on it.. as well as tax me because I reside in Pennsylvania
Avoiding a double-taxed good was the focal point of the "no taxing interstate commerce" clause in the constitution. Let AT&T know you're speaking to lawyers today about starting a class-action lawsuit against them for double-taxing you.
Some other info about Finland (Score:5, Informative)
I should probably have added this when I submitted.
In these threads, there are often comments about population density in Europe making coverage more effective. Finland has a population density of 16/km2 - that's lower than Maine and 37 other US states.
Perhaps you think Finland must be tiny, in fact it's land area is 305470 sq km, that's bigger than Arizona. There are only five US states larger than Finland.
Maybe coverage is actually really poor, restricted to big cities? Take a look at this coverage map.
http://www.gsmworld.com/cgi-bin/ni_map.pl?cc=fi&net=te [gsmworld.com]
Do any US states have coverage like that?
Re:Some other info about Finland (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps you think Finland must be tiny, in fact it's land area is 305470 sq km, that's bigger than Arizona. There are only five US states larger than Finland.
...and Texas is two of them.
Pissing match (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps you think Finland must be tiny, in fact it's land area is 305470 sq km, that's bigger than Arizona. There are only five US states larger than Finland. ...and Texas is two of them.
A Texan, an Arizonan, and an Alaskan were sitting around the campfire talking about how tough their respective citizens were. The The Arizonan says "boy, the average guy in my state sits in the 120 degree sun on a roof putting shingles on."
The Texan says "In Texas we're bull riding at age ten!"
The Alaskan didn't say anything, he just stood there stirring the fire with his dick.
Hidden Costs in European Cell Rates (Score:4, Interesting)
From TFA, 1680 minutes per year is considered high use. Really? Two hours twenty minutes per month.
Also stated is that same-network free calls and such aren't considered in the data, which skews prices higher in the US than is realistic. I pay $67 a month after taxes for unlimited everything but mid-day calls made out of network, with nights and weekends beginning at 7 PM. That's not great from a global perspective, but it's not the worst in the world, either, considering that I get 3-4k minutes of use and a few hundred pictures and videos sent in that interval.
Anyway, my real problem with European cell phones is how much is costs to call them. If I'm in Italy and I use a calling card to call an American land line, I'll pay around $0.02/minute. If I call an American cell, I'll pay exactly the same amount. If instead I'm in America and I call an Italian land line, I'll pay $0.01/minute, while a calling an Italian cell will cost me $0.15/minute on the same calling card.
On another note, I'm glad that my cell plan includes unlimited skype usage.
Get rich quick (Score:2)
Subsidized by fixed lines (Score:2)
Mobile phones in Europe are subsidized by calls from fixed lines. Since you do not pay to receive calls, there are two rates for calls FROM land lines: a cheap rate to other land lines, and an expensive rate to mobile phones. Some carriers get more than half their income from incoming calls. When you call from a cell phone to a cell phone with a different carrier, the originating carrier usually pays more to the terminating carrier than the customer pays.
So don't use a land line to call a cell phone in Euro
Area is a bogus argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the US does NOT have universal GSM coverage. For example, a GSM phone is pretty useless in New Hampshire if you live north of Concord.
There are vast areas of the US with no cell coverage at all.
What's wrong with US services isn't in this study (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The study is crap. The "high usage" plan is 1600 minutes/YEAR, 660 SMS/YEAR. That's not high usage; it's barely even light usage. The US plan selected has a low number in "fixed" but a high number in "usage"; this would suggest that they calculated what it would cost based on the cheapest-available plan. US overage charges are indeed ridiculous, in the 40c/min range, but nobody ever pays them because adding airtime to a plan costs very little.
2. US plans offer coverage nationwide and with no charges other than airtime for calls from anywhere to anywhere in the country. When there's an EU-wide plan providing the same coverage - no international charges - then we're getting close to an apples-to-apples comparison.
3. Population density is a real problem. I think the person upthread who suggested that the real metric that should be used is total # of subscribers divided by total # of towers is right - average population density is misleading.
Explanation (Score:5, Insightful)
10.95/month sounds expensive (Score:3, Interesting)
I fall in the low usage category in Finland and have paid a total of 8.52eur for all my mobile phone usage since November last year when I switched carriers. I commited to 24 months at 0.66eur/month and I get 50 minutes of normal price calling as bonus. The base cost has thus sofar been 5.94eur and the rest has been mostly international use. Though I went a few minutes over the 50 one month, those calls being billed at 6.9 cents/minute.
Normally one does not commit to any term and can switch carriers in about a week, as I have done couple of times. So the free 50 min/month is an attempt to get some heavy users to get locked into their service.
Did anyone look at the spreadsheets? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did anyone look at the spreadsheets? What the hell are the numbers in them even supposed to be? It says "tax included" thereby implying that they are monetary amounts, but they don't say what unit, and the total for the US in the low usage one for August 2008 is 279.52. 279.52 of what units for what? For one month? Beats me.
Does anyone know what the numbers actually are?
It hurs innovation, technology and economy (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not a heavy phone user. I never bothered with a data plan. I pay $40 per month for a minimal voice plan. Most of the time I'm with my laptop, so I don't pay extra for those features. It's also the most important reason I never bothered with an iphone.
But it could change. I'd be interested in getting all those if the fee is reasonable. But it is not. So I don't use those features. I think I am not alone. On the other hand the mobile market needs more people to use these features, which would boom related technology (software/hardware) innovations. In the end, the country loses.
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2, Interesting)
You don't realize how low the population density can drop until you ride a 3.3 gallon tank motorcycle through Wyoming. Number of phones per cell tower varies from 10 million to 1, sometimes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fuel taxes [wikipedia.org] are dramatically higher in Europe. For example, in Norway, 63% of the price you pay at the pump is made up of taxes. In the Netherlands it's 68%. Those numbers seem pretty typical, according to Wikipedia at least.