or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Purported T-Mobile ad claims 3G iPhone for Germany in November
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Purported T-Mobile ad claims 3G iPhone for Germany in November - Page 2

post #41 of 109
I never knew that the receiver pays for the call in the US, that is weird. It certainly is not the case anywhere in Europe or Australia. When i have been in the states on a UK phone i have never paid for incoming calls, so the US networks do not charge the UK operators for this "service".

The more i think about that the more i cannot believe it happens!! how strange.

Remember minutes will be much lower in Europe (esp the UK) as people text much more than call, i can go weeks without ever calling a friend but text them 10 times a day, just a weird behavior that everyone in the UK has picked up. Hence why an issue with the iPhone is that for some reason you cannot text multiple contacts, something that is a great feature to have in the UK.
post #42 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZGerman View Post

Well, I think there might be some differences between the UK and Germany. Please tell me: Do you have to pay when you are called on your mobile in the UK (like you have to in the US - at least with your minutes)? In Germany, when you are called, the other party pays and that's it. This may explain the low minute packages. I rarely used my 100 minutes when I was in Germany - now I usually use my 700 minutes in the US.

No, the UK is the same as Germany. Incoming calls do not affect your allotted minutes. I wasn't aware they did that in the USA. That's bizarre. People ring you and it costs you? Outrageous. I heard they once did it with text messages, which is why they were unpopular, or was that just between carriers?

T-Mobile Germany sounds really expensive compared to T-Mobile UK still though. I'd say roughly twice the price.

Here's a link to the UK plans for a Nokia N95...

http://www.t-mobile.co.uk/shop/mobil...ebnwalk/plans/
post #43 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post

I never knew that the receiver pays for the call in the US, that is weird. It certainly is not the case anywhere in Europe or Australia. When i have been in the states on a UK phone i have never paid for incoming calls, so the US networks do not charge the UK operators for this "service".

Is that from a US Phone to a UK phone in the US? Usually you'll get partly charged for an incoming call from the UK if you're in the USA with a UK phone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post

Remember minutes will be much lower in Europe (esp the UK) as people text much more than call, i can go weeks without ever calling a friend but text them 10 times a day, just a weird behavior that everyone in the UK has picked up. Hence why an issue with the iPhone is that for some reason you cannot text multiple contacts, something that is a great feature to have in the UK.

Good point. That's partly why I like T-Mobile UK's idea of an allowance instead of a fixed number of texts or minutes. I think that's quite clever and flexible as it moves depending on their customer's needs at the time.

On Orange once I somehow ended up with 2000 minutes voice and no SMS or data. They just kept giving me free minutes. Presumably they don't look at actual behaviour as at the time I was doing 30 minutes voice a month, 20MB data and 400 texts. They also wouldn't allow CSD in the 2000 free minutes either - voice only. Bastards. 2000 minutes even at dialup speed for 'free' would have actually been useful.
post #44 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

Is that from a US Phone to a UK phone in the US? Usually you'll get partly charged for an incoming call from the UK if you're in the USA with a UK phone.

Yeh, actually you are correct. From US numbers i am sure i do not get charged, but maybe i am wrong - to be honest for the last few years i have never actually seen a phone bill - the perks of a company mobile!

But thinking about it whenever you are abroad on a UK mobile you do actually pay part of the cost of an incoming call, its been a while since i was in the UK and i forgot that. I remember whenever i was on holiday in France or Spain i used to get pissed off when someone called about nothing as it was costing me a fortune! I know that the EU however are looking into international roaming very seriously and can see and end to this practise fairly soon.

So i guess not that different from the US if you were talking inter-state calls, but still paying for calls within the same state?? sounds very wrong to me.
post #45 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electric Monk View Post

Europe (along with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the rest of the world outside North America) use the UMTS 2100 MHz band. North America (and Australia) use the UMTS 850/1900 MHz bands

(edit misread...)
Yes in Australia our 3G in the cities is on 2100Mhz.

Also, Telstra (our incumbent Telco) is using 850Mhz for 3G (same frequencies as AT&T use for 3G in the US, coincidentally), this is nationwide and they call it "NextG".

Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

People ring you (in the US) and it costs you? Outrageous.

That's one reason that uptake of mobile phones was faster outside of the US. Anyone could buy a cheap phone on the principle of "I'll just use it in emergencies, and for people to call me".

The downside of our (non-US) plans is that the Telcos can charge the caller lots for incoming calls, since there's no price sensitivity on the part of the mobile network provider's customers. Basically it hides the charges behind a couple of layers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skipthedog69 View Post

I can't read German, but why does it say "Apple iPod 16GB" in the middle of this iPhone ad?

It also says UMTS, which is 3G. I'd say this relates to why the 2.5G iPhone had a price drop.
post #46 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post

I never knew that the receiver pays for the call in the US, that is weird.

Yes, it is weird, but true. The reason -- I think -- has to do with the history of how mobile phone numbers were originally created in the US v. the rest-of-the-world, and the implications of that for service provider revenues.

In the ROW, there is a very civilized system where mobile numbers are assigned a separate "area code;" in the US, the mobile number area code is the same as the landline area code in the area where the phone was bought. As a result, in the ROW, you know when you are calling a mobile number, and you can (and often do) get charged differently than when you call a landline; in the US, you often cannot tell, and as a result, "caller pays" will mean than service providers get zilch when someone is calling in from a landline -- most local calls in landline plans are "free" in the sense that unlimited local calls are included in the monthly fee.

(Hope that made sense....)
post #47 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by yvo84 View Post

You guys in the US have to pay when people call YOU?
That's bizarre.

In Australia, Telstra is already rolling out their nationwide network now running at 14.4Mbs.....

The handsets aren't keeping up though.

But we also get the freebies as well. Free calls to family and friends, or sometimes, free calls to anyone within the same network, free calls after 7:00pm, or 9:00 pm to 6:30 am, free weekends, etc. All of this makes the anytime calls a much smaller pert of the total free call schedule.
post #48 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Yes, it is weird, but true. The reason -- I think -- has to do with the history of how mobile phone numbers were originally created in the US v. the rest-of-the-world, and the implications of that for service provider revenues.

In the ROW, there is a very civilized system where mobile numbers are assigned a separate "area code;" in the US, the mobile number area code is the same as the landline area code in the area where the phone was bought. As a result, in the ROW, you know when you are calling a mobile number, and you can (and often do) get charged differently than when you call a landline; in the US, you often cannot tell, and as a result, "caller pays" will mean than service providers get zilch when someone is calling in from a landline -- most local calls in landline plans are "free" in the sense that unlimited local calls are included in the monthly fee.

(Hope that made sense....)

I'm not quite sure of what you're saying, but if I do understand it, it isn't quite correct.

In the beginning of cell use here in the States, all cell numbers started with 1-917. That was the prefix only assigned to cell users. As cell usage became more common, and as the States has a much larger population that any of the European countries with their own country codes, we began to run out of that cell only prefix. Now, you can choose to have your local code used instead, as I , and the rest of my family have. My landlnes start with 1-718, and so do our cells.

So, that is not a reason for how it's been done.
post #49 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

No, the UK is the same as Germany. Incoming calls do not affect your allotted minutes. I wasn't aware they did that in the USA. That's bizarre. People ring you and it costs you? Outrageous. I heard they once did it with text messages, which is why they were unpopular, or was that just between carriers?

ATT still charges for incoming txts. But it's not a big deal, I used to have a carrier where they did not charge for incoming texts, and you tended to get about half the txts for the same price. IE, on the old provider I got 100 txts for $5, where on ATT I get 200 for $5 per month.
post #50 of 109
All the icons appear to labelled correctly in German, Karten for Maps, Einstellungen for settings etc. But where is the new iTunes WiFi Store icon?
post #51 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by heffeque View Post

Yeah... I never understood the purpose of making the receiver pay for incoming calls.

in the US the one calling a cell phone pays because the caller only pays for the lixed line call... so as a caller dialing a local number you will always be charged a local call! the cell phone owner always pays the distance fromt he local exchange to the cell exchange... that simple...

in the EU when calling a cell phone you will be charged an high amount for calling a cell, the called cell phone pays nothing for incoming calls... the cell phone caller pays for the whole call, from his phone to the local exchange to the cell exchange... rip off...

i like the US system better, being a european. if i call a phone i don't want to be charged more for calling a cell phone! if the person only has a cell phone, like many people today, you have no choice but to pay the high prices for calling a cell phone in the EU.... bummer...
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
post #52 of 109
and i believe it's a fake!

the ipod mistake is too big for an ad agency...

it's a fan made fake well executed!
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
post #53 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I'm not quite sure of what you're saying, but if I do understand it, it isn't quite correct.

In the beginning of cell use here in the States, all cell numbers started with 1-917. That was the prefix only assigned to cell users. As cell usage became more common, and as the States has a much larger population that any of the European countries with their own country codes, we began to run out of that cell only prefix. Now, you can choose to have your local code used instead, as I , and the rest of my family have. My landlnes start with 1-718, and so do our cells.

So, that is not a reason for how it's been done.

OK, let me try again.

It might have been "917" in the beginning, but now, for all practical purposes, US mobile phone numbers share the same area codes as landline numbers (just as your 718" area code now does).

But the ROW still has separate area codes for mobile.

I am pointing out that "local" calls made from a landline in the US to mobile phones are not charged differently fro landline-to-landline calls. Say "A" is the landline provider and "B" is the mobile provider. The "local" call (which I am defining as within the same area code) from A to A is "free" (they are regional monopolies, so you are calling from/to the same company) and there are no revenue-sharing issues; but landline-to-wireless calls can go from A to B, and it gets into issues of revenue sharing. Keeping track becomes a mess since, as a caller, you cannot tell them apart.

In most of the ROW, you, as a caller, know when you are calling a mobile number and which service provider (since usually, the area code is also provider-specific). You are charged a higher rate when calling mobile phones, and an even higher rate if the call goes outside the provider's network. The caller willingly agrees to pay the higher charge because (s)he is presumed to know the call is being made to a mobile phone and in/out of network.

In the US, a caller cannot tell whether (s)he is calling a mobile number, nor can (s)he tell whether in or out of the network. For instance, not including my work number, I have three telephone numbers (one landline, two mobile phones) in area code "123". They go as follows: (123) 643-ABCD; (123) 667-EFGH; and (123) 738-IJKL. If you were to call me in one of those numbers, you have no idea which one is mobile and with which provider. All you can tell is that you are calling me in area code 123. As a result, you cannot be charged different amounts, other than for the fact that you know 123 is a different area code, and you will be charged (a fixed, presumably) long distance charge. To make up for the lost revenue to the receiver's service provider, the receiver pays a share.

I am also saying that the ROW is a much more sensible system. For intsance, we should have just gone to, say, a four- or five-digit area code for all mobile calls and this problem might have been obviated.
post #54 of 109
OK... I think smokeonit had simpler explanation.

But our preferences are the opposite!
post #55 of 109
Regarding "free" incoming calls in Germany... In contrast to the US, mobile phone numbers have a country-wide unique area code, assigned to the mobile carrier. Therefore calls to mobile phone are distinguishable as such for the caller, and the caller knows he/she has to pay a (sometimes substantial) higher price for the call. So the cost is just distributed differently.

I think the ad is real as other German 'colleagues" already said, the language is correct and "genuine T-Mobile style". The lack of the iTunes icon is (IMHO) because the ad was produced before the service was ready for release.

The phase-out of the 4G US model, the price drop of the current 8G US model, the presentation of the 16G iPod touch and the "16G iPod" in the ad indicate one thing:

The German iPhone is iPhone V2, with 16G and UMTS, aka 3G
post #56 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q-chan View Post

The German iPhone is iPhone V2, with 16G and UMTS, aka 3G

And a talk-time battery life of.......? (I am currently getting about 6 hours with mixed use on my 8GB).
post #57 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

OK, let me try again.

It might have been "917" in the beginning, but now, for all practical purposes, US mobile phone numbers share the same area codes as landline numbers (just as your 718" area code now does).

But the ROW still has separate area codes for mobile.

I am pointing out that "local" calls made from a landline in the US to mobile phones are not charged differently fro landline-to-landline calls. Say "A" is the landline provider and "B" is the mobile provider. The "local" call (which I am defining as within the same area code) from A to A is "free" (they are regional monopolies, so you are calling from/to the same company) and there are no revenue-sharing issues; but landline-to-wireless calls can go from A to B, and it gets into issues of revenue sharing. Keeping track becomes a mess since, as a caller, you cannot tell them apart.

In most of the ROW, you, as a caller, know when you are calling a mobile number and which service provider (since usually, the area code is also provider-specific). You are charged a higher rate when calling mobile phones, and an even higher rate if the call goes outside the provider's network. The caller willingly agrees to pay the higher charge because (s)he is presumed to know the call is being made to a mobile phone and in/out of network.

In the US, a caller cannot tell whether (s)he is calling a mobile number, nor can (s)he tell whether in or out of the network. For instance, not including my work number, I have three telephone numbers (one landline, two mobile phones) in area code "123". They go as follows: (123) 643-ABCD; (123) 667-EFGH; and (123) 738-IJKL. If you were to call me in one of those numbers, you have no idea which one is mobile and with which provider. All you can tell is that you are calling me in area code 123. As a result, you cannot be charged different amounts, other than for the fact that you know 123 is a different area code, and you will be charged (a fixed, presumably) long distance charge. To make up for the lost revenue to the receiver's service provider, the receiver pays a share.

I am also saying that the ROW is a much more sensible system. For intsance, we should have just gone to, say, a four- or five-digit area code for all mobile calls and this problem might have been obviated.


You were saying that we started this way, which we didn't. I was trying to point out that the US is far too large a country to be able to use that system. Even Germany is only fraction of out 300+ million population. It simply isn't practical anymore.

What if all of Western Europe were part of the same calling system, instead of being fractionated into small national groupings as it is now? You would have the same, or more problems, than we do. You would never have been able to use that system.

It's not easy just to go to a different numbering system, which is why it isn't done.
post #58 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q-chan View Post

Regarding "free" incoming calls in Germany... In contrast to the US, mobile phone numbers have a country-wide unique area code, assigned to the mobile carrier. Therefore calls to mobile phone are distinguishable as such for the caller, and the caller knows he/she has to pay a (sometimes substantial) higher price for the call. So the cost is just distributed differently.

I think the ad is real as other German 'colleagues" already said, the language is correct and "genuine T-Mobile style". The lack of the iTunes icon is (IMHO) because the ad was produced before the service was ready for release.

The phase-out of the 4G US model, the price drop of the current 8G US model, the presentation of the 16G iPod touch and the "16G iPod" in the ad indicate one thing:

The German iPhone is iPhone V2, with 16G and UMTS, aka 3G

but why are there references to the 16GB and NOT to the iTS for wifi??? or any other new features??? besides UMTS/3G???

there's a lot of people out there with time to burn... i still think it's a well elaborated fake...
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
post #59 of 109



and on top the colors don't match!

the squares are pink (magenta in t-mobile talk) on the t-mobile website, but black in the fake ad... i rest my case...
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
post #60 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You were saying that we started this way, which we didn't. I was trying to point out that the US is far too large a country to be able to use that system. Even Germany is only fraction of out 300+ million population. It simply isn't practical anymore.

What if all of Western Europe were part of the same calling system, instead of being fractionated into small national groupings as it is now? You would have the same, or more problems, than we do. You would never have been able to use that system.

It's not easy just to go to a different numbering system, which is why it isn't done.

germany is 80 million people, US is 300 million... a fraction looks a little different... the EU is bigger than the US in terms of inhabitants, not landmass...
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
post #61 of 109
and what the FCC should have done is a cell area code for each state, that way they could have had more control...

but the EU system with distinct cell area codes for each country would have worked in the US too... there's enuough area codes in the US for this to work....
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
post #62 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You were saying that we started this way, which we didn't.

Big deal. My post was really about where we have ended up, not where we started.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's not easy just to go to a different numbering system, which is why it isn't done.

Why is it difficult to go to a different numbering system?
post #63 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokeonit View Post

and what the FCC should have done is a cell area code for each state, that way they could have had more control...

but the EU system with distinct cell area codes for each country would have worked in the US too... there's enuough area codes in the US for this to work....

I don't get what the problem is - in the US you pay for all cell calls, in the EU (as I understand it) land line callers pay to call cell users. Someone pays either way - while it may make no sense for EU users that in the US the recipient pays, it makes no sense to people in the US that sometimes when you make a local phone call (if it is to a cell) you have to pay.

Can we not all just agree that people in both areas seem pretty OK with the way their system works? I don't see how either system is demonstrably "correct" while the other is not - SOMEONE pays for all calls, what's the big deal? In the US you get more minutes for the same money to make up for the fact that you use more minutes. So why all the debate about what should be changed etc? Clearly both systems work just fine for the people who use them every day!
post #64 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokeonit View Post

and what the FCC should have done is a cell area code for each state, that way they could have had more control...

but the EU system with distinct cell area codes for each country would have worked in the US too... there's enuough area codes in the US for this to work....

Exactly.
post #65 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

I don't get what the problem is - in the US you pay for all cell calls, in the EU (as I understand it) land line callers pay to call cell users. Someone pays either way - while it may make no sense for EU users that in the US the recipient pays, it makes no sense to people in the US that sometimes when you make a local phone call (if it is to a cell) you have to pay.

Can we not all just agree that people in both areas seem pretty OK with the way their system works? I don't see how either system is demonstrably "correct" while the other is not - SOMEONE pays for all calls, what's the big deal? In the US you get more minutes for the same money to make up for the fact that you use more minutes. So why all the debate about what should be changed etc? Clearly both systems work just fine for the people who use them every day!

I don't think anyone said that one or the other system was "correct." Just that they are different for different reasons, and people seem to "prefer" one or the other system depending on their particular situation.
post #66 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

I don't get what the problem is - in the US you pay for all cell calls, in the EU (as I understand it) land line callers pay to call cell users. Someone pays either way - while it may make no sense for EU users that in the US the recipient pays, it makes no sense to people in the US that sometimes when you make a local phone call (if it is to a cell) you have to pay.

Can we not all just agree that people in both areas seem pretty OK with the way their system works? I don't see how either system is demonstrably "correct" while the other is not - SOMEONE pays for all calls, what's the big deal? In the US you get more minutes for the same money to make up for the fact that you use more minutes. So why all the debate about what should be changed etc? Clearly both systems work just fine for the people who use them every day!

i like the US system better...

on top the US numbering plan... i hate the EU system where you never know howl on a number is. in the US it's clear and in pairs of 3's and one pair of 4 numbers... easy to remember...

the worst is france where the love to split up the super long number into pairs of 2's, like 12 34 45 67 89 01, ridiculous... the german system @ least has a clear area code marked with (), like (0123) xxxxxxx, italy and spain have that system too...
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
post #67 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

And a talk-time battery life of.......? (I am currently getting about 6 hours with mixed use on my 8GB).

As for battery life, and using Softbank for reference as they have GSM/UMTS mobiles, here's some numbers:

707SCII
Talk Time: 165min. (Japan/W-CDMA) / 310min. (GSM) (when stationary)
Standby Timet255hrs. (Japan/W-CDMA) / 300hrs. (GSM) (when stationary)

705NK
Talk Timet226min. (Japan/W-CDMA) / 246min. (GSM) (when stationary)
Standby Timet370hrs. (Japan/W-CDMA) / 350hrs. (GSM) (when stationary)

910T
Talk Timet200min. (Japan/W-CDMA) / 350min. (GSM) (when stationary)
Standby Timet450hrs. (Japan/W-CDMA) / 320hrs. (GSM) (when stationary)

813SH
Talk Timet150min. (Japan/W-CDMA) / 240min. (GSM) (when stationary)
Standby Timet330hrs. (Japan/W-CDMA) / 320hrs. (GSM) (when stationary)

810P
Talk Timet180 min. (Japan/WCDMA) / 180 min. (GSM) (when stationary)
Standby Timet350 hrs. (Japan/WCDMA) / 270 hrs. (GSM) (when stationary)


It seems standby time is worse to better, and talk time is worse or (at best) equal. Some concerns, but keep in mind UMTS is only turned on when you need it and battery life looks quite a bit better.

About 30% of a hit at worst if you only run on UMTS. Furthermore some of those phones are about 12mm thick, so size isn't much of a problem.
post #68 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I'm not quite sure of what you're saying, but if I do understand it, it isn't quite correct.

In the beginning of cell use here in the States, all cell numbers started with 1-917. That was the prefix only assigned to cell users. As cell usage became more common, and as the States has a much larger population that any of the European countries with their own country codes, we began to run out of that cell only prefix. Now, you can choose to have your local code used instead, as I , and the rest of my family have. My landlnes start with 1-718, and so do our cells.

So, that is not a reason for how it's been done.

Knowing Mel's passion for accuracy - 917 was NOT the only original area code prefix for cell phones - it may have been reserved for cell phones in the tri-state area (east coast including NY). My first experience with a cell phone was in 1979 - it was much more like a two way radio - but the phone number ascribed to the car set was a 503 area code prefix (Oregon).
post #69 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by onceuponamac View Post

Knowing Mel's passion for accuracy - 917 was NOT the only original area code prefix for cell phones - it may have been reserved for cell phones in the tri-state area (east coast including NY). My first experience with a cell phone was in 1979 - it was much more like a two way radio - but the phone number ascribed to the car set was a 503 area code prefix (Oregon).

and in germany for example there not just one area code for cell phones!

right now there's:

0160 t-mobile
0162 vodafone
0163 e+
0170 t-mobile
0171 t-mobile
0172 vodafone
0173 vodafone
0174 vodafone
0175 t-mobile
0176 o2
0177 e+
0178 e+
0179 o2

in use
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
post #70 of 109
Regardless of the ad, fake or not, a 16GB iPhone this year is 'most' definite. The 3G is either on the cards, or a lot of people here wont even consider buying the device. With 3G, I'd say it would 'literally' double the amount of sales Apple would make here.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #71 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Regardless of the ad, fake or not, a 16GB iPhone this year is 'most' definite. The 3G is either on the cards, or a lot of people here wont even consider buying the device. With 3G, I'd say it would 'literally' double the amount of sales Apple would make here.

i agree completly;-)

but i still think the ad is fake...

but that the iphone might come to the EU as described could be true.... though...
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
post #72 of 109
That picture is a definite fake. On macrumors they have a link to a high res version of the ad, and there you can clearly see how poorly the slanted text in those purple boxes is aligned.

A second, even more obvious error: there are footnote markers after the signs in the bottom boxes - but where is the footnote?
post #73 of 109
I always thought this chip would end all frequency problems.
Correct me if i'm wrong.
Data plans still aren't popular in Europe and expensive. This is why SMS/MMS is hot. Most people with data phones only use up free data and then stop using it.
post #74 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

But we also get the freebies as well. Free calls to family and friends, or sometimes, free calls to anyone within the same network, free calls after 7:00pm, or 9:00 pm to 6:30 am, free weekends, etc. All of this makes the anytime calls a much smaller pert of the total free call schedule.

Quite common now in Europe too although most free calls are to any network and you may get free text too especially if you're NOT on a contract. Sometimes the better deals are not in a contract but on Pay-as-you-go where they'll reward you for buying a £20 top-up. That's why unlocking is so popular too.

In most of Europe with most landline carriers you also have to remember that there are no free local calls either. The caller always pays the cost of the call.
post #75 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokeonit View Post

but why are there references to the 16GB and NOT to the iTS for wifi??? or any other new features??? besides UMTS/3G???.

Apple could quiet easily be open about the new iPhone with t-mobile, where they hadn't discussed the iTunes wifi store options.

Not that that makes it real... I just don't think it's evidence against.
post #76 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokeonit View Post

germany is 80 million people, US is 300 million... a fraction looks a little different... the EU is bigger than the US in terms of inhabitants, not landmass...

Uh, yes, that was the point I was making. Re-read the post.
post #77 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Big deal. My post was really about where we have ended up, not where we started.

Maybe is doesn't, or it does.

But I was responding to your own statement:

Quote:
Yes, it is weird, but true. The reason -- I think -- has to do with the history of how mobile phone numbers were originally created in the US v. the rest-of-the-world, and the implications of that for service provider revenues.

According to you, where we ended up was because of how we started.

Quote:
Why is it difficult to go to a different numbering system?

Because of the switching systems. It is set up for the system now in use. Upgrading that, by adding numbers, as well as the problem of possibly forcing many phone users, and esp. those in business to go to new systems. Web sites would all have to be upgraded. Even paper work with spaces for phone numbers would have to be re-designed and re-printed.

That would cost a huge amount of money across the entire world.

I'm sure it could be done, but those costs would make everyone rather not want to do it.
post #78 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Exactly.

That still wouldn't work. Here in NYC, we now have a number of different area codes. The way cells are proliferating, we are being told that at some point, we will run out of them. What then?
post #79 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by onceuponamac View Post

Knowing Mel's passion for accuracy - 917 was NOT the only original area code prefix for cell phones - it may have been reserved for cell phones in the tri-state area (east coast including NY). My first experience with a cell phone was in 1979 - it was much more like a two way radio - but the phone number ascribed to the car set was a 503 area code prefix (Oregon).

That wasn't a cell phone, as you noticed. We had mobile radio that far back. Cell came later.

In Japan, the first commercial cell service began in 1979, I think. It was very limited, and horribly expensive, and unreliable.

In 1983, the first cell phone service started here. I remember that well, because I was able to play with one for a while when I was in Chicago for a business meeting.
post #80 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokeonit View Post

and in germany for example there not just one area code for cell phones!

right now there's:

0160 t-mobile
0162 vodafone
0163 e+
0170 t-mobile
0171 t-mobile
0172 vodafone
0173 vodafone
0174 vodafone
0175 t-mobile
0176 o2
0177 e+
0178 e+
0179 o2

in use

There, it's happening in Europe as well. It must. It's math.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Purported T-Mobile ad claims 3G iPhone for Germany in November