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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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...
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...
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....
Comments
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/
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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....)
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.
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.
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.
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...
the ipod mistake is too big for an ad agency...
it's a fan made fake well executed!
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.
But our preferences are the opposite!
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
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).
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.
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...
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...
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...
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....