Phone bills in the US

[Mahone]

Ok, Mahone. I think you are missing the point.

You may find it rude to not answer the phone. But, in the US, it is very common to get someone's voicemail and leave a message. There are a variety of reasons why and even a variety of reasons why it's so often that one person doesn't answer the phone. It is not rude in US to get voicemail and/or to leave a message. It just isn't. Even businesses don't find it rude. In fact, many training programs (I am a trainer for my company) suggest that a wise use of time is to allow some phone calls to go to voicemail.

And texting is becoming more and more popular. So, oftentimes if someone wants to talk to someone, they would actually probably text them to call them when they have time.

The thread wasn't started to discuss whether it's normal or not to leave a message. It was about US phone companies charging both the recipient and caller for the call (or deducting it from both their free minutes).

The "leaving it for the answer machine" part came about when someone mentioned they just don't answer to phone to those they don't want to talk to, to save wasting money/minutes on those phone calls.

This isn't really relevant anyway, as calling someone back after they've left a message on your answer machine does exactly what I had an issue with in the first place: it charges you money/deducts minutes for a phone conversation that you didn't initiate.

It's only if you don't bother calling the person back that the issue of charging the recipient money/minutes is solved. This is what I would call rude. We then come back to the original issue of the phone companies charging both the caller and recipient.

Hopefully that clarifies this part.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Mahone

[Dravin]

Correct. But part of human intelligence is the ability to spot patterns, and use of averages to figure out that there can only be a certain amount of times you really and genuinely weren't available to take the phone call.

Conclusion:

They didn't want to talk, for what ever reasons, rather than not actually being physically or legally prohibited from talking. Supposition beyond that depends on how well you know the person and the nature of your relationship with them and the exact pattern being worked from.

The big 'issue' here [in this little tangent] is that you seem to think not wanting to talk to someone (and therefore not doing so) is inherently rude, others in this thread are disagreeing. And yes, I suspect it's a phone culture difference.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Dravin

[Mahone]

The big issue here is that you seem to think not wanting to talk to someone (and therefore not doing so) is inherently rude, others in this thread are disagreeing. And yes, I suspect it's a phone culture difference.

More precisely, I think not wanting to talk to someone and then not doing so and not returning their calls regardless of left messages on the answer machine is rude.

It's impossible to help not wanting to talk to someone, that's human nature. The rest can be resolved though choices.

I accept it's possibly due to culture differences, but this wasn't the primary topic of this thread.

[Dravin]

This is what I would call rude. We then come back to the original issue of the phone companies charging both the caller and recipient.

If we're back to that there isn't much else to say. It's how thing work over here and part of the contracts. The explanation that both parties are making use of their respective services and are thus charged has already been given (even if not justified in your mind).

*shrug*

[Mahone]

If we're back to that there isn't much else to say. It's how thing work over here and part of the contracts. The explanation that both parties are making use of their respective services and are thus charged has already been given (even if not justified in your mind).

*shrug*

If you mean that there aren't any facts to fully counteract opinions, then yes you're probably right. But then debates wouldn't be fun if we only used facts and nothing else. You don't think I started this thread because I genuinely thought there would be a valid answer do you?

[Dravin]

More precisely, I think not wanting to talk to someone and then not doing so and not returning their calls regardless of left messages on the answer machine is rude.

Call them back later when you have your nights and weekend minutes (you can also use this to check your voice mail). Or contact them through a different medium to explain the situation. Or explain before hand that you have extremely limited minutes and towards the end of the month you may have to stop taking phone calls until the start of the new billing period.

And who here advocating not responding to messages (in some capacity)*? I've been skimming so I may have missed it. Most of the comments about not answering the phone and talking with someone where made in the context of the tangent that you have to answer a phone call/it's rude not to answer a phone call.

*Well when the message necessitates/requests such. For instance leaving a message, "Make sure to leave by 6:00pm to pick me up." doesn't necessarily require contacting them back, just leave on time.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Dravin

[Dravin]

You don't think I started this thread because I genuinely thought there would be a valid answer do you?

Nope, I suspect you started it because you didn't think there was a valid justification for the answer of your question. You're kinda like the American who asks a question about NHS so he can complain about how it's not fair/a good idea.

[applepansy]

Yes JD it's true. It's so very true. In fact I've seen the mythical rotary dial, black, lead bottom, beat your head over with a knot heavy handed receiver, party line, and Dial M for Murder version dinosaur in my wifes 90 year uncles old grass shack by the ocean.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSAf24lmakcF11WUKgCyn28gZ3TA7Q1tgebWnnx64SqR5fCcqKqFA

We bought my grandparents house and it came with a phone that looked just like that. I kept it for years and wanted it hooked up in our new house (16 years ago). During the move from home, to storage, to condo, to home hubby threw it away. I'm still upset with him over that dang phone.

[beefche]

Mahone, what's the debate? You asked how US does cell phone billing. We answered. You don't like how it's done and began stating why you don't like and little tangents started.

So, now I'm confused. What do you want to know?

[Mahone]

Mahone, what's the debate? You asked how US does cell phone billing. We answered. You don't like how it's done and began stating why you don't like and little tangents started.

So, now I'm confused. What do you want to know?

You answered your own question really. I stated why I didn't agree with that method, as people do in debates. I also didn't really get a particularly good answer as to whats wrong with simply pushing the bill completely onto the initiator of the call. It's technically possible and simple. I've given disadvantages of the method that's currently in use.

[slamjet]

Why to you spell color colour? Regional differences? Same with the phone stuff. It's how we yanks do things.

[beefche]

You answered your own question really. I stated why I didn't agree with that method, as people do in debates. I also didn't really get a particularly good answer as to whats wrong with simply pushing the bill completely onto the initiator of the call. It's technically possible and simple. I've given disadvantages of the method that's currently in use.

Well, when you own your own cell phone company in the US, you can run it the way you want. And I'll probably choose another company that doesn't charge me in that manner.

[slamjet]

I'm digging this:

[john doe]

The thread wasn't started to discuss whether it's normal or not to leave a message. It was about US phone companies charging both the recipient and caller for the call (or deducting it from both their free minutes).

The "leaving it for the answer machine" part came about when someone mentioned they just don't answer to phone to those they don't want to talk to, to save wasting money/minutes on those phone calls.

This isn't really relevant anyway, as calling someone back after they've left a message on your answer machine does exactly what I had an issue with in the first place: it charges you money/deducts minutes for a phone conversation that you didn't initiate.

It's only if you don't bother calling the person back that the issue of charging the recipient money/minutes is solved. This is what I would call rude. We then come back to the original issue of the phone companies charging both the caller and recipient.

Hopefully that clarifies this part.

So, you're saying that this is a circular thread with no real resolution. Do you wish to have it closed?

[Dravin]

So, you're saying that this is a circular thread with no real resolution. Do you wish to have it closed?

Make sure that he, as the initiator, pays for everyone's involvement. :)

[pam]

Let me make a few more posts on this thread then, so I get a larger share of the money.

[Saldrin]

I'm under the impression that most phone packages in the USA include charging you for receiving a phone call, or otherwise deducting it from your free minutes? This is on top of charging the caller? Is this accurate?

it just seems a little odd to me. I'm used to phone packages in the UK where you only get charged for making phone calls, not receiving them.

as far as the cellphone carriers,

Sprint has free mobile to mobile calling to any cellphone

AT&T has free mobile to mobile if you buy their unlimited text plan. their go phone is 2 dollars a day you can use unlimited for that day. and they have rollover minutes.

T-mobile has free in network calling. they also have a truly unlimited plan

so calls to landlines will get charged minutes

Boost and Virgin mobile have unlimited calling for fifty a month.

and i don't know what Verizon has in the way of plans yet.