Purchase this or other Telephone Domains

---

Mobile (Cellular) Phone Business Models

Cell Business Tariff models:

When cellular telecoms services were launched, phones and calls were very expensive and early mobile operators (carriers) decided to charge for all air time consumed by the mobile phone user. This resulted in the concept of charging callers for outbound calls and also for receiving calls. As mobile phone call charges diminished and phone adoption rates skyrocketed, more modern operators decided not to charge for incoming calls. Thus some markets have "Receiving Party Pays" models (also known as "Mobile Party Pays"), in which both outbound and received calls are charged, and other markets have "Calling Party Pays" models, by which only making calls produces costs, and receiving calls is free. An exception to this, as noted by some, is international roaming tariffs, by which receiving calls are normally also charged.

The European market adopted a "Calling Party Pays" model throughout the GSM environment and soon various other GSM markets also started to emulate this model. As Receiving Party Pays systems have the undesired effect of phone owners keeping their phones turned off to avoid receiving unwanted calls, the total voice usage rates (and profits) in Calling Party Pays countries outperform those in Receiving Party Pays countries. Consequently, most countries previously with Receiving Party Pays models have either abandoned them or are begining to employ alternative marketing methods, such as massive voice call buckets, in some cases, to avoid the problem of phone users keeping phones turned off.

In most countries today, the person receiving a mobile phone call pays nothing. However, in Hong Kong, Canada, and the United States, one can be charged per minute, for incoming as well as outgoing calls. In the United States and Canada, a few carriers are beginning to offer unlimited received phone calls. For the Chinese mainland, it was reported that both of its two operators will adopt the caller-pays approach as early as January 2007.

While some systems of payment are 'pay-as-you-go' where conversation time is purchased and added to a phone unit via an Internet account or in shops or ATMs, other systems are more traditional ones where bills are paid by regular intervals. Pay as you go (also known as "pre-pay") accounts were invented simultaneously in Portugal and Italy and today form more than half of all mobile phone subscriptions. USA, Canada, Costa Rica, Japan and Finland are among the rare countries left where most phones are still contract-based.

One possible alternative is a sim-lock free mobile phone. Sim-lock free mobile phones allow portability between networks so users can use sim cards from various networks and not need to have their phone unlocked.

Cell Business Models Impacts:

Since the introduction of mobile phones, concerns (both scientific and public) have been raised about the potential health impacts from regular use. Numerous studies have reported no significant relationship between mobile phone use and health, but the effect of mobile phone usage on health continues to be an area of public concern.

Business Model Safety concerns:

As of 2007, several airlines are experimenting with base station and antenna systems installed to the aeroplane, allowing low power, short-range connection of any phones aboard to remain connected to the aircraft's base station. Thus, they would not attempt connection to the ground base stations as during take off and landing. Simultaneously, airlines may offer phone services to their travelling passengers either as full voice and data services, or initially only as SMS text messaging and similar services. Qantas, the Australian airline, is the first airline to run a test aeroplane in this configuration in the autumn of 2007. Emirates has announced plans to allow limited mobile phone usage on some flights. However, in the past, commercial airlines have prevented the use of cell phones and laptops, due to the assertion that the frequencies emitted from these devices may disturb the radio waves contact of the airplane.

On 20 March 2008, an Emirates flight was the first time voice calls have been allowed in-flight on commercial airline flights. The breakthrough came after the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the United Arab Emirates-based General Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) granted full approval for the AeroMobile system to be used on Emirates. Passengers were able to make and receive voice calls as well as use text messaging. The system automatically came into operation as the Airbus A340-300 reached cruise altitude. Passengers wanting to use the service received a text message welcoming them to the AeroMobile system when they first switched their phones on. The approval by EASA has established that GSM phones are safe to use on airplanes, as the AeroMobile system does not require the modification of aircraft components deemed "sensitive," nor does it require the use of modified phones.

In any case, there are inconsistencies between practices allowed by different airlines and even on the same airline in different countries. For example, Northwest Airlines may allow the use of mobile phones immediately after landing on a domestic flight within the US, whereas they may state "not until the doors are open" on an international flight arriving in the Netherlands. In April 2007 the US Federal Communications Commission officially prohibited passengers' use of cell phones during a flight.

In a similar vein, signs are put up in many countries, such as Canada, the U.K. and the U.S., at gas stations prohibiting the use of mobile phones, due to, as many claim, to possible safety issues.

Etiquette:

Most schools in the United States have prohibited mobile phones in the classroom, due to the large number of class disruptions that result from their use, and the potential for cheating via text messaging[citation needed]. In the UK, possession of a mobile phone in an examination can result in immediate disqualification from that subject or from all that student's subjects.

A working group made up of Finnish telephone companies, public transport operators and communications authorities has launched a campaign to remind mobile phone users of courtesy, especially when using mass transit—what to talk about on the phone, and how to. In particular, the campaign wants to impact loud mobile phone usage as well as calls regarding sensitive matters.

Many US cities with subway transit systems underground are studying or have implemented mobile phone reception in their underground tunnels for their riders. Boston, Massachusetts has investigated such usage in their tunnels, although there is a question of usage etiquette and also how to fairly award contracts to carriers.

The issue of mobile communication and etiquette has also become an issue of academic interest. The rapid adoption of the device has resulted in the intrusion of telephony into situations where this was previously not known. This has exposed the implicit rules of courtesy and opened them to reevaluation.

Cell Phone Use by drivers:

This driver is using two phones at onceMain article: Mobile phones and driving safety The use of mobile phones by people who are driving has become increasingly common, either as part of their job, as in the case of delivery drivers who are calling a client, or by commuters who are chatting with a friend. While many drivers have embraced the convenience of using their cellphone while driving, some jurisdictions have made the practice against the law, such as the Canadian provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador as well as the United Kingdom, consisting of a zero-tolerance system operated in Scotland and a warning system operated in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Officials from these jurisdictions argue that using a mobile phone while driving is an impediment to vehicle operation that can increase the risk of road traffic accidents.

Studies have found vastly different relative risks (RR). Two separate studies using case-crossover analysis each calculated RR at 4, while an epidemiological cohort study found RR, when adjusted for crash-risk exposure, of 1.11 for men and 1.21 for women.

A simulation study from the University of Utah Professor David Strayer compared drivers with a blood alcohol content of 0.08% to those conversing on a cell phone, and after controlling for driving difficulty and time on task, the study concluded that cell phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers. Meta-analysis by The Canadian Automobile Association[40] and The University of Illinois found that response time while using both hands-free and hand-held phones was approximately 0.5 standard deviations higher than normal driving (i.e., an average driver, while talking on a cell phone, has response times of a driver in roughly the 40th percentile).

Driving while using a hands-free device is not safer than driving while using a hand-held phone, as concluded by case-crossover studies. epidemiological studies, simulation studies, and meta-analysis. Even with this information, California recently passed a cell phone law that requires drivers who are 18 years of age or older to use a hands-free device while using the phone in the vehicle. Moreover, this law also restricts drivers under the age of 18 from using a mobile phone. This law goes into effect on July 1, 2008 with a $20 fine for the first offense and $50 fines for each subsequent conviction. The consistency of increased crash risk between hands-free and hand-held phone use is at odds with legislation in over 30 countries that prohibit hand-held phone use but allow hands-free. Scientific literature is mixed on the dangers of talking on a phone versus those of talking with a passenger, with the Accident Research Unit at the University of Nottingham finding that the number of utterances was usually higher for mobile calls when compared to blindfolded and non-blindfolded passengers, but the University of Illinois meta-analysis concluding that passenger conversations were just as costly to driving performance as cell phone ones.

Cell Phone Environmental impacts:

Like all high structures, cellular antenna masts pose a hazard to low flying aircraft. Towers over a certain height or towers that are close to airports or heliports are normally required to have warning lights. There have been reports that warning lights on cellular masts, TV-towers and other high structures can attract and confuse birds. US authorities estimate that millions of birds are killed near communication towers in the country each year.

An example of the way mobile phones and mobile networks have sometimes been perceived as a threat is the widely reported and later discredited claim that mobile phone masts are associated with the Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) which has reduced bee hive numbers by up to 75% in many areas, especially near cities in the US. The Independent newspaper cited a scientific study claiming it provided evidence for the theory that mobile phone masts are a major cause in the collapse of bee populations, with controlled experiments demonstrating a rapid and catastrophic effect on individual hives near masts. Mobile phones were in fact not covered in the study, and the original researchers have since emphatically disavowed any connection between their research, mobile phones, and CCD, specifically indicating that the Independent article had misinterpreted their results and created "a horror story". While the initial claim of damage to bees was widely reported, the corrections to the story were almost non-existent in the media.

There are more than 500 million used mobile phones in the US sitting on shelves or in landfills, and it is estimated that over 125 million will be discarded this year alone. The problem is growing at a rate of more than two million phones per week, putting tons of toxic waste into landfills daily. Several sites including PaceButler Corporation, TradeMyCell.com, ReCellular, and MyGreenElectronics offer to buy back and recycle mobile phones from users.

Mobile (Cell) Phones
Mobile phone features
Cell Phone Usage
Cell Phone Business Models
History of Cell Phones
History of the Telephone
History of the Telephone Controversy Debate and Patents

Source References:

• Total mobile subscribers top 1.8 billion".
• Up to 90 percent of globe to have mobile coverage
• Cell phone use booming worldwide" (September 15, 2007).
• Mobile growth fastest in Africa",
• Phone revolution makes Africa upwardly mobile", The Times
• The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
• Mobile Phones for Kids Under 15: a Responsible Question
• Rise in executions for mobile use", ITV News (June 15, 2007).
• PC World - Cell Phone Fashion Show
• Gundersen, Edna, "Mastertones ring up profits", USA Today, 11/29/2006
• "In Grazer "Öffis" sind Handys ab heute verboten" (in German), Klagenfurt: Styria Medien AG, p. 18.
• "Rücksichtsvoll" oder "völlig sinnlos"" (in German), Der Standard Online vesion (2008-04-18), p. 18.
• ICT Security & Dependability Research beyond 2010: Final strategyPDF (1.37 MiB)
• Supplementary memorandum submitted by Gregory Smith
• Guidelines on Cell Phone ForensicsPDF (1.44 MiB), Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, May 2007.
• "New Japanese phones offer Earthquake early warning alerts". Retrieved on 2008-01-08.
• Amy Gu, "Mainland mobile services to be cheaper", South China Morning Post, December 18, 2006, Page A1.
• Campbell, Jonathan. "Cellular Phones and Cancer".
• Europe closer to allowing in-flight cellphone use - Engadget
• FCC says 'no' to mobile phones on planes. Yahoo News, April 3, 2007.
• "Exams ban for mobile phone users", BBC News (15 April 2005).
• campaign to promote cell phone manors (in finish)
• Bierman, Noah, "'I'm on the T': tunnels ready for cellphones", Boston Globe, December 27, 2007.
• Gilsdorf, Ethan, "Our cellphones, our selves", The Boston Globe, February 17, 2008.
• Ling, Richard, "One Can Talk About Common Manners", 2007.
• Redelmeier, Donald (February 13, 1997). "Association Between Cellular-Telephone Calls And Motor Vehicle Collisions". The New England Journal of Medicine 336 (7): 453–458.
• McEvoy, Suzanne (2005), "Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study", BMJ 331: 428, doi:10.1136/bmj.38537.397512.55, PMID 16012176,
• Laberge-Nadeau, Claire (September 2003). "Wireless telephones and the risk of road crashes". Accident Analysis & Prevention 35 (5): 649–660. doi:10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00043-X.
• Strayer, David; Drews, Frank & Crouch, Dennis (2003), Fatal Distraction? A Comparison Of The Cell-Phone Driver And The Drunk Driver, University of Utah Department of Psychology,
• Jeffrey K. Caird et al. (October 25, 2004). "Effects of Cellular Telephones on Driving Behaviour and Crash Risk: Results of Meta-Analysis" (PDF). CAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
• Horrey, William; Christopher Wickens (Spring 2006). "Examining the Impact of Cell Phone Conversations on Driving Using Meta-Analytic Techniques". Human Factors 38 (1): 196–205. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
• David Crundall, Manpreet Bains, Peter Chapman, Geoffrey Underwood (2005). "Regulating conversation during driving: a problem for mobile telephones?". Transportation Research, Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 8F (3): 197–211.
• "Communication Towers and the Fish and Wildlife Service". U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• "Are mobile phones wiping out our bees?", The Independent (15 April 2007).
• Eric Sylvers (April 22, 2007). "Wireless: Case of the disappearing bees creates a buzz about cellphones", International Herald Tribune.
• Wikipedia.org, the free encyclopedia

Enter your search terms Submit search form