PAYG no expiry

[Rob]

Is it possible to buy a PAYG phone, put in £20 of credits and
then not use it for (say) 6 months without the provider eating
the credits or disabling the phone?

--
Rob

[Steve Terry]

Nope, not for certain. Virgin Mobile PAYG are probably the least
likely to disconnect you for disuse.

The only way to be certain is to go for a Zero contract like
ringfenced Orange OVP Virgin or Three Zero which might
not be available anymore.

Steve Terry
--
Get a free GiffGaff PAYG Sim and £5 bonus after activation at:
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/gfourwwk

[Roland Perry]

In message <9pksae...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:44:14 on Fri, 10 Feb
2012, Rob <no...@nowhere.nothere.com> remarked:

>Is it possible to buy a PAYG phone, put in £20 of credits and
>then not use it for (say) 6 months without the provider eating
>the credits or disabling the phone?

Last December I lost all my credit and a phone number (and more
importantly the ability to do some coverage tests on the Orange network)
because the SIM from a budget reseller timed out after 60 days.

So it's well worth finding out what their policy is.
--
Roland Perry

[Brian Mc]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
: So it's well worth finding out what their policy is.

But they may not tell you! Most PAYG operators say something like "one call
every 6 months" - but only some strictly enforce it!

[Andrew Benham]

It seems possible (at least on some networks) to purchase a PAYG phone,
load it with credit, and not use it *at all* for several years. The phone
will work OK when you make the first call/text, but this alerts the
network to the phone now being in use and the phone will be disabled after
90/180 days of no (chargeable) use.

Many networks now seem to have an "activate by" date on their SIMs, so
you can't keep a spare SIM unactivated for ever.

There's a thread titled "Keeping PAYG alive - the 90 day rule" in this
NG which started about 10 days ago.

[Graham.]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:54:55 -0000, "Steve Terry" <gfou...@tesco.net>
wrote:

>Rob wrote:
>> Is it possible to buy a PAYG phone, put in £20 of credits and
>> then not use it for (say) 6 months without the provider eating
>> the credits or disabling the phone?
>>
>Nope, not for certain. Virgin Mobile PAYG are probably the least
>likely to disconnect you for disuse.
>
>The only way to be certain is to go for a Zero contract like
>ringfenced Orange OVP Virgin or Three Zero which might
>not be available anymore.
>
>Steve Terry

I had an interesting insight into Virgin's policy on this, see the
thread I started recently.
Basically after 5 1/2 years of none-use my SIM reappears on their
network and works, but is then killed after 24 hours.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[DrTeeth]

On 10 Feb 2012 16:40:04 GMT, just as I was about to take a herb, Huge
<Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> disturbed my reverie and wrote:

>Probably not.

I thought that this rubbish of expiring credits was done with years
ago. I am both surprised and disgusted to see that the practice is
alive and well. IMHO a credit should last indefinitely as I cannot see
what overhead this costs to the operator.
--

Cheers

DrT
______________________________
We may not be able to prevent the stormy times in
our lives; but we can always choose to dance
in the puddles (Jewish proverb).

[Chris Blunt]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:26:18 +0000, DrTeeth <no-e...@tardis.com>
wrote:

>On 10 Feb 2012 16:40:04 GMT, just as I was about to take a herb, Huge
><Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> disturbed my reverie and wrote:
>
>>Probably not.
>
>I thought that this rubbish of expiring credits was done with years
>ago. I am both surprised and disgusted to see that the practice is
>alive and well. IMHO a credit should last indefinitely as I cannot see
>what overhead this costs to the operator.

They need to maintain account records in their systems for as long as
the SIM is usable, and you can't expect them to do that forever.

Also, numbering ranges are not unlimited and as long as a number is
allocated to a SIM that number is one less in the pool available for
new customers to use. If they deactivate SIMs after a long period of
disuse those numbers can be recycled and go back into the pool.

Chris

[Someone Somewhere]

On 10/02/2012 17:26, DrTeeth wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2012 16:40:04 GMT, just as I was about to take a herb, Huge
> <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> disturbed my reverie and wrote:
>
>> Probably not.
>
> I thought that this rubbish of expiring credits was done with years
> ago. I am both surprised and disgusted to see that the practice is
> alive and well. IMHO a credit should last indefinitely as I cannot see
> what overhead this costs to the operator.

If we ignore number ranges which whilst regulated are not charged for
(yet), but Ofcom or whoever they are these days are encouraging
operators to make better use of the ranges they have.

To keep a pre-paid mobile on the network you almost certainly need to be
taking up entries in the operators CRM, HLR, AuC, VLR and IN platforms,
all of which have a finite capacity and are often licensed and/or
supported on a per-entry basis. This is not necessarily cheap, and it's
certainly not free - particularly as very few pre-paid customers really
tell the operator when they leave the network (porting aside) and hence
the operator carries that cost liability for the last 6 months of every
subscribers lifecycle regardless of any credit.

One final point from a business finance point of view is that if they
keep the account going indefinitely they will not be able to recognise
the revenue from the voucher as they continue to have a liability to
provide service. From an accounting point of view if they had done this
initially it probably makes no odds, but a wholesale change at this
point would involve a severe skewing of accounts.

Do you see the overhead now?

[Graham.]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:17:48 +0800, Chris Blunt <ma...@nospam.com>
wrote:

That sounds logical enough, but how does that tally with what Virgin
did to me?
ie the PAYG SIM remained active after being brought back into use
after over 5 years, only to be killed 24 hours later, hardly giving me
enough time to apply credit.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Roland Perry]

In message <5kjcj7llt0ah02tma...@4ax.com>, at 11:32:07 on
Sat, 11 Feb 2012, Graham. <m...@privacy.net> remarked:

>how does that tally with what Virgin did to me? ie the PAYG SIM
>remained active after being brought back into use after over 5 years,
>only to be killed 24 hours later, hardly giving me enough time to apply
>credit.

I thought you hadn't made any calls (other than to admin numbers of the
network). If that's the case then the real bug is allowing you to top up
a SIM that could never have been used to make a chargeable call.
--
Roland Perry

[just42night]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:26:18 +0000, DrTeeth <no-e...@tardis.com>
wrote:

>I thought that this rubbish of expiring credits was done with years
>ago. I am both surprised and disgusted to see that the practice is
>alive and well. IMHO a credit should last indefinitely as I cannot see
>what overhead this costs to the operator.

I am unfortunate enough to need a Spanish PAYG mobile. It's even worse
in Spain, in that you actually _have_ to top up every six or nine
months, depending on network.

Lots of ex-pats have lost their phone numbers even though they have
made calls but forgotten to top up in the time period.

In the UK I can live with making one quick call or text every six
months to ensure my UK PAYG remains connected.

[Graham.]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:31:51 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

You presume correctly, I hadn't attempted to apply a topup, and I
presume that if I had done so in that 24hr window, the SIM would have
remained active.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[S Viemeister]

On 2/11/2012 7:04 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Graham.<m...@privacy.net> considered Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:05:51 +0000

> I wonder if they'd reallocated the number, but forgot to disable the
> sim?
> That would set the alarm bells ringing when the sim suddenly
> reappeared.

If the phone had been off all those years, the SIM wouldn't have been
able to receive 'instructions' from Virgin.

[Graham.]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:04:55 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>

wrote:

>Graham. <m...@privacy.net> considered Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:05:51 +0000
>the perfect time to write:
>

>I wonder if they'd reallocated the number, but forgot to disable the
>sim?
>That would set the alarm bells ringing when the sim suddenly
>reappeared.

I don't know about that, in the 24 hours it rang when I called it.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Chris Blunt]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:36:23 +0000, just42night <j4...@despammed.com>
wrote:

That policy seems to be the norm in many countries, with the UK being
one exception. I live in SE Asia and have SIM cards for several
countries in the region which I use when traveling. Every one of those
requires a top-up every few months to keep the SIM alive. Even if you
make calls and there is still credit on the account it gets cancelled
if you don't top-up by the required date.

Chris

[Chris Blunt]

You'd have to ask Virgin about that. I was giving my opinion as to why
operators might want to put limits on the validity of an unused SIM.
I'm not claiming that every network will actually adopt that policy.

Chris

[Chris Blunt]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 04:05:48 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>Graham. <m...@privacy.net> considered Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:50:23 +0000

>the perfect time to write:
>

>Not if the number had been reallocated, and the sim-blocking part of
>the process failed/got forgotten/whatever.
>Then when your sim pops up on the network, claiming that number,
>things could get "interesting" for the administrators and require
>manual de-fucking. That could easily be 24 hours, especially if the
>other sim wasn't on-line at the time.

As I understand it, when you turn on a phone the SIM itself doesn't
claim to be any telephone number, it simply identifies itself to the
network. The network then looks up in its records what number is
allocated to the SIM, and things proceed from there.

Chris

[PeeGee]

That seems sensible, but a while ago I ported a number in to "3" and the
"your own number" entry was the original for many months, which I then
changed manually.

However, my wife has an iCard SIM and you have to use *#100# to get the
number. The 'phone reports "no data" through "your own number".

--
PeeGee

"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)

[Someone Somewhere]

On 12/02/2012 09:44, PeeGee wrote:
> On 12/02/12 04:31, Chris Blunt wrote:

>>
>> As I understand it, when you turn on a phone the SIM itself doesn't
>> claim to be any telephone number, it simply identifies itself to the
>> network. The network then looks up in its records what number is
>> allocated to the SIM, and things proceed from there.
>>
>> Chris
>
> That seems sensible, but a while ago I ported a number in to "3" and the
> "your own number" entry was the original for many months, which I then
> changed manually.
>

Yes - that number (actually the first entry in the address book on the
SIM card) is for your convenience only - the SIM card (or the handset)
have no need to know their telephone number at all ever.

As Chris Blunt says above, the mobile station (SIM card and handset)
identify themselves to the network using the IMSI stored on the SIM card
which is used as the reference key to look up what number and other
services are allocated in the network to that SIM card.

> However, my wife has an iCard SIM and you have to use *#100# to get the
> number. The 'phone reports "no data" through "your own number".
>

Yes - they clearly haven't filled in the entry in the address book on
the SIM card, and you're using USSD codes to request it from the network.

[Theo Markettos]

Someone Somewhere <nnt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To keep a pre-paid mobile on the network you almost certainly need to be
> taking up entries in the operators CRM, HLR, AuC, VLR and IN platforms,
> all of which have a finite capacity and are often licensed and/or
> supported on a per-entry basis. This is not necessarily cheap, and it's
> certainly not free - particularly as very few pre-paid customers really
> tell the operator when they leave the network (porting aside) and hence
> the operator carries that cost liability for the last 6 months of every
> subscribers lifecycle regardless of any credit.

It's sad that there's no means to hand over (say) 50 quid to the operator in
exchange for 5 years service (call credit extra). A tenner a year I'd have
thought would compensate for the real costs incurred by the operator, plus
the user can always be dumped on a not-very-competitive tariff for when they
do make calls. It's not really about money, it's about making sure that the
phone in your glovebox or mountain survival kit will actually work when you
need it to (emergency calls aside).

Theo

[J B]

On 12/02/2012 04:22, Chris Blunt wrote:
>>
>> I am unfortunate enough to need a Spanish PAYG mobile. It's even worse
>> in Spain, in that you actually _have_ to top up every six or nine
>> months, depending on network.
>>
>

> That policy seems to be the norm in many countries, with the UK being
> one exception. I live in SE Asia and have SIM cards for several
> countries in the region which I use when traveling. Every one of those
> requires a top-up every few months to keep the SIM alive. Even if you
> make calls and there is still credit on the account it gets cancelled
> if you don't top-up by the required date.

It's the same with both networks in Cyprus, you *have* to top up every
12 months

--
J B

[Chris Blunt]

On 12 Feb 2012 16:15:48 +0000 (GMT), Theo Markettos

<theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>It's sad that there's no means to hand over (say) 50 quid to the operator in
>exchange for 5 years service (call credit extra). A tenner a year I'd have
>thought would compensate for the real costs incurred by the operator, plus
>the user can always be dumped on a not-very-competitive tariff for when they
>do make calls. It's not really about money, it's about making sure that the
>phone in your glovebox or mountain survival kit will actually work when you
>need it to (emergency calls aside).

I like that idea too, and it seems fair to both parties.

I'd be happy to have a condition that required you to make a
chargeable call every month, and if no calls were actually made to
have the account debited with, say, £1. In return, the SIM would stay
active for as long at credit remained available on the account.

That way, the networks would make more money out of me than they
currently get, and I'd have the peace of mind of knowing my SIM would
work when I needed it without having to remember to make a call every
three months to keep it alive.

Chris

[Rob]

Yes, that would serve my needs too and I wouldn't mind paying more
per call if it meant the phone still worked when I actually needed
it to.

Many thanks to everyone else for the input.

Cheers,
--
Rob

[DrTeeth]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:42:35 +0800, just as I was about to take a
herb, Chris Blunt <ma...@nospam.com> disturbed my reverie and wrote:

>I'd be happy to have a condition that required you to make a
>chargeable call every month,

If the user does not make it, why not have the system record one to
keep the phone active...cheaper than deducting a sov a month.

[Roland Perry]

In message <2oshj7dt30rambmi3...@4ax.com>, at 11:25:44 on
Mon, 13 Feb 2012, DrTeeth <no-e...@tardis.com> remarked:

>>I'd be happy to have a condition that required you to make a
>>chargeable call every month,
>
>If the user does not make it, why not have the system record one to
>keep the phone active...cheaper than deducting a sov a month.

If it was in their interests I expect that such a tariff would be widely
available. (eg one reverse charge SMS a month to remind you the phone is
still alive).

But in its absence we must conclude that the break-even point for the
phone company must be substantially above a couple of pounds a month.
--
Roland Perry

[Theo Markettos]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> If it was in their interests I expect that such a tariff would be widely
> available. (eg one reverse charge SMS a month to remind you the phone is
> still alive).

There is/was a contract tariff recently from TalkMobile at 1 pound a month.
That might be handy, because I don't think they can arbitrarily decide to
cease service without informing you first (after all, you are paying and so
they're contracted to provide /some/ service in return). The pound included
a small number of minutes and texts so was even better value - but the
follow-on costs were high and they probably upsold heavily. However I can't
see them making a huge loss on the basic tariff (either you use it and go
outside the inclusive bundle occasionally, or don't use it and just pay your
pound - the gap between was fairly slim).

It might have been pulled though.

Theo

[Theo Markettos]

Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> There is/was a contract tariff recently from TalkMobile at 1 pound a month.
> That might be handy, because I don't think they can arbitrarily decide to
> cease service without informing you first (after all, you are paying and so
> they're contracted to provide /some/ service in return). The pound included
> a small number of minutes and texts so was even better value - but the
> follow-on costs were high and they probably upsold heavily. However I can't
> see them making a huge loss on the basic tariff (either you use it and go
> outside the inclusive bundle occasionally, or don't use it and just pay your
> pound - the gap between was fairly slim).

Just remembered there's also:
http://aaisp.net/telecoms.html
which is 2.40 a month (but on Three without 2G fallback, so not great for
mountain climbing)

Theo

[Chris Blunt]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:40:46 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

Maybe, but under the terms of most of the existing PAYG tariffs one
SMS every 3 months is sufficient to keep it alive, which brings them
in less than 50p a year in revenue. I'm not saying that amount covers
their costs, but it's an amount they've decided as being acceptable.

Chris

[Roland Perry]

In message <678ij7t9hrklo7isr...@4ax.com>, at 23:03:21 on
Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Chris Blunt <ma...@nospam.com> remarked:

>>>>I'd be happy to have a condition that required you to make a
>>>>chargeable call every month,
>>>
>>>If the user does not make it, why not have the system record one to
>>>keep the phone active...cheaper than deducting a sov a month.
>>
>>If it was in their interests I expect that such a tariff would be widely
>>available. (eg one reverse charge SMS a month to remind you the phone is
>>still alive).
>>
>>But in its absence we must conclude that the break-even point for the
>>phone company must be substantially above a couple of pounds a month.
>
>Maybe, but under the terms of most of the existing PAYG tariffs one
>SMS every 3 months is sufficient to keep it alive, which brings them
>in less than 50p a year in revenue. I'm not saying that amount covers
>their costs, but it's an amount they've decided as being acceptable.

But the "make one call every 3 months" isn't for the money.

It's to balance between on one side:

The cost of keeping the network alive with billing and SIM details
indefinitely
The cost of having to get ever more numbers, despite a large pool most
of which will never be used any more

Versus:

The cost of irritating customers and dealing with complaints when their
SIM and credit evaporates
The cost of issuing them with a new "free" SIM
Wanting to show a healthy level of customer and less churn
The expectation they *might* start making some chargeable calls

--
Roland Perry

[MB]

On 10/02/2012 15:44, Rob wrote:
> Is it possible to buy a PAYG phone, put in £20 of credits and
> then not use it for (say) 6 months without the provider eating
> the credits or disabling the phone?
>

I have an O2 PAYG phone that I have not put any credit in for years. It
was bought at work as an extra phone on a different network for
Millennium night and afterwards we were told we could keep them if we
wanted. I topped up for a few years so it accumulated quite a bit of
credit but then noticed that it carried on working on its existing
credit. The calls are more expensive than other contracts but it does
not matter because I hardly ever use it. It often goes a month or so
without even being switched on then just put on to correct the time on
the clock before switching off again.

[Roland Perry]

In message <ktdjj7524mpntn4ct...@4ax.com>, at 01:27:36 on
Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> remarked:

>>Maybe, but under the terms of most of the existing PAYG tariffs one
>>SMS every 3 months is sufficient to keep it alive, which brings them
>>in less than 50p a year in revenue. I'm not saying that amount covers
>>their costs, but it's an amount they've decided as being acceptable.
>>

>And of course, on pre-pay, they've got the use of your money from the
>moment you buy the top-up.
>The return on investing that - or the saving on not having to borrow
>it from banks (over the millions of pounds involved every month) would
>easily offset the standing cost on it's own.

That may have been true in the 1980's when interest rates were 20%, but
today it's irrelevant.

Especially compared to snaffling 100% of the money after 90 days.
--
Roland Perry

[Steve Terry]

Peter wrote:
> Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote
<snip>
>
> The networks are doing their damnest to differentiate PAYG from
> Contract.
>
> It is a constant project which all of them are running.
>
> A large % of contract users would pay less on PAYG, if they
> looked at their actual billing.
>
A large part of the cost of a contract is for the included phone.

Steve Terry
> --
Get a free GiffGaff PAYG Sim and £5 bonus after activation at:
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/gfourwwk

[Chris Blunt]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:45:27 +0000, Peter
<occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:

>
>Chris Blunt <ma...@nospam.com> wrote

>
>>>That sounds logical enough, but how does that tally with what Virgin
>>>did to me?
>>>ie the PAYG SIM remained active after being brought back into use
>>>after over 5 years, only to be killed 24 hours later, hardly giving me
>>>enough time to apply credit.
>>
>>You'd have to ask Virgin about that. I was giving my opinion as to why
>>operators might want to put limits on the validity of an unused SIM.
>>I'm not claiming that every network will actually adopt that policy.
>

>IIRC, Virgin tried to make themselves look bigger by not de-allocating
>unused numbers.
>
>Hence many people, myself included, found that the SIMs didn't expire.
>
>You will never get a policy statement from a network on this, but I
>think the policy is not (in most cases) a straight cutoff after say 90
>days. I think they look at recent usage.
>
>Virgin certainly didn't cut off SIMs which were on the direct debit
>topup (a product they have discontinued recently but if you have one
>you can carry on using it - a very valuable thing, even if Virgin as a
>network is pretty crap, and pricey).

I don't know if this is what you meant by a policy statement, but
Virgin's terms and conditions of service state that you may be
disconnected if you don't make a chargeable call for 90 days.

I agree it appears this is not being enforced, so perhaps you were
talking about their policy in practical terms.

Chris

[Theo Markettos]

Peter <occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote

> >Just remembered there's also:
> >http://aaisp.net/telecoms.html
> >which is 2.40 a month (but on Three without 2G fallback, so not great for
> >mountain climbing)
>

> Yes; I have that here to backup our ADSL, and it works very well too.
>
> But I don't think that SIM does voice.

They do data-only SIMs and voice SIMs... sounds like you have the former.

Theo

[Roland Perry]

In message <jhg5nr$834$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:42:51 on Wed, 15 Feb
2012, Steve Terry <gfou...@tesco.net> remarked:

>> A large % of contract users would pay less on PAYG, if they
>> looked at their actual billing.
>>
>A large part of the cost of a contract is for the included phone.

Only if people bother to upgrade. Which must be happening more, now that
Smartphones are the new Laptop, and everyone expects a new one every
year. I note an increase in 18/24 month contracts!
--
Roland Perry