Unless you’ve got some kind of telekinetic User Caller ID (“it’s Bob X calling to sell you something from India”) & some inclining of what they want to talk about, how can the consumer decide whether the call’s value will match the cost of taking it? That harks back to Red’s telemarketer spam example.

Another point that’s missing here is the fact that the take-up of SMS in the US is very low compared to Europe. It might be worth noting that you can convey a message much more quickly, cheaply and efficiently by SMS. This may also be why MOU are lower in Europe.

Finally, MOU mean nothing if operators are giving the minutes away.

For example, see CAP plans (also known as value bundles) in Australia. All of the operators here are offering additional value for a set minimum spend. An example is Vodafone’s $79 CAP – where the user can spend up to $500 worth of SMS, MMS & calls, for only $79 a month. These plans have dramatic effect on increasing MOU, but are draining all the operators of ARPU. The margins on both voice and SMS are being degraded. This is having a huge impact on the bottom line & therefore, MOU is a nice number but like Red said, is’nt it revenue that counts?

I guess it ‘s a matter of what you are used to, but there’s one huge benefit with CPP: I simply don’t get calls from telemarketers or other no-good “spammers” on my mobile, because they couldn’t afford it. Same with spam SMS (unless they charge me for it; see your own note about sms.ac).

Also if my parents, previous girl-friend, stalker etc calls I want them to pay for it. Why should I? I don’t even want to talk to them.

RPP is analogous to that the receiver of a letter would pay for the stamp. That might commercially be a very good idea, but it sucks for the ones receiving letters.