US, Canada, and Spain 'win' the battle for most expensive cellphone bills
By Laura June 
posted August 12th 2009 11:21AM
posted August 12th 2009 11:21AM
Update: The CTIA has issued a statement in response to the OECD's study, stating that it is, essentially, inaccurate by way or its choice of unrepresentative calling packages. The CTIA's full statement is after the break.
[Via IntoMobile]
CTIA-The Wireless Association(r) Responds to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Communications Outlook Report on Usage and Cost for Mobile Phone Calls
WASHINGTON, DC - CTIA-The Wireless Association(r) issued the following statement today in response to the OECD Communications Outlook report on usage and cost for mobile phone calls:
The headline from the recently released OECD Communications Outlook report reads that Finland, the Netherlands, and Sweden have the lowest prices for mobile phone calls among OECD countries, while the highest prices were found in Canada, Spain, and the United States. But since U.S. consumers enjoy the lowest per minute rates of all of the OECD countries, what today's OECD report really shows is that some international comparisons just don't make sense - especially when built on flawed assumptions.
The real story is buried on page 275 of the OECD report which states:
"It is important to note again that the OECD calling pattern in the basket can be significantly different than common calling profiles in a specific country. For example, the high-usage OECD basket includes 1,680 outgoing voice calls per year while users in the United States average 9,600 minutes of voice calls (combined incoming and outgoing) per year. In this case the basket provides the cost of buying exactly the calls and messages in the OECD basket rather than what may be considered a 'typical' bundle in the market."
Since the average U.S. calling profile is nearly three times greater than the OECD's "high usage" basket (and, in fact, the average U.S. calling profile is nearly six times greater than the OECD's "average" usage basket), it is no surprise that most other sources show the price per-call (or price per-MOU) in the United States is the lowest among the OECD countries.
How did the OECD get it so wrong?
Only by picking such unrepresentative "representative" call packages, could the OECD have reached such a result. For example, the OECD defines a "medium use" customer as someone making 780 minutes of calls a year, and sending 600 SMS and 8 MMS messages a year. And the report says that based on their methodology, a U.S. customer would pay $53 a month in order to get that level of service. But that assumed "medium" basket works out to about 63 minutes, 50 SMS messages, and less than one MMS message a month. That just doesn't reflect reality.
CTIA's semi-annual survey shows that the average wireless consumer uses around 760 minutes a month, and over 400 text messages a month. Even if we only count half of those minutes as outgoing minutes (to mirror the OECD assumption), that's still six times as many minutes as the OECD methodology assumes. Plus, the CTIA survey showed that the average monthly consumer bill is $50.07. Moreover, since the most recent CTIA survey, a number of unlimited voice and text message plans have been introduced by U.S. wireless companies providing U.S. consumers with even greater value. For example, Tracfone offers its "Straight Talk" plan of unlimited minutes and text, nationwide, any time, for $45 a month, and Boost has a $50 a month plan that offers users unlimited talk, text, web and walkie talkie service.
When you look at the price American consumers actually pay for their wireless service, our per minute rates are the lowest of all the OECD countries.
I just got a new plan from Telus a couple days ago and i had to fight and argue with them like crazy to get a decent plan. After negotiating for days they told me I'd get for $40 a month total, which is 200 anytime minutes (sent & recieved), unlimited texting, 6pm evenings and weekends, 5 Numbers with unlimited call & Text Nationwide, caller ID, & voicemail. (That price also includes the access fees but not tax).
Of course when I actually went to get my new phone and sign up, it turns out that it's going to cost $47 a month, and the fav5 and 6pm evenings and weekends are only for one year. Not to mention that the phone ended up being $50 more than the "sale" price as to get the discount you had to sign up for a specific package for 3 months that cost $20 per month.
In short STAY AWAY FROM TELUS if you're in canada.
Could it be because in the US, we're being charged for both outgoing AND incoming calls and SMS? In other countries, incoming calls and SMS are free.
Regardless, US consumers still LOVE paying money for locked phones, and giving money to cell carriers. Isn't that amazing? If I'm the wireless carrier, why should I bother improving service/reduce price if people keep giving me money?
This reminds me of my $13,000 bill from Bell when I first started using bluetooth tethering for my CarPC... I got out of having to pay the bill and then signed up for XM/Sirius instead. Too bad XM/S radio sucks, and doesn't support the streaming music videos that hiked up my bill in the first place.
I live in Austria. My iPhone plan costs 20€/month.
Included:
1000 minutes/month in Austria
400 minutes/h mont in the EU
unlimited calls to everyone with the same provider.
1000 SMS
100 MMS
and 3GB of 3G Data.
Who can beat this?
Yeah I'm pretty your you win at 20 Euro bone or 28.50 us a month for all of that.
The headline from the recently released OECD Communications Outlook report reads that Finland, the Netherlands, and Sweden have the lowest prices for mobile phone calls among OECD countries, while the highest prices were found in Canada, Spain, and the United States. But since U.S. consumers enjoy the lowest per minute rates of all of the OECD countries, what today’s OECD report really shows is that some international comparisons just don’t make sense – especially when built on flawed assumptions.
The real story is buried on page 275 of the OECD report which states:
“It is important to note again that the OECD calling pattern in the basket can be significantly different than common calling profiles in a specific country. For example, the high-usage OECD basket includes 1,680 outgoing voice calls per year while users in the United States average 9,600 minutes of voice calls (combined incoming and outgoing) per year. In this case the basket provides the cost of buying exactly the calls and messages in the OECD basket rather than what may be considered a ‘typical’ bundle in the market.”
Since the average U.S. calling profile is nearly three times greater than the OECD’s “high usage” basket (and, in fact, the average U.S. calling profile is nearly six times greater than the OECD’s “average” usage basket), it is no surprise that most other sources show the price per-call (or price per-MOU) in the United States is the lowest among the OECD countries.
How did the OECD get it so wrong?
Only by picking such unrepresentative "representative" call packages, could the OECD have reached such a result. For example, the OECD defines a “medium use” customer as someone making 780 minutes of calls a YEAR, and sending 600 SMS and 8 MMS messages a YEAR. And the report says that based on their methodology, a U.S. customer would pay $53 a month in order to get that level of service. But that assumed “medium” basket works out to about 63 minutes, 50 SMS messages, and less than one MMS message a month. That just doesn’t reflect reality.
CTIA’s semi-annual survey shows that the average wireless consumer uses around 760 minutes a MONTH, and over 400 text messages a MONTH. Even if we only count half of those minutes as outgoing minutes (to mirror the OECD assumption), that’s still six times as many minutes as the OECD methodology assumes. Plus, the CTIA survey showed that the average monthly consumer bill is $50.07. Moreover, since the most recent CTIA survey, a number of unlimited voice and text message plans have been introduced by U.S. wireless companies providing U.S. consumers with even greater value. For example, Tracfone offers its “Straight Talk” plan of unlimited minutes and text, nationwide, any time, for $45 a month, and Boost has a $50 a month plan that offers users unlimited talk, text, web and walkie talkie service.
When you look at the price American consumers actually pay for their wireless service, our per minute rates are the lowest of all the OECD countries.
this is pretty much how it seemed to me. i'm glad someone else is actually analyzing their data rather than just taking it at face value and complaining.
I'm in Sweden and we have "The real houswifes bla bla bla..." among other crappy shows on satellite or cable.
- We also have 99% of all citizens connected to Internet,
- Broadband in all speeds and a lot of mobile broadband.
- I'm pretty sure we can send MMS on the iPhone.
- Free health care
- Freedom of speech without being called un-patriotic.
Quite a nice country to live in.
A cute blonde girl I met a few months ago (who turned out to be a statistics major) and I used to talk about moving to Sweden. She was kind of a gadget girl, which was a total turn on. Nothing like nice round, firm breasts, and a blackberry in between them!
We both have employment in the financial sector and Sweden is known both for it's integrity and it's neutrality. I would love to call it home, especially if the culture of entitlement and affirmative action continues it's brain drain on my precious USA.
She and I were both Swedes by birth (on my mothers side), and while I don't talk to her anymore, she did leave me with the lasting impression that Swedish women are definitely a step above the rest. So my long lost brother, please save a place for me, I'm coming home! Where the breasts are big, the hair is blonde and the internet is fiber to my door!
no one said it wasn't a nice country to live in. or that it isnt possibly the cheapest. and the problem isnt so much with people being unpatriotic as just plain stupid. but the problem is that this study does not properly equate into the factor the way Mobile Party Pays countries bill or the additional coverage, roaming, features, etc that come built into US price plans. we also use our mobile phones about 6x more than the average OECD country.
It's really important to remember something here. In the US a cellular phone is just like a landline, there is no "special area code" that they are blocked into. In every other country I've been to where they have cheaper plans, they also charge callers to cellphones anywhere between 2x and 10x the rate they charge to callers of landlines. In the US there is no additional fee for calling somebody's cellphone. I think that's worth noting and factoring in, since it is part of the associated cellphone "cost." The US method of operation is quite simply different.
exactly! this brings into play the differences between Calling Party Pays and Mobile Party Pays. here our mobile bills are higher because the mobile user pays for all the airtime. in other countries the price of the call is split with landline users because if they start the call then they pay for the airtime.
and then factor in the fact that they only pay for outgoing calls and texts, and we pay for both outgoing and incoming.
With the same usage pattern, I am sure it is less than $3 a month in India... now beat that!!
I think its obvious, the US consumer is being raped because the regulators, the FCC and FTC are in bed with lobbyists and the telecomm industry and it won't change. People argue all kinds of crazy things like the US is bigger or more spread out but then how does that account for the like $10 prepaid card I used in china? Or the maybe $25 a month I paid in singapore and was able to take my phone all over Asia (expect Japan and S. Korea, and well N. Korea obviously) without running out of minutes or or ranking up a big bill. Indonesia, China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Cambodia, etc all phone working fine maybe $25US a month on M1 prepaid $65 US on Verizon and I can't take my phone off this rock not even to Mexico.
Fuck Rogers!
I think there's a big component missing here. US cell phone devices are generally subsidized, and I believe this is not the case in other contries. Why? The phone companies make the money back through subscription fees. So it's not surprising US phone bills would be higher. So someone needs to do this analysis with the whole picture, including the amount consumers spend on devices.
agreed. or at least agreed that the way subsidizing is done is different. they still do it in other countries, but it is very different. some countries list the phone subsidy as a separate price. others provide a different subsidy based on what rate plan you choose. for the most part in the USA the discount is the same regardless of the plan chosen
true, but i think the factor there is that it doesn't matter if a cell phone company gives you that free phone, it's locked, especially on our CDMA carriers, so you're basically tying that phone with that company forever. also, until recent years, the phones available were 3-4 year old tech, and even the new ones today aren't that great of a deal considering. i suppose, though, it'd at least be interesting to see that correlation in terms of how quickly US cell companies make up that difference by subsidizing, compared to the overall cost of a phone (which range from 80-800 bucks for most average US cell carries for full market price....except for the free ones, those are usually discontinued products).
it's called capitalism guys, "if u don't like it, don't buy it"
And no, the government cannot interferer, as AT&T, Verizon, and other telecommunication corporations r private companies, owned by a person/persons...
though it's not perfect(capitalism), it's absolutely better than any other systems...
i'm saying that although i totally support capitalism, but everything has it's downsides...
and yeah, it sux to hear such news, as the US has invented the internet and cellphones...
but cellphones/phones will be outdated in 10 years or so, VIOP will take over, u know, like the Netgear VIOP phone...only more advanced...
OECD lost its credibility many decades ago, by promoting socialism around the world at every turn and opportunity. But this is a new low! What moron over there suggests that a US cell phone bill is $635 per month? All-in service (unlimited-everything) on a MetroPCS Blackberry is $50 per month, and Sprint charges $100 for the same. T-Mobile is $125 for the same, and AT&T and Verizon are both $150 for unlimited-everything Blackberry service (unlimited calling, SMS and email). So aside from international calling and international roaming, no bill can be more than $150 plus tax. Last time I checked plans in Europe, they were all a lot more expensive. The OECD survey is a total joke. They might as well be saying "The US has been cutting government spending" or anything else that's 180 degrees away from the truth.
per year num nuts
As always America getting the shaft and Sweden and Finland being reasonable.
i posted this on EM. Lord only knows why they use different comment pages for each site, but here it is in case anyone is interested in my two cents...
there are so many flaws i can see in this that it makes the report completely unusable.
first of all it SHOULD be cheaper for coverage in a country only 16,000 sq mi (Netherlands) than a country that is 4,000,000 sq mi (USA). as a matter of fact, the USA is about the size of all of Europe. so we are paying for a calling area that is the size of their entire continent. that requires a lot more towers, mscs, pstn connections, etc, etc.
more towers are needed in the USA not only because of the size but also the population density is much more sparse than that of Europe. the population density in the USA is only 80/sq mi as opposed to Europe's 181/sq mi. so it takes an American carrier more than twice as much equipment to cover the same number of people.
this report says that it does not include mobile to mobile and other such calling features. while that in itself is fine, what about the fact that in some countries it costs more to call a mobile subscriber who has a different carrier than your own? in the USA, for example, the rates are always the same regardless of who you call. furthermore, there are countries that charge different rates depending on if you are calling a landline or a mobile phone. so does this report assume every call is based on the lowest available rate? that would be unfair to networks where other call types are built in to the prices.
speaking of other carriers, an important part of mobile phone usage is domestic roaming. the USA was rated highest in call prices, but for most plans that includes no additional cost for roaming on any compatible carrier across almost four million square miles. sure, the price plan may be higher per month than other countries, but is the USA being compared side by side to other price plans that do not include domestic roaming? actually, forget about domestic roaming. what about international roaming? as i said before, the USA is the size of Europe. so our price plans include the equivalent of being able to roam throughout all of Europe without any additional charges. i'm very confident this was not taken into account in this report.
and here is one of the biggest factors right here. lets not forget that most countries operate on a Calling Party Pays basis, whereas two of the countries who "came out on top" in this report, the USA and Canada, bill according to Mobile Party Pays. this is a whole can of worms right here. basically in the USA and Canada the mobile user pays for every call, but in other countries the person who initiates the call pays. this brings landlines into the mix because it is possible in some countries that a landline user called a mobile phone, and the landline user paid for the call. SO THE CALL WASN'T NECESSARILY CHEAPER, BUT RATHER SOMEONE ELSE PAID FOR THE CALL AND IT CAME UP ON A NON-MOBILE BILL! this doesn't work in the USA for two main reasons. the first is that landlines mostly have a low flat-rate charge that includes unlimited calling within a given area. the second is that mobile and landline phones use the same pool of phone numbers, so it would be complicated to differentiate between the two for the purposes of billing. there are pros and cons to each system that i won't get into, but in the end it will definitely always make the USA and Canada look more expensive when a report uses "tunnel-vision" to look at the numbers. it is very possible that the per minute rate of the USA mobile subscriber is actually much cheaper than the rate that the landline CPP user (or even another mobile CPP user) paid. ...and before i get replies about "but this has nothing to do with landlines," it most certainly does (and you are not understanding the point). because in CPP countries, landline users are basically splitting the bill with mobile users and that's why their mobile bills are cheaper.
there is so much more that i could get into, but how much does my comment really even mean to anyone vs. how much thought i am putting into it? now THAT could be a report right there. pay me lots of money like these guys were probably paid, and i'll just compare apples to oranges on an excel sheet and shoot it your way.
i thought of six more things just now. while im on a rant i may as well keep going. lol.
this report has decided that the highest usage is still a set number of minutes, even though the USA has completely unlimited use-any-phone-feature plans available. i'm sure not every country has this (do any?) so that would make this segment cheaper from the start.
this report also doesnt include pre-paid plans. even though MetroPCS is prepaid, you still have to pay monthly. it's not just a pay-as-you-go-when-you-need-minutes type of deal. so i don't see why they should be excluded from this. for about $50 per month you get unlimited almost everything in all of their markets (though the coverage is not the same as competitors).
and while i'm on the topic of an individual carrier, what carriers did they choose to use for their price comparisons? and why did they choose those carriers? did all the carriers include the same type of price models and features? what about if a carrier didn't offer the minute plan that was determined "low," "average," or "high?" did they divide the minutes by the mrc price and just add more minutes? did they add minutes using the pay per minute overage price? did they go to the next available plan? i can tell you right now in the USA it is cheaper to just spend $10 more on the next available plan than to pay for those same minutes at an overage rate.
what about phone subsidizing? did they take into account the estimated amount of the bill that is paying back for the phone discount? some countries actually bill a separate charge that is stated as going towards the phone's price. did they add or remove that as part of the bill in those countries? it should definitely be included if it wasn't removed from other countries such as the USA where it is built in to the mrc.
how did they go about determining what has low, medium, and high usage? was there a study on that too or did they guess? i send & receive about 400 texts per day, way more than they considered high. wait, i just thought of something else... other countries include texts in their rate plans. USA does not, but has packages available from 100 to unlimited. and that includes to any user on any carrier and while roaming. did they simply charge the USA the per text rate? or did they throw a package into the mix? in the other countries where texts are included, did they use the overage rate for each additional text? or did they add a package?
did they include exchange rates in the mix?
my point is not to "defend" the USA or Canada, but rather to show that different countries bill in different ways and provide additional features, roaming, and coverage areas that others may not. i am simply calling into question if any of this was part of their calculations, or if they simply added up mrcs and threw them in a chart. the latter of which would not provide an accurate picture of the difference in prices among countries, which i believe to be the whole purpose of the report.
big rant, but i'll just point one thing out, a lot of european countries don't have "plans" that would be the point of the whole thing. we pay for a plan that has a limit on usage, which no average consumer ever reaches, most europeans aren't on a fixed rate plan, period. they have a true pay as you go, and end up paying half as much as us anyway because they don't pay for incoming anything, which makes sense, but that's a whole other argument. point is we have no choice here. i've always said it, unless you're a businessman of some sort, where your job requires you to be connected 24/7 and you actually need unlimited usage, there is no plan available anywhere that makes sense for the average consumer.
It's been proven again and again the world over that if the carriers build the networks, people will use it. Even in 3rd and 2nd world countries, it's extremly profitable for carriers to build networks and towers to every part of their country. In USA, sure, it doesn't make sense to build towers everywhere only because everyone pays no matter who calls or receives. If you do some research you'll see that the reasoning for large landmass and population density has been debunked years ago.
And in many other places in the world, people simply don't pay for incoming calls, nor do they pay a different charge for calling mobile or landline. Obviously this will vary from country to country, but the point is, in the world's most advanced countries, relatively, we pay peanuts compared to what Americans do. For instance, my parents can call me from California and I can talk to them until my battery dies and I would still pay nothing. They pay whatever charges they pay on their plan while the call for me is totally free. There's no valid reason Americans get gouged; and no matter how anyone might defend it, the fact is, American mobile charges are excessive.
And while American per minute calls may be extremely low, voice calls in the rest of the world only make up a small percent of what mobile networks are used for. We've moved away from voice to pure data many years ago so voice charges are pretty much moot (and even then I pay a measly 10cent per minute to call the USA). There will be a time, maybe in a year or 2 where in NA, mobile voice will be a lower priority for people.
"the reasoning for large landmass and population density has been debunked years ago."
it seems like a factor to me, but if it has been "debunked years ago" there are still other factors that come to mind, as previously stated.
"And in many other places in the world, people simply don't pay for incoming calls"
that's because the person making the call is paying for it. it's not that the call is free. the other person is just paying for all parts of the call, whereas in the US the calling party is paying for using their end (their phone) and the receiving party pays for using their phone.
"we pay peanuts compared to what Americans do"
well that's what the study says. if it is completely accurate, then we need to look into this because i definitely do not feel like getting ripped off. but is it because of the rate per minute that youre paying less, or is it simply because we are using six times as many minutes on average?
"my parents can call me from California and I can talk to them until my battery dies and I would still pay nothing. They pay whatever charges they pay on their plan while the call for me is totally free."
if you called their landline, they could talk to you until your battery died and the call would be free for them. our landlines have flat rates (around $20/month before taxes) that include unlimited incoming calls from anywhere and unlimited local outbound calls. many new options even include unlimited outbound calls domestically for the same price or around $10 more. that is definitely no excuse at all for the fact they would have to pay if you called their cell phone instead, but it is a simple workaround that most people utilize if they are near a landline. but now that i really think about it mobile party pays is a bunch of crap because landlines dont pay for incoming calls even though the receiving party is also using their phone, so why should a receiving mobile phone have to pay? although a few years ago there were options for price plans in the US that included free incoming calls on mobiles. that kind of went away when the nationwide plans became available with free nationwide roaming and long distance. maybe that was the tradeoff supposedly?
"while American per minute calls may be extremely low, voice calls in the rest of the world only make up a small percent of what mobile networks are used for."
voice minutes are what we mainly use our phones for. they are still phones, afterall. so you say we are paying an
extremely low" per minute rate? well then are we really being gouged if our rate is "extremely low" on what we mostly use our phones for?
"There will be a time, maybe in a year or 2 where in NA, mobile voice will be a lower priority for people."
i dont know if the voice usage will go downward any time soon, especially within the next two years. the reason i say that is because more and more americans are replacing their landlines with mobiles. since their mobile will be their only method of calling, for now it seems that voice usage would continue or even increase. also consider that 99.9% of businesses in america are small businesses. (yes, that is actually the real stat... http://bestbizpractices.org/2009/07/14/america-runs-on-small-business/ ). many small businesses do not have websites where you can access or modify your account online. there are even many where you cant place an order, schedule an appointment/reservation, or perform other basic tasks online. so to contact most businesses here, you are going to have to call them.
"I pay a measly 10cent per minute to call the USA"
that is because, as opposed to calling CPP countries, your charge for the USA calls are split between you and the receiving party. you're used to rates that include you paying for both ends of the call since the calling party usually pays the entire bill. but when you call the USA you (should be) getting a lower rate since you're only paying for the outbound part of the call.
but the person calling to you from the USA is paying for both ends of the call because you are receiving for free, so they are going to be paying more to call you than you pay to call them.
is that true at all? is it cheaper to call the USA and Canada than it is to call other countries? do your parents pay more to call you than you pay to call them? let me know if it is not so. that would be interesting.
once again, im not defending mpp or usa companies. i can see where it would be easy to think that. i just think this is an interesting conversation because im a phone nerd. lol. obviously, since i'm a consumer i would support whichever billing method would truly provide me with the lowest rates.
In Slovenia we have three cellphone providers. Some are complaining that they are too expensive but I don't think so (compared to the US). It is funny that the monopolyst has the lowest prices. I pay 15€ a month and I get 1000 free minutes to it's network and 200 minutes to all other networks, 1000 free SMS messages and 1GB of free data transfer. Of course this is only for people who are older than 15 years and younger than 32. But other prices are good too. Sadly we don't have iPhones or Palm Pres or devices with Android. Of course you can always get one from other countries.
"I'm in Sweden and we have "The real houswifes bla bla bla..." among other crappy shows on satellite or cable."
- Free health care"
Umm, try picking up an Econ 101 textbook. There's no such thing as "free" anything. Swedes pay taxes out the wazoo.
"- Freedom of speech without being called un-patriotic."
Only if you consider hate speech laws 'freedom of speech.'
"Quite a nice country to live in."
WTF is this today, Socialism Rulez day? Get it through your thick skulls, Swedish way of life isn't scalable to the US culturally, geographically, demographically and historically.
You travel around the world enough, you see that. Proselytizing is megastupid.
proof once again that we get raped by our own companies here in the states. capitalism = getting fucked by companies, who are supposed to be competing against each other and thereby offering lower prices to the end consumer, and their powerful lobbyists with minimal government oversight.
I live in Sweden. I call for about an hour and send about 20-50 text messages five days a week for about 10 USD a month.
But no, no Housewives of New Jersey here. Only New York.
what's the point of mentioning new unlimited text and web plans? i like the way the first study did it. whether i send 10 or 10,000 texts in a month isn't going to change a fixed price plan. so they looked at the price everyone paid, and average usage. obviously people on here are going to have a biased opinion on how many text messages a month is average, but you're in the minority, i swear. of course american consumers spend the most on their plans. not only do we only have fixed plans (pay as you go is total crap, the minutes expire after a designated time so you're still on a contract), but we're also paying double. not only does the person sending the call pay, the person receiving does as well, calling requires two people, no matter what the same usage will happen in a phone call, otherwise you're just walking around with a cancer stick, it's ludicrous to charge both parties for the call. that should be factored in as well, actually. in europe, the person making the call pays for it, that's their usage, here, both parties are paying for the call, and on a fixed rate that most average people can never possibly reach the limit of.
Looking into this more (especially with the CTIA rebuttal) I think it's simply a difference of calling patterns making comparisons worthless.
People in America call a lot more, and their plans are geared to that. People in Europe call a lot less, and our plans are geared towards that. If you only talk on the phone for half an hour a month (like I do), you're still paying $40/mo minimum in the US for a basic plan with a bunch of minutes you'll never do. If you're make 10 hours of a calls a month like americans are more apt to do, you'll be paying lots on a European plan.
The markets are simply adapted to different behavior, and behavior outside of that doesn't fit and will cost you.
In the US we have options. The best plan is No-Plan!
You can scrap the two year contract, which is how they nail you. Get a StraighTalk from Walmart and pay $45 for unlimited talk and texting per month. UNLIMITED!!! And it gets better. I found out doing research that StraighTalk is carried on the Verizon network, which is Consumer Report rated best coverage coast to coast. Check out StraighTalk.com or Walmart.com