How much do you spend on your mobile phone in your lifetime?
So how much does your mobile cost you in your lifetime?
Well, according to new research a cool £21,000.
Apparently on average we pay £29.21 each month, £350.52 a year.
Across the UK, mobile phone charges account for a colossal £16.5 billion each year.
A total of 4,000 people were polled and some 12 per cent admitted to spending more than £200 each month.
A spokesman for www.onepollcashback.com, which carried out the poll, said: ''Mobile phones have become a big part of our lives and many would feel lost without them.
''But when you think about how much they cost, it really is staggering.
''Just over £29 a month doesn't sound like much on its own but it soon adds up over a year or two.''
Well to me £29 per month sounds like quite a lot, and I've known some people who discovered they had a phone in their bedside cabinet which they don't use, but are still paying a contract on.
In some cases they didn't even know it was still an 'active contract'.
I'm always amazed at the high proportion of people who walk around with a mobile clamped to their ears, and wonder what on earth they could have to talk about which is so important. Guess that shows that I'm rapidly becoming an old curmudgeon completely out of touch with the young.
Mind you, having overheard some of the important conversations, I can only say my assumption that never has so much money been spent to so little purpose is correct! Bah humbug etc.
Older/Newer
« Tower Defence Game | Investigation into how computer worm used twitter »
3 Comments
Leave a comment
Profile
Ben Hurst
Mobile phones like facebook and all the other social networking sites have given us a greater opportunity to communicate with each other. Sadly, people are spending so much communicating they are not doing anything worth ciommunicating about. My suggestion is turn off the phone, log of the 'net, close the laptop and go out into the world and do something interesting for a change. I guarantee it'll give people a better buzz that staring goggle-eyed at the computer screen
True enough - not much of it is creating something. For us journalists there is a danger of following some 'thought leaders' to engage in conversations and other social media networking with readers without creating anything.
That works for stories too with some radical suggestions of news websites where source material is put down and people 'add' to the story as they see fit. Either way doesn't sound like journalism to me - ie uncovering something and presenting it to a wider audience having spoken to the parties concerned (a lot of these social media types claim to break stories but never, ever try to get the other side of something.)
You're right Ben. Take away the computer and what you have is the same as a bloke in a pub or at the bus stop discussing something they've seen, heard, experienced.
I'm sure as 'proper' journalists, you would have to check out those details to see whether they were true and then present them in an unbiased format.
The internet has given these people chance to 'publish' such details to a wider audience (whether a wider audience actually views them is open to debate) but I question whether they should be given any more credibility without further checking than the bloke in the pub/ at the bus-stop