Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #21472

Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy?

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:270720151733090421%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <mp552d$1a7$1@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>
> wrote:
>
>> > the caller should pay the same rate, regardless of the recipient's
>> > choice of phone.
>>
>> Why?
>
> because the callee's choice of phone is not
> something the caller has any control over.

The caller has complete freedom to choose
which of the callee's phones they call.

>> The caller has the choice of the offered connection methods, and
>> can choose which one to use. He can choose to call landline, he can
>> choose to call the mobile (e.g. if it's urgent), he can even resort to
>> texting, faxing, mailing, ..., whatever is available.

> those are not always available.

BULLSHIT.

>> It's not the fault
>> of the receiver that the US telephone system makes it virtually
>> impossible to distinct a landline number from a mobile number. Here in
>> Germany I see at a glance whether a number is landline or mobile - and
>> can then decide.

> the reason they do that is so that all numbers are on an even playing 
> field

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> and nobody has to choose which number is cheaper.

There is not difference quite a bit of the time.

> if the callee wants the convenience of
> mobile they shoulder the additional costs.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> the usa tried caller-pays and it was a failure.

How odd that it wasn't in the rest of the world.

> people had a choice and chose the person being called pays.

Hardly surprising that callers chose that, fuckwit.

The callees didn't.

>> > if the recipient uses a cellphone then they should pay associated
>> > airtime. not the caller.
>>
>> Well, thank you! Let me guess, you're associated with some callcenter
>> making calls to sell products? That would explain your opinion.
>
> nope.
>
>> You don't understand what I'm talking about? Let me explain: I receive
>> (luckily much less often recently, due to some changes in German law)
>> calls from companies I have no business with, and which (in the end,
>> usually) will try to sell me something. Such cold calls are illegal here
>> in Germany, but some companies simply don't bother... :-( As I won't
>> recognize their number on the display (luckily, suppressing the caller
>> identification is nowadays illegal for them as well) I would have the
>> choice to either take the call, or not. If I take it, I would be charged
>> for being interrupted and pestered by somebody I wouldn't even want to
>> talk to in the first place. If I don't take the call I might be missing
>> an important call from a colleague, a friend of my wife/daughter or the
>> police (telling me she had an accident or similar), ... So, I don't
>> really stand a chance than to take that call and pay for it. No, that's
>> not the correct way this should be billed.

> if you use airtime, you pay for it.

That's why the caller gets to pay, fuckwit.

> if you don't want to pay for it, don't use the airtime.

That's why the caller gets to pay, because they initiate the call.

> simple concept.

Stupid concept, actually.

>> >>> there is no reason to burden the caller to find out what type of 
>> >>> phone
>> >>> the recipient is using.
>> >>
>> >>    That 'burden' only exists in the US. In the rest of the world, 
>> >> there
>> >> *is* no such burden, because it's clear from the number whether or not
>> >> it's a mobile phone number.
>> >
>> > which discriminates against those who use a mobile number because
>> > callers will have to pay more.
>>
>> Discriminate? What discrimination is a free decision?
>
> because a caller will choose the less expensive option, which means the
> company that has a mobile number such as a repairman who is always on
> the road, is at a disadvantage.

Not when they have enough of a clue to divert their landline to the mobile.

>> > that puts businesses at a disadvantage if they want to publish a mobile
>> > number, such as a repairman who is always on the road fixing things.
>>
>> Never heard of call forwarding? In that case you offer a landline, but
>> technically use a mobile phone (at least at times). In this scenario the
>> costs for calling the mobile phone are on you, not on the caller.

> not everyone wants multiple phone lines and call forwarding service.

Not everyone wants to pay for calls that are no use to them.

>> > in the usa, everyone is on an even playing field. a customer is just as
>> > likely to call joe's fixit cellphone as he is bob's fixit landline
>> > because there is no additional fees.
>>
>> Following your own argumentation above, this is discriminating against
>> Joe, as he will have to raise his prices to cover for the additional
>> telephone costs. Bullshit argumentation, but it's your'...
>
> he might, but that's his choice. he also might not, depending on the
> type of service and the competition. repair services generally do not
> have fixed prices.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

>> > with mobile costing extra, a potential customer might choose to call
>> > bob first because it's cheaper.
>>
>> I have yet (nowadays, it might have been different many years ago) to
>> meet somebody basing such a decision on that reason.
>
> plenty of people would and did.
>
> again, the usa tried caller pays and it failed.

Like hell it did.

And it didn't in the rest of the world.

>> >>> if the recipient uses a phone that incurs additional charges they
>> >>> should be the one to pay them.
>> >>
>> >>    And they do, if these charges are beyond the control/knowledge of 
>> >> the
>> >> caller.
>> >>
>> >>    In the US, the caller is protected, because they can't reasonably 
>> >> know
>> >> what's on the other end.
>> >
>> > exactly how it should be.
>> >
>> > why should the caller pay for the type of phone the recipient uses?
>> > they should not.
>>
>> Because (almost everywhere in the world) they do know upfront what type
>> of line they're calling.
>
> which puts mobile users at a disadvantage.

Not when they have enough of a clue to divert their landline to their 
mobile.

>> >>    In the rest of the world, that problem does not exists, so the 
>> >> caller
>> >> is charged according to *hir* choice.
>> >
>> > which puts anyone on a mobile phone at a disadvantage.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> nope

Yep.

>> > the usa does it properly. everyone else got it *wrong*.
>>
>> Your belief in the US' superiority is honorable, but in this case I
>> think that the world did it right, and not the US.
>
> again, the usa tried both.

And the rest of the world had a clue, even if the US is that stupid. 

Back to comp.mobile.android | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-22 20:22 +0000
  Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 18:54 -0400
    Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:20 +1000
      Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 14:16 +1000
        Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-23 01:08 -0400
          Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 15:18 +1000
          Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-07-26 10:00 +0000
    Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-23 18:46 +0000
      Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:45 -0400
        Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 14:14 +1000
        Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 17:33 -0400
          Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 08:41 +1000
          Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-28 10:36 +0200
          Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-28 20:29 +0000
            Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? madodel ptd News <madodel@ptd.net> - 2015-07-29 13:55 -0400

csiph-web