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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #21115 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Chris Blunt <mail@nospam.com> - 2015-07-22 13:48 +0800
    Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 09:55 -0400
      Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 10:33 -0400
        Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 09:18 +1000
    Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 10:33 -0400
      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 10:15 +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 14:12 +1000
          Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-23 17:55 +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 14:17 +1000
              Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-26 18:45 +0000
                Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 10:08 +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 09:12 +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 08:33 +1000
    Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-06 03:13 -0400

#21115 — Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy?

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 06:12:44 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:210720151412334681%nospam@nospam.invalid...
>> In article
>> <cfaad$55ae645c$43da7656$23251@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.
>> <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> That's interesting how they work it differently in Europe than in the 
>>> USA.
>>>
>>> In general, in the USA, to RECEIVE a phone call is usually free on
>>> landlines, but on USA cellphones, it costs minutes to RECEIVE a call just
>>> as it costs minutes to make a phone call.
>
>> which is how it should be
>
>Nope.
>
>> because it's using airtime.
>
>Any call uses airtime. What we are discussing is WHO pays for that airtime.
>
>It makes no sense at all for the receiver to pay
>because they have no  control over who calls them.
>
>>> In Europe, it seems, in general, that to RECEIVE a phone call on
>>> a local SIM card doesn't cost them anything on a cell phone.
>
>> however, there's a surcharge for calling a mobile phone versus a landline.
>
>Not always.
>
>> why should a caller have to pay extra for something outside their control?
>
>Because they chose to call a mobile.
>
>> anyone who wants to be called on a mobile device
>> should pay for any associated fees, not the callers.
>
>Mindlessly silly. 

Exactly, and that's the way almost every country in the world apart
from the US has chosen to do it. Even in the US the principle of
"caller pays" was followed for decades when only landlines were
available. Why should it suddenly be different just because the device
uses a wireless connection instead of a physical line?

Chris

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#21122

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:48:27 +0800, Chris Blunt wrote:

> that's the way almost every country in the world apart from the US has
> chosen to do it. Even in the US the principle of "caller pays" was
> followed for decades when only landlines were available. Why should it
> suddenly be different just because the device uses a wireless connection
> instead of a physical line?

I have to agree with Chris in that I believe it should be the *caller* 
pays (except in 800-toll-free cases), just like it was forever (and still 
is) in the USA for landlines.

I think I recall that we used to pay more to call a mobile phone than to 
a landline (especially on Skype?), but, I think now the distinction for 
the amount that the caller pays is different.

If I recall correctly, the difference *was* something like 10x (from 4 
cents a minute to call a landline from USA to Europe to something like 40 
cents a minute to call a mobile phone under the same circumstances).

Also they used to charge an *additional* fee on top of that, for the 
first minute, and, of course, there were VAT taxes that were included in 
the figures.

Does Skype still charge that 10x fee and the first-minute-higher fee?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21131

In article
<e2ec7$55afa0eb$43da7656$2630@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.
<me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> > that's the way almost every country in the world apart from the US has
> > chosen to do it. Even in the US the principle of "caller pays" was
> > followed for decades when only landlines were available. Why should it
> > suddenly be different just because the device uses a wireless connection
> > instead of a physical line?
> 
> I have to agree with Chris in that I believe it should be the *caller* 
> pays (except in 800-toll-free cases), just like it was forever (and still 
> is) in the USA for landlines.

the caller should pay for a call based on the phone *they* use, not the
type of phone the recipient chooses to use.

under no circumstances should a caller be surcharged because the number
they're calling happens to be a mobile (or worse, satellite). that's
just stupid.

if someone wants to use a mobile phone, then *they* get to pay any
airtime or other associated costs for that choice. do not charge the
caller or anyone else for that matter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21195

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:220720151033340314%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article
> <e2ec7$55afa0eb$43da7656$2630@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.
> <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > that's the way almost every country in the world apart from the US has
>> > chosen to do it. Even in the US the principle of "caller pays" was
>> > followed for decades when only landlines were available. Why should it
>> > suddenly be different just because the device uses a wireless 
>> > connection
>> > instead of a physical line?
>>
>> I have to agree with Chris in that I believe it should be the *caller*
>> pays (except in 800-toll-free cases), just like it was forever (and still
>> is) in the USA for landlines.

> the caller should pay for a call based on the phone *they*
> use, not the type of phone the recipient chooses to use.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> under no circumstances should a caller be surcharged because the
> number they're calling happens to be a mobile (or worse, satellite).

Of course they should when they can work out from
the number what service will be used for the call.

> that's just stupid.

Yours is completely stupid.

> if someone wants to use a mobile phone, then *they* get to
> pay any airtime or other associated costs for that choice.

Not when they didn't initiate the call and have no use for the call.

The caller should be paying for the call because they initiated it.

> do not charge the caller or anyone else for that matter.

Even sillier than you usually manage. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21128

In article <i7buqa1ksq9lgmu9j55256dj6e4buusk1n@4ax.com>, Chris Blunt
<mail@nospam.com> wrote:

> Exactly, and that's the way almost every country in the world apart
> from the US has chosen to do it. Even in the US the principle of
> "caller pays" was followed for decades when only landlines were
> available. Why should it suddenly be different just because the device
> uses a wireless connection instead of a physical line?

it shouldn't be different. that's the whole point.

the caller pays one rate based on *their* calling plan, whether it's
mobile or landline. 

the mobile user pays for airtime for any calls, inbound or outbound.

the usa does it correctly. everyone else does not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21170

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <i7buqa1ksq9lgmu9j55256dj6e4buusk1n@4ax.com>, Chris Blunt
> <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
> 
> > Exactly, and that's the way almost every country in the world apart
> > from the US has chosen to do it. Even in the US the principle of
> > "caller pays" was followed for decades when only landlines were
> > available. Why should it suddenly be different just because the device
> > uses a wireless connection instead of a physical line?
> 
> it shouldn't be different. that's the whole point.
> 
> the caller pays one rate based on *their* calling plan, whether it's
> mobile or landline. 
> 
> the mobile user pays for airtime for any calls, inbound or outbound.
> 
> the usa does it correctly. everyone else does not.

  Your assumptions are wrong (different pricing for the caller), hence
your conclusions are also wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21183

In article <d1acc9FrgqkU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > Exactly, and that's the way almost every country in the world apart
> > > from the US has chosen to do it. Even in the US the principle of
> > > "caller pays" was followed for decades when only landlines were
> > > available. Why should it suddenly be different just because the device
> > > uses a wireless connection instead of a physical line?
> > 
> > it shouldn't be different. that's the whole point.
> > 
> > the caller pays one rate based on *their* calling plan, whether it's
> > mobile or landline. 
> > 
> > the mobile user pays for airtime for any calls, inbound or outbound.
> > 
> > the usa does it correctly. everyone else does not.
> 
>   Your assumptions are wrong (different pricing for the caller), hence
> your conclusions are also wrong.

nope.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21201

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:220720151854223132%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <d1acc9FrgqkU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > > Exactly, and that's the way almost every country in the world apart
>> > > from the US has chosen to do it. Even in the US the principle of
>> > > "caller pays" was followed for decades when only landlines were
>> > > available. Why should it suddenly be different just because the 
>> > > device
>> > > uses a wireless connection instead of a physical line?
>> >
>> > it shouldn't be different. that's the whole point.
>> >
>> > the caller pays one rate based on *their* calling plan, whether it's
>> > mobile or landline.
>> >
>> > the mobile user pays for airtime for any calls, inbound or outbound.
>> >
>> > the usa does it correctly. everyone else does not.
>>
>>   Your assumptions are wrong (different pricing for the caller), hence
>> your conclusions are also wrong.
>
> nope.

Yep. That's why only the US is that stupid, essentially because
they were stupid enough to not have a unique prefix for mobile
numbers so you could would out what sort of service you would
be using when making a call and so what it would cost to call. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21212

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>> Yep. That's why only the US is that stupid, essentially because
>> they were stupid enough to not have a unique prefix for mobile
>> numbers so you could would out what sort of service you would
>> be using when making a call and so what it would cost to call.

> nope.

Yep.

> having a specific prefix for mobile discriminates against those on that 
> prefix.

Even sillier you usually manage.

> people will avoid calling that prefix knowing that they will be charged 
> more.

Pity they aren't anymore, particularly when calling from their own mobile, 
fuckwit.

> by integrating it, everyone is on an equal playing field,

Pigs arse they are when they get charged for receiving the
call when the call is to their mobile and they get nothing
useful from that call they get no say on being made.

Completely fucking stupid way to do things.

> exactly how it should be.

How odd that no one else is that stupid.

The only reason the US is because they were stupid
enough to have used all the prefixes that could
have been used for that many new phone services.

> the usa got it correct.

Just another of your pig ignorant stupiditys.

The US has the most fucked mobile/cellphone
system in the entire fucking world. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21243

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <d1acc9FrgqkU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > > Exactly, and that's the way almost every country in the world apart
> > > > from the US has chosen to do it. Even in the US the principle of
> > > > "caller pays" was followed for decades when only landlines were
> > > > available. Why should it suddenly be different just because the device
> > > > uses a wireless connection instead of a physical line?
> > > 
> > > it shouldn't be different. that's the whole point.
> > > 
> > > the caller pays one rate based on *their* calling plan, whether it's
> > > mobile or landline. 
> > > 
> > > the mobile user pays for airtime for any calls, inbound or outbound.
> > > 
> > > the usa does it correctly. everyone else does not.
> > 
> >   Your assumptions are wrong (different pricing for the caller), hence
> > your conclusions are also wrong.
> 
> nope.

  Ah, again the utterly non-impressive stamping of tiny feet. Why aren't
we surprised to see *that* for the umpteenth time?

  But in case you still want to be considered an adult, instead of some
spineless, ignorant/clueless/stupid, ranting little child:

  *You* have to prove *your* claim and give a (trusted) reference for
each country in the world which shows they indeed have de-facto price
differentation for landline to landline versus landline to mobile.

  To start with, you will fail for my country - The Netherlands - so
your absolute claim ("everyone else") is already false, but let's not
nitpick and require you to only prove your claim for the *majority* (of
"everyone else").

  Have fun!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21343

In article <d1co4lFf0fjU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>   *You* have to prove *your* claim and give a (trusted) reference for
> each country in the world which shows they indeed have de-facto price
> differentation for landline to landline versus landline to mobile.

it doesn't get any more credible than the fcc:

<https://www.fcc.gov/guides/surcharges-international-calls-wireless-phon
es>
  Consumers should be aware that placing an international long distance
  call from your wireline telephone here in the United States to a
  wireless phone in another country may result in a ³surcharge² on your
  bill in addition to your usual charges.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21359

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:250720152045053546%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <d1co4lFf0fjU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>   *You* have to prove *your* claim and give a (trusted) reference for
>> each country in the world which shows they indeed have de-facto price
>> differentation for landline to landline versus landline to mobile.
>
> it doesn't get any more credible than the fcc:

Wrong, as always.

> <https://www.fcc.gov/guides/surcharges-international-calls-wireless-phones>
>  Consumers should be aware that placing an international long distance
>  call from your wireline telephone here in the United States to a
>  wireless phone in another country may result in a ³surcharge² on your
>  bill in addition to your usual charges.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed.

Even the stupidest caller is aware that calls to places
outside the country can cost more than a local call does. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21384

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <d1co4lFf0fjU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >   *You* have to prove *your* claim and give a (trusted) reference for
> > each country in the world which shows they indeed have de-facto price
> > differentation for landline to landline versus landline to mobile.
> 
> it doesn't get any more credible than the fcc:
> 
> <https://www.fcc.gov/guides/surcharges-international-calls-wireless-phon
> es>
>   Consumers should be aware that placing an international long distance
>   call from your wireline telephone here in the United States to a
>   wireless phone in another country may result in a ³surcharge² on your
>   bill in addition to your usual charges.

  As I already *told* you, we are not talking about international calls,
but about *in-country* calls.

  But never mind, you cowardly, dishonestly and silently snipped *which*
proof you had to provide and you didn't provide anything close to that
proof, so you fail.

  QED.

  HTH, HAND, EOD, NC.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21397

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:260720151823096521%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <d1ko68Ff5nvU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > >   *You* have to prove *your* claim and give a (trusted) reference for
>> > > each country in the world which shows they indeed have de-facto price
>> > > differentation for landline to landline versus landline to mobile.
>> >
>> > it doesn't get any more credible than the fcc:
>> >
>> > <https://www.fcc.gov/guides/surcharges-international-calls-wireless-phon
>> > es>
>> >   Consumers should be aware that placing an international long distance
>> >   call from your wireline telephone here in the United States to a
>> >   wireless phone in another country may result in a ³surcharge² on your
>> >   bill in addition to your usual charges.
>>
>>   As I already *told* you, we are not talking about international calls,
>> but about *in-country* calls.
>
> that doesn't matter.

Wrong, as always.

> either there's a surcharge or there isn't, and there is.

Just as true of long distance in country calls, fuckwit.

>>   But never mind, you cowardly, dishonestly and silently snipped *which*
>> proof you had to provide and you didn't provide anything close to that
>> proof, so you fail.
>
> the fact that you're resorting to personal attacks means *you* have 
> failed.

Wrong, as always.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21193

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:220720151033320199%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <i7buqa1ksq9lgmu9j55256dj6e4buusk1n@4ax.com>, Chris Blunt
> <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Exactly, and that's the way almost every country in the world apart
>> from the US has chosen to do it. Even in the US the principle of
>> "caller pays" was followed for decades when only landlines were
>> available. Why should it suddenly be different just because the
>> device uses a wireless connection instead of a physical line?

> it shouldn't be different.

How odd that it was with landlines with local
and long distance calls even in the US.

> that's the whole point.

Nope.

> the caller pays one rate based on *their*
> calling plan, whether it's mobile or landline.

And the receiver of the call pays for receiving that call in the
US even when that particular call is no of use to them at all.

Completely and utterly barking mad.

> the mobile user pays for airtime for any calls, inbound or outbound.

And that is a completely stupid approach
when the call is of no use to them at all.

> the usa does it correctly. everyone else does not.

Yeah, yeah, everyone but me is mad. Yeah, right. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21178

"Chris Blunt" <mail@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:i7buqa1ksq9lgmu9j55256dj6e4buusk1n@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 06:12:44 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:210720151412334681%nospam@nospam.invalid...
>>> In article
>>> <cfaad$55ae645c$43da7656$23251@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.
>>> <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's interesting how they work it differently in Europe than in the
>>>> USA.
>>>>
>>>> In general, in the USA, to RECEIVE a phone call is usually free on
>>>> landlines, but on USA cellphones, it costs minutes to RECEIVE a call 
>>>> just
>>>> as it costs minutes to make a phone call.
>>
>>> which is how it should be
>>
>>Nope.
>>
>>> because it's using airtime.
>>
>>Any call uses airtime. What we are discussing is WHO pays for that 
>>airtime.
>>
>>It makes no sense at all for the receiver to pay
>>because they have no  control over who calls them.
>>
>>>> In Europe, it seems, in general, that to RECEIVE a phone call on
>>>> a local SIM card doesn't cost them anything on a cell phone.
>>
>>> however, there's a surcharge for calling a mobile phone versus a 
>>> landline.
>>
>>Not always.
>>
>>> why should a caller have to pay extra for something outside their 
>>> control?
>>
>>Because they chose to call a mobile.
>>
>>> anyone who wants to be called on a mobile device
>>> should pay for any associated fees, not the callers.
>>
>>Mindlessly silly.
>
> Exactly, and that's the way almost every country in the world apart
> from the US has chosen to do it. Even in the US the principle of
> "caller pays" was followed for decades when only landlines were
> available. Why should it suddenly be different just because the device
> uses a wireless connection instead of a physical line?

Yeah, it was done like that in the US because they don't have a
unique prefix range for mobile phone numbers, so you can't
work out whether you are calling a mobile or landline from
the number and so can get a surprise with the cost of the
call when it is actually a mobile you call. Compounded by
the other problem close to unique to the US that local
calls with landline were often free, something you also
didn't see in much of the rest of the world at the time
that mobiles started to be seen. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21720

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:48:27 +0800, Chris Blunt wrote:

>  Why should it suddenly be different just because the device
> uses a wireless connection instead of a physical line?

Because the early mobile service providers succeeded in convincing the FCC
that airtime, unlike copper, was a scarce and valuable commodity :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web