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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #21172 > 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? 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

#21172 — Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy?

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 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 because it's using airtime.

  True, but that doesn't make it right for the receiver to pay, just
because the caller wants to call hir. 

> > 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.

  It's not a surcharge, but different pricing. Anyway, for most
providers - at least in our country (NL) -, that's now no longer true.
I.e. same price landline to landline and landline to mobile.

> why should a caller have to pay extra for something outside their
> control? anyone who wants to be called on a mobile device should pay
> for any associated fees, not the callers.

  See above. Mostly they don't, and *if* they have to, the caller knows
and can make up hir own mind.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#21185

In article <d1accaFrgqkU3@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.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 because it's using airtime.
> 
>   True, but that doesn't make it right for the receiver to pay, just
> because the caller wants to call hir. 

sure it does, because the receiver chose to use his/her cellphone.

> > > 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.
> 
>   It's not a surcharge, but different pricing. 

word games.

it's a surcharge:
<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.

>   Anyway, for most
> providers - at least in our country (NL) -, that's now no longer true.
> I.e. same price landline to landline and landline to mobile.

that's how it should be.

> > why should a caller have to pay extra for something outside their
> > control? anyone who wants to be called on a mobile device should pay
> > for any associated fees, not the callers.
> 
>   See above. Mostly they don't, and *if* they have to, the caller knows
> and can make up hir own mind.

there is no reason to burden the caller to find out what type of phone
the recipient is using.

if the recipient uses a phone that incurs additional charges they
should be the one to pay them.

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

#21202

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:220720151854233242%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <d1accaFrgqkU3@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.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 because it's using airtime.
>>
>>   True, but that doesn't make it right for the receiver to pay, just
>> because the caller wants to call hir.
>
> sure it does,

Nope.

> because the receiver chose to use his/her cellphone.

The receiver doesn't choose to make the call.

>> > > 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.
>>
>>   It's not a surcharge, but different pricing.
>
> word games.

Nope, words have meanings.

> it's a surcharge:
> <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.
>
>>   Anyway, for most
>> providers - at least in our country (NL) -, that's now no longer true.
>> I.e. same price landline to landline and landline to mobile.

> that's how it should be.

There is no should be. And skype has just stopped doing that.

>> > why should a caller have to pay extra for something outside their
>> > control? anyone who wants to be called on a mobile device should pay
>> > for any associated fees, not the callers.
>>
>>   See above. Mostly they don't, and *if* they have to, the caller knows
>> and can make up hir own mind.
>
> there is no reason to burden the caller to find out what type of phone
> the recipient is using.

Trivially easy when the country has had enough
of a clue to use a different prefix for mobiles.

> if the recipient uses a phone that incurs additional
> charges they should be the one to pay them.

If the receiver has no say on who calls them, there
is no reason why they should pay a cent for receiving
a call that may be of no use to them whatever and
may be a complete waste of their time. 

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

#21215

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:220720152306200223%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <d1aqa4F9l0U1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > because the receiver chose to use his/her cellphone.
>>
>> The receiver doesn't choose to make the call.
>
> they chose the mobile phone they're using

They didn't choose to get called on it.

> so they get to pay for its usage.

Not in anywhere but the completely fucked US system.

> if they don't want to pay the fees, then
> they should not be using a mobile phone.

They are free to use a mobile system that isnt fucked by design.

> stick with voicemail and a landline, like how it used to be.

Make an obscene gesture in the general direction
of the US and use a mobile phone system that isnt
fucked by design, even when in the US. 

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

#21219

In article <d1b84jF34rrU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > because the receiver chose to use his/her cellphone.
> >>
> >> The receiver doesn't choose to make the call.
> >
> > they chose the mobile phone they're using
> 
> They didn't choose to get called on it.

yes they did, by answering the call.

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

#21221

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:230720150108561583%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <d1b84jF34rrU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > because the receiver chose to use his/her cellphone.
>> >>
>> >> The receiver doesn't choose to make the call.
>> >
>> > they chose the mobile phone they're using
>>
>> They didn't choose to get called on it.
>
> yes they did, by answering the call.

Even sillier than you usually manage. 

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

#21370

> > >> > because the receiver chose to use his/her cellphone.
> > >>
> > >> The receiver doesn't choose to make the call.
> > >
> > > they chose the mobile phone they're using
> > 
> > They didn't choose to get called on it.
> 
> yes they did, by answering the call.

Even by not answering the call, there's still a disruption.  You have
to stop what you're doing, look at the display, and try to work out if
the caller is welcome, or if it's a telemarketer using clever
spoofing.  You have ~5 seconds to work that out.  And if you get it
wrong, you not only pay minutes, but you pay in time and
inconvenience.  You also miss calls you would have welcomed, because
any number of things can go wrong in that guesswork.

The rest of the civilized world has figured out that telespam is
greatly hindered by coupling the spender with the one controling the
call initiation.

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

#21247

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <d1accaFrgqkU3@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.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 because it's using airtime.
> > 
> >   True, but that doesn't make it right for the receiver to pay, just
> > because the caller wants to call hir. 
> 
> sure it does, because the receiver chose to use his/her cellphone.

  They didn't 'choose' their cellphone. 'choose' implies there *is* a
choice, most of the time there isn't.

  But - once again - you managed to dodge and divert: The *point* is
that the *caller* decided to call the receiver. The receiver had no
choice in the matter. (And don't bother to come up with your bull that
the receiver could choose to not answer the call.)

> > > > 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.
> > 
> >   It's not a surcharge, but different pricing. 
> 
> word games.

  No, a surcharge is a *seperate*  extra cost.

> it's a surcharge:
> <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.

  <boggle> 

  Can you please try to follow the discussion? (In this subthread) We
are NOT talking about international calls, but about calls *within* a
country, comparing the US to most other countries in the world.

> >   Anyway, for most
> > providers - at least in our country (NL) -, that's now no longer true.
> > I.e. same price landline to landline and landline to mobile.
> 
> that's how it should be.

  And that's how it *is* is many (most? all?) countries. You're
misinformed, but - as usual - to pig-headed to admit it.

> > > why should a caller have to pay extra for something outside their
> > > control? anyone who wants to be called on a mobile device should pay
> > > for any associated fees, not the callers.
> > 
> >   See above. Mostly they don't, and *if* they have to, the caller knows
> > and can make up hir own mind.

  Again you dodge and divert: "See above." is a reference to what I
wrote, which shows that this whole 'problem' is in *your* head only.

  The reason I wrote the rest of the paragraph is that some people
*choose* for price differentiation. (Figure *that!? Freedom of choice!?
Who would have thunk about *that*!?)

> 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.

> 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.

  In the rest of the world, that problem does not exists, so the caller
is charged according to *hir* choice.

  QED.

  HTH. HAND. EOD. NC.

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

#21341

In article <d1cr4jFfpivU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > >   True, but that doesn't make it right for the receiver to pay, just
> > > because the caller wants to call hir. 
> > 
> > sure it does, because the receiver chose to use his/her cellphone.
> 
>   They didn't 'choose' their cellphone. 'choose' implies there *is* a
> choice, most of the time there isn't.

yes they did.

>   But - once again - you managed to dodge and divert: The *point* is
> that the *caller* decided to call the receiver. The receiver had no
> choice in the matter. (And don't bother to come up with your bull that
> the receiver could choose to not answer the call.)

the caller should pay the same rate, regardless of the recipient's
choice of phone. 

if the recipient uses a cellphone then they should pay associated
airtime. not the caller.

> > > > > 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.
> > > 
> > >   It's not a surcharge, but different pricing. 
> > 
> > word games.
> 
>   No, a surcharge is a *seperate*  extra cost.

word games.

at the end of the day, it costs more to call a mobile number. whether
that charge is itemized or not makes no difference whatsoever. 



> > 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.

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.

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.

with mobile costing extra, a potential customer might choose to call
bob first because it's cheaper.

> > 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.

>   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. 

the usa does it properly. everyone else got it *wrong*.

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

#21358

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:250720152045033422%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <d1cr4jFfpivU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > >   True, but that doesn't make it right for the receiver to pay, just
>> > > because the caller wants to call hir.
>> >
>> > sure it does, because the receiver chose to use his/her cellphone.
>>
>>   They didn't 'choose' their cellphone. 'choose' implies there *is* a
>> choice, most of the time there isn't.
>
> yes they did.
>
>>   But - once again - you managed to dodge and divert: The *point* is
>> that the *caller* decided to call the receiver. The receiver had no
>> choice in the matter. (And don't bother to come up with your bull that
>> the receiver could choose to not answer the call.)
>
> the caller should pay the same rate, regardless of the recipient's
> choice of phone.

Completely and utterly mindlessly silly as only
you can be completely and utterly mindlessly silly.

And that was never the case with landline calls
and isn't the case with voip calls either even in the
most fucked system in the entire fucking planet.

> if the recipient uses a cellphone then they
> should pay associated airtime. not the caller.

Wrong, as always. And doesn't happen with voip calls.

>> > > > > 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.
>> > >
>> > >   It's not a surcharge, but different pricing.
>> >
>> > word games.
>>
>>   No, a surcharge is a *seperate*  extra cost.
>
> word games.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

> at the end of the day, it costs more to call a mobile number.

Not anymore it doesn't.

> whether that charge is itemized or not
> makes no difference whatsoever.

Wrong, as always.

>> > 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.

Plenty of times they pay no more than if it's a landline.

> 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.

Stiff shit. They are free to divert the call from their landline to their 
mobile.

> in the usa, everyone is on an even playing field.

Like hell they are with landline calls, and voip calls.

> 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.

And plenty are selective about which calls they answer because they
don't want to pay for a call that may be no use to them whatever.

> with mobile costing extra, a potential customer
> might choose to call bob first because it's cheaper.

Fred is free to divert his landline to his mobile and pay the cost of that.

>> > 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.

Wrong, as always.

> why should the caller pay for the type of phone the recipient uses?

Because he is the one who decides to make the call, fool.

> they should not.

Wrong, as always.

>>   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.

Like hell it does. They are free to divert their landline to their mobile
if they  don't like the fact that some wont call mobile numbers.

> the usa does it properly. everyone else got it *wrong*.

Yeah, yeah, the entire world is mad, except me. 

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

#21464

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 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.

> 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 and nobody has to choose which number is cheaper.

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

the usa tried caller-pays and it was a failure. people had a choice and
chose the person being called pays.

> > 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. 

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

simple concept.

> >>> 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.

> > 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.

> > 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.

> > 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.

> >>> 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.

> >>    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

> > 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.

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

#21472

"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. 

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

#21491

Am 27.07.2015 um 23:33 schrieb nospam:
> 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.

He has, as he can see it from the number right away. Almost everywhere 
in the world, but the US.

>> 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.

If a person/company/... doesn't offer the communication method I want to 
use, it's my decision to either one of the offered methods, or to choose 
another person/company/...

>> 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 and nobody has to choose which number is cheaper.
>
> if the callee wants the convenience of mobile they shoulder the
> additional costs.

Which they do with the monthly base costs, ...

> the usa tried caller-pays and it was a failure. people had a choice and
> chose the person being called pays.

The US might've failed, but since basically all the rest of the world is 
doing just fine, what does that tell you about the US failure? ;-)

>>> 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.

Then I really don't understand why you're so stubborn about this system...

>> 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.

Nope, I don't use that airtime, the usage is forced on me. I don't want 
that usage, I don't need that usage, but I hardly stand a chance in 
avoiding it.

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

Please tell me how I could possibly prevent such a situation as outlined 
above. Without telling me not use a mobile phone in the first place and 
without telling me not to take that call (which I can't distinguish from 
calls I want to take).

>>>>> 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.

For all I can tell, if that happens at all, it only happens in low 
numbers here in Germany. Single repair men seem to be doing just fine, 
even if they only list a mobile number on their cars/in their ads/...

>>> 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.

But that's the decision of the company. Same as whether they want to 
offer another service, whether they want to extend to another area, 
whether they want to buy a new car, whether they want to hire further 
employees, ... That's called business decisions, and is an everyday part 
of a life in business, just in case you didn't know... ;-)

>>> 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.

They do over here (fixed prices per hour, that is). They might deviate 
in one or the other case, but usually they have a rather fixed price to 
start with.

>>> 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.

Doesn't look like that over here (at least not anymore).

> again, the usa tried caller pays and it failed.

Strange enough that the rest of the world lives just fine with caller 
paid. :-)

>>>>> 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 really.

>>>>     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

Wrong.

>>> 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.

Strange enough, that only the US failed - what does that fact tell us? ;-)

Best regards,

Michael

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

#21513

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <mp552d$1a7$1@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>
> wrote:
[...]
> > Because (almost everywhere in the world) they do know upfront what type 
> > of line they're calling.
> 
> which puts mobile users at a disadvantage.

  You keep on kicking this dead horse, despite repeatedly being told
that such 'disadvantage' *does not exist* for the *majority* of people
in the *majority* of countries.

  I already told you several times - and you ignored it, and *silently*
snipped it, every time [1] - that for example in my country - The
Netherlands - there *is no* defacto rate differentiation between
fixed-to-fixed and fixed-to-mobile.

  Since your major 'opponent' (read: the one who's still bothering) is
Michael Eyd, it would be interesting to hear what the situation in
Germany is.

  I.e. if a German customer gets a standard fixed phone subscription,
does (s)he get a rate difference between fixed-to-fixed and
fixed-to-mobile?

  With "standard", I mean the most common subscription. I.e. I'm not
interested in special subscription where customers can get rate
differentiation if they *want* it, but what they get if I just order the
most common subscription.

  If anyone else outside the US wants to describe the situation in their
country, then please do.

[...]

[1] Do you *really* think that people are so stupid that you can get
away with pathetic, dishonest tricks like that!?

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

#21529

On 7/29/15 3:49 AM, Michael Eyd wrote:
> Am 28.07.2015 um 22:29 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <mp552d$1a7$1@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>
>>> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Because (almost everywhere in the world) they do know upfront what type
>>>> of line they're calling.
>>>
>>> which puts mobile users at a disadvantage.
>>
>>    You keep on kicking this dead horse, despite repeatedly being told
>> that such 'disadvantage' *does not exist* for the *majority* of people
>> in the *majority* of countries.
>>
>>    I already told you several times - and you ignored it, and *silently*
>> snipped it, every time [1] - that for example in my country - The
>> Netherlands - there *is no* defacto rate differentiation between
>> fixed-to-fixed and fixed-to-mobile.
>>
>>    Since your major 'opponent' (read: the one who's still bothering) is
>> Michael Eyd, it would be interesting to hear what the situation in
>> Germany is.
>>
>>    I.e. if a German customer gets a standard fixed phone subscription,
>> does (s)he get a rate difference between fixed-to-fixed and
>> fixed-to-mobile?
>
> Yes, calls to mobile are (if not covered by an so-called all-net flatrate)
> are more expensive than to fixed-line numbers. The price difference
> decreased considerably over the years, but is still there... Take e.g. the
> cheapest plans T-Com (our former monopolist) offers: For 19€/month you
> don't get any free calls, but pay for calls to fixed-line numbers
> 2.9ct/min, while calls to any of the German mobile networks (no
> differentiation there anymore) you pay 19ct/min (all prices are Euros, not
> US-$). Obviously, you can get on-top flatrates for fixed-line numbers, for
> mobile numbers, for international calls, ..., but all of that is extra.
>
>>    With "standard", I mean the most common subscription. I.e. I'm not
>> interested in special subscription where customers can get rate
>> differentiation if they *want* it, but what they get if I just order the
>> most common subscription.
>
> These days in Germany (for new fixed-line contracts) many people choose a
> plan where (national) fixed-line calls are flat, but calls to mobile
> numbers go extra - unless people know that they'll be calling someone's
> mobile rather often. And in that case (many) people start considering doing
> such calls from their mobile, rather than from the fixed-line phone - as it
> might be cheaper.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael


Here in the US many are doing away with landlines.  Here I mostly get junk 
calls on the landline I have.  I rarely use it any more to make phone 
calls.  We keep it mostly because of inertia and as a backup in case cell 
service goes out (which has happened a couple times because of storms).


Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web