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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #21176 > 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? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 08:26 +1000
    Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Chris Blunt <mail@nospam.com> - 2015-07-24 11:22 +0800
      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 14:06 +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 18:30 +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 10:06 +1000
            Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-06 03:03 -0400
              Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-08-06 19:20 +1200
                Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-07 19:31 +0000
              Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-07 19:22 +0000
          Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Chris Blunt <mail@nospam.com> - 2015-07-27 13:51 +0800
            Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 05:42 -0400
              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 08:32 +1000

#21176 — Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy?

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

> which should *always* be the person who owns the device using it.

Nope, by the one who initiates the call, because the receiver
of the call has no control over the call being made and may
not even want to receive that call at all.

> very simple concept.

A mindlessly superficial claim in fact.

> under no circumstances should a caller subsidize
> someone else's decision to use or not use a mobile
> device or satellite phone or whatever else.

There isn't necessarily any subsidy involved at all.

It is significantly cheaper here to have just a mobile
phone service than a landline phone service and
that includes the cost of the calls made.

And when you need to have a mobile phone for
when you aren't at home it makes a lot of sense
to not bother to have the landline at all and save
even more in the total cost of all your calls.

>> It makes no sense at all for the receiver to pay
>> because they have no  control over who calls them.

> nonsense. of course they do.

What a stunning line in rational argument you have there.

> they can either turn off the phone

Pity about the calls they do want to receive.

> or not answer it if cost is an issue.

No always possible to know who is calling and
so when the call should be answered. And why
should I have to pay a cent when someone rings
me to ask me about  something anyway ?

> making the caller pay discriminates against mobile users

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> because a caller might choose to not call a given
> number if they know that they will get charged more,

And its perfectly reasonable to encourage people to
use the service that has the lowest marginal cost to use.

> which can put some businesses at a disadvantage
> because customers will have to pay more to call.

They are free to have a landline which diverts to their
mobile with the business paying the cost of the diversion.

> usa tried caller pays and it was a colossal failure,

How odd that it works fine in the rest of the world.

> and for very good reasons. it's a *dumb* idea.

How odd that it works fine in the rest of the world.

> the person who owns the phone
> should pay for any incurred costs.

The person who makes the call should
pay the cost of the call being made. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#21251

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote

> the person who owns the phone
> should pay for any incurred costs.

Why does that principle only apply with calls to mobile phones and not
to landlines as well?

If you call a friend who lives in the same town as you you'll probably
pay nothing at all. If you call another friend who lives on the other
side of the country you'll likely pay a long-distance call charge.
Would you expect your friend on the other side of the country to pick
up the cost of your call to him just because he's chosen not to live
in the same area as you?

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

#21340

In article <lmb3ra5cqdfnipfn7er0hrl7hkm045rpeb@4ax.com>, Chris Blunt
<mail@nospam.com> wrote:

> > the person who owns the phone
> > should pay for any incurred costs.
> 
> Why does that principle only apply with calls to mobile phones and not
> to landlines as well?

because airtime is a shared resource that's limited.

> If you call a friend who lives in the same town as you you'll probably
> pay nothing at all. If you call another friend who lives on the other
> side of the country you'll likely pay a long-distance call charge.

not anymore. 

> Would you expect your friend on the other side of the country to pick
> up the cost of your call to him just because he's chosen not to live
> in the same area as you?

that's not the same thing.

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

#21357

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:250720152045023336%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <lmb3ra5cqdfnipfn7er0hrl7hkm045rpeb@4ax.com>, Chris Blunt
> <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> > the person who owns the phone
>> > should pay for any incurred costs.
>>
>> Why does that principle only apply with calls to mobile phones and not
>> to landlines as well?

> because airtime is a shared resource that's limited.

Even sillier than you usually manage. There are plenty of other
shared resources where the called party is not charged, fool.

>> If you call a friend who lives in the same town as you you'll probably
>> pay nothing at all. If you call another friend who lives on the other
>> side of the country you'll likely pay a long-distance call charge.

> not anymore.

BULLSHIT.

>> Would you expect your friend on the other side of the country to pick
>> up the cost of your call to him just because he's chosen not to live
>> in the same area as you?

> that's not the same thing.

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

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

#21383

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <lmb3ra5cqdfnipfn7er0hrl7hkm045rpeb@4ax.com>, Chris Blunt
> <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
> 
> > > the person who owns the phone
> > > should pay for any incurred costs.
> > 
> > Why does that principle only apply with calls to mobile phones and not
> > to landlines as well?
> 
> because airtime is a shared resource that's limited.

  Exactly! Landlines are NOT shared. I just checked our basement and
there are seperate cables to all the other - how many? - billion people
in the world, and in the basements of all those people, it's the same.
Ain't POTS wonderful!?

[...]

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

#21396

"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message 
news:d1kna5FeukbU1@mid.individual.net...
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <lmb3ra5cqdfnipfn7er0hrl7hkm045rpeb@4ax.com>, Chris Blunt
>> <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > the person who owns the phone
>> > > should pay for any incurred costs.
>> >
>> > Why does that principle only apply with calls to mobile phones and not
>> > to landlines as well?
>>
>> because airtime is a shared resource that's limited.
>
>  Exactly!

Nope. The net and cable are shared too and the
receiver of the call doesn’t get charged with those.

> Landlines are NOT shared. I just checked our basement and there
> are seperate cables to all the other - how many? - billion people
> in the world, and in the basements of all those people, it's the same.
> Ain't POTS wonderful!?
 

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

#21719

On 27 Jul 2015 19:23:00 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

>   A severe case of sarchasm! Why aren't we surprised that you fell for
> it, hook, line and sinker.

I am surprised that otherwise intelligent Nederlanders waste their time so.

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

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

#21721

In article <15kecsvh2strt$.1o9t6ki54fvp8.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:

> On 27 Jul 2015 19:23:00 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 
> >   A severe case of sarchasm! Why aren't we surprised that you fell for
> > it, hook, line and sinker.
> 
> I am surprised that otherwise intelligent Nederlanders waste their time so.
> 
> Cheers, -- tlvp

"sarchasm" ... that must be the large gap between intelligence & wit
and stupidity & juvenile silliness.  ;-)

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

#21823

Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote:
> In article <15kecsvh2strt$.1o9t6ki54fvp8.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
> <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
> 
> > On 27 Jul 2015 19:23:00 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > 
> > >   A severe case of sarchasm! Why aren't we surprised that you fell for
> > > it, hook, line and sinker.
> > 
> > I am surprised that otherwise intelligent Nederlanders waste their time so.
> > 
> > Cheers, -- tlvp
> 
> "sarchasm" ... that must be the large gap between intelligence & wit
> and stupidity & juvenile silliness.  ;-)

  Very close.

  It was an entry in the (2006?) Washington Post's Style Invitational:

<quote>

The Washington Post's Style Invitational once again asked
readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by
adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a
new definition. Here are this year's winners:
...
4. Sarchasm (n) The gulf between the author of sarcastic
wit and the person who doesn't get it.

</quote>

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

#21822

tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
> On 27 Jul 2015 19:23:00 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 
> >   A severe case of sarchasm! Why aren't we surprised that you fell for
> > it, hook, line and sinker.
> 
> I am surprised that otherwise intelligent Nederlanders waste their time so.

  Rest assured, for *me* it's not a waste of my time! :-)

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

#21408

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <lmb3ra5cqdfnipfn7er0hrl7hkm045rpeb@4ax.com>, Chris Blunt
> <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
> 
> > > the person who owns the phone
> > > should pay for any incurred costs.
> > 
> > Why does that principle only apply with calls to mobile phones and not
> > to landlines as well?
> 
> because airtime is a shared resource that's limited.

That may explain higher tariffs being charged for mobiles as compared
to landlines, but why should it affect the principle of "caller pays"?

In any case, most of the network infrastructure that landlines make
use of is a shared resource. It's only the final "local loop" that is
not shared.

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

#21418

In article <1vgbra1n98voglaoqh1c5qnch56vud3bj1@4ax.com>, Chris Blunt
<mail@nospam.com> wrote:

> > > > the person who owns the phone
> > > > should pay for any incurred costs.
> > > 
> > > Why does that principle only apply with calls to mobile phones and not
> > > to landlines as well?
> > 
> > because airtime is a shared resource that's limited.
> 
> That may explain higher tariffs being charged for mobiles as compared
> to landlines, but why should it affect the principle of "caller pays"?

the person using airtime pays for the airtime. simple concept.

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

#21462

In article <q2pcra5kg1802ohefnnrb033kl4e2pgetb@dim53.demon.nl>, Kees
Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> wrote:

> > the person using airtime pays for the airtime. simple concept.
> 
> However, for incoming calls, the use of airtime is caused by the
> caller, not the destination.

nope. it's caused by the person choosing to answer their phone, or even
owning a mobile phone.

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

#21471

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:270720151733040115%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <q2pcra5kg1802ohefnnrb033kl4e2pgetb@dim53.demon.nl>, Kees
> Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>> > the person using airtime pays for the airtime. simple concept.
>>
>> However, for incoming calls, the use of airtime is caused by the
>> caller, not the destination.

> nope.

Yep.

> it's caused by the person choosing to answer their phone,

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> or even owning a mobile phone.

Even sillier than you usually manage.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web