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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #21119 > 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? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-22 10:17 +0200
    Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? madodel ptd News <madodel@ptd.net> - 2015-07-22 08:36 -0400
      Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 10:15 -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? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-22 16:43 +0200
            Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 10:53 -0400
              Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-22 17:02 +0200
                Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 13:37 -0400
              Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 13:36 -0400
            Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 13:34 -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 09:43 +1000
          Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 13:30 -0400
            Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 13:57 -0400
              Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 15:58 -0400
                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? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400
        Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-22 16:39 +0200
          Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 13:39 -0400
        Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-04 04:21 -0400
      Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-22 16:37 +0200
        Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? madodel ptd News <madodel@ptd.net> - 2015-07-22 12:01 -0400
        Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 13:43 -0400
          Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 13:57 -0400
            Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 16:06 -0400
              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? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 14:40 -0400
                  Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 12:24 -0700
                    Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 17:06 -0400
                    Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-27 09:57 +0200
                  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? 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? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-27 10:01 +0200
          Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Zaidy036 <Zaidy036@isp.spam> - 2015-07-22 15:25 -0400
          Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? madodel ptd News <madodel@ptd.net> - 2015-07-23 14:22 -0400
            Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 00:14 -0700
              Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? madodel ptd News <madodel@ptd.net> - 2015-07-24 08:07 -0400
              Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 18:02 -0400
            Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-24 14:38 +0200
              Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-24 18:20 +0000
                Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 18:10 -0400
                  Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-26 18:21 +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 09:02 +1000
                    Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-27 10:06 +0200
              Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 18:06 -0400
                Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-27 10:23 +0200
              Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 18:09 -0400
              Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-27 10:12 +0200
                Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-28 09:38 +0200
                  Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 20:33 +1000
                    Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-30 17:25 +0200
                      Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 07:28 +1000
          Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 15:50 -0400
            Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:18 +0000
              Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 18:00 -0400
                Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-27 11:13 +0200
            Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-27 10:30 +0200
        Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 13:47 -0400
          Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 18:13 -0400
    Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 10:18 -0400
      Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 10:33 -0400
      Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-22 16:49 +0200
    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 08:40 +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 17:29 +0000
        Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-24 18:11 +0000
      Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-24 14:47 +0200
        Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-28 09:47 +0200
          Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 20:43 +1000
        Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-28 09:50 +0200
          Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2015-07-28 12:21 +0100
          Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 20:44 +1000

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#21382

M.L. <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 18:20:15 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >   Some Dutch providers tried tricks like this, but were put in their
> > place, because such restrictions/blocking are violating the
> > net-neutrality principle.
> 
> I thought that was an "American" concept, net neutrality.
> Does it apply to the various European countries also?
> Who enforces that?

  Net neutrality is a universal concept, but to a certain extend your
thinking is correct, because until now, only the US, The Netherlands
(my country) and Chile (of all countries) have laid down net neutrality
in *law*.

  For the EU (European Union) the European Parlement has accepted a
resolution in which it stresses that providers must treat (all)
internettraffic equally. However, AFAIK, even while it says "must", this
is not a law, but a "you'd better, or ...".

  This Dutch Wikipedia page has some info (the English page is
different):

<https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netneutraliteit>

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

#21394

"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message 
news:d1kmp8FeqgoU1@mid.individual.net...
> M.L. <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 18:20:15 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> >   Some Dutch providers tried tricks like this, but were put in their
>> > place, because such restrictions/blocking are violating the
>> > net-neutrality principle.
>>
>> I thought that was an "American" concept, net neutrality.
>> Does it apply to the various European countries also?
>> Who enforces that?
>
>  Net neutrality is a universal concept, but to a certain extend your
> thinking is correct, because until now, only the US, The Netherlands
> (my country) and Chile (of all countries) have laid down net neutrality
> in *law*.

That is a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#By_country

>  For the EU (European Union) the European Parlement has
> accepted a resolution in which it stresses that providers
> must treat (all) internettraffic equally. However, AFAIK, even
> while it says "must", this is not a law, but a "you'd better, or ...".

>  This Dutch Wikipedia page has some info (the English page is
> different):
>
> <https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netneutraliteit> 

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

#21413

Am 26.07.2015 um 20:21 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
> M.L. <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 18:20:15 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>    Some Dutch providers tried tricks like this, but were put in their
>>> place, because such restrictions/blocking are violating the
>>> net-neutrality principle.
>>
>> I thought that was an "American" concept, net neutrality.
>> Does it apply to the various European countries also?
>> Who enforces that?
>
>    Net neutrality is a universal concept, but to a certain extend your
> thinking is correct, because until now, only the US, The Netherlands
> (my country) and Chile (of all countries) have laid down net neutrality
> in *law*.
>
>    For the EU (European Union) the European Parlement has accepted a
> resolution in which it stresses that providers must treat (all)
> internettraffic equally. However, AFAIK, even while it says "must", this
> is not a law, but a "you'd better, or ...".

Everybody please bear in mind that this resolution of the European 
parliament is *only* expressing its opinion toward other European 
institutions, which are currently debating over a regulatory framework 
for the internet - and where the countries (pressed by the providers) 
would like to limit net neutrality. So at this point there is no 
European standard on net neutrality, and we have to see whether the 
parliament's version will make it into the final version...

Best regards,

Michael

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

#21305

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:38:56 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> As for Lime: I don't know that app/network, but be assured that
> virtually every youngster here in Germany these days uses WhatsApp
> (don't ask what I think about them in particular) - plus sometimes other
> messengers like iMessage, Threema, ... All of them without problems.

In Italy, it was similar that all the kids used WhatsApp. I never 
understood why, since, it doesn't seem to get them anything that we don't 
already have, for free, in the USA.

In the USA, almost everyone (not everyone, but lots of people) have 
unlimited texting, so, there's no need for Internet texting, which is 
what WhatsApp is, I think.

Plus, with the combination of GoogleVoice and GoogleHangouts, you can 
phone in the USA and SMS text for free all you want, even on a tablet, 
with the free T-mobile SIM card for life deal.

If you use a bluetooth speaker or earbud, the tablet becomes 
indistinguishable from a phone, in that it can make and receive calls, 
for free (to/from the USA), and it can make and receive SMS texts through 
the GoogleVoice phone number. All for free. 

So, a tablet becomes a free phone, up to 200Mbytes/month, which is more 
calls than I make from it (admittedly I don't use it often because I 
already have unlimited talk and text on my 'real' phone).

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

#21415

Am 26.07.2015 um 00:06 schrieb M.L.:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:38:56 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
>> As for Lime: I don't know that app/network, but be assured that
>> virtually every youngster here in Germany these days uses WhatsApp
>> (don't ask what I think about them in particular) - plus sometimes other
>> messengers like iMessage, Threema, ... All of them without problems.
>
> In Italy, it was similar that all the kids used WhatsApp. I never
> understood why, since, it doesn't seem to get them anything that we don't
> already have, for free, in the USA.

It's different over here (at least in Germany). Unlimited texting is 
available, but only with higher-priced plans, so for many years kids 
didn't have that. Internet-based texting (like WhatsApp, iMessage, ...) 
was/is a good alternative for them. Actually, the amount of texts being 
transported daily in Germany is currently on a steep decline (2012: 
162.9m, 2013: 101.3m, 2014 (est. as of end of October): 73.8m), all due 
to increasing usage of messengers.

> In the USA, almost everyone (not everyone, but lots of people) have
> unlimited texting, so, there's no need for Internet texting, which is
> what WhatsApp is, I think.

It is more than that, it can e.g. easily (and without extra costs) send 
pics, sounds, videos, ... All of which would be MMS in the texting 
system, and charged (quite heavily) extra.

> Plus, with the combination of GoogleVoice and GoogleHangouts, you can
> phone in the USA and SMS text for free all you want, even on a tablet,
> with the free T-mobile SIM card for life deal.

We don't have such an offer.

> If you use a bluetooth speaker or earbud, the tablet becomes
> indistinguishable from a phone, in that it can make and receive calls,
> for free (to/from the USA), and it can make and receive SMS texts through
> the GoogleVoice phone number. All for free.
>
> So, a tablet becomes a free phone, up to 200Mbytes/month, which is more
> calls than I make from it (admittedly I don't use it often because I
> already have unlimited talk and text on my 'real' phone).

200MB/month would way to limited for my daughter (even before she 
started with music streaming), even I'm breaking that limit these days 
rather regularily (though I assume I could make it most of the time, if 
I had to)...

Best regards,

Michael

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

#21306

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 22:51:22 +0200, Kees Nuyt wrote:

> The average consumer will only use VOIP if their ISP includes and
> supports it in the package - usually triple play: Internet / Phone / TV,
> either over phone or cable-TV infrastructure. They don't know it's VOIP
> though

Here in the states, the voip options abound, from proprietary 
applications such as Skype and/or Hangouts, to actual telephones such as 
Ooma and Vonage. 

For example, Ooma is something like $150 or less to purchase, and plug 
into your home broadband router, and then you can make phone calls to and 
from the USA for free for life, simply by paying the monthly $4 or so 
federal tax on the phone service.

Since VOIP is so *easy* here in the states, almost everyone has it by now.
However, "my" jitter is high (something like 15ms) so it's harder for me 
but I have lousy Internet service.

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

#21414

Am 24.07.2015 um 22:51 schrieb Kees Nuyt:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:38:56 +0200, Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>
> wrote:
>
>> It is true in the sense that many providers here in Germany actually
>> have a paragraph stating that VOIP is not supported.
>
> "Not supported" does not mean "forbidden".

Nope, they mean it in the sense of 'forbidden'.

> They just want to warn
> you that their helpdesk will not help you solve any problems with
> VOIP. You are on your own - but of course there are webfora and
> possibly newsgroups with enthousiasts that will try to help people
> with VOIP setup questions.

That is yet another point, but not the one they want to address with 
that paragraph.

>> However, as of now I have not really heard that they actually
>> enforce this - which in turn shows that this is not really
>> used all that much as of now. Might change, though...
>
> Low-cost VOIP is quite common in Europe for the tech savvy crowd.

Which is still a (comparably small) subset of the overall crowd... ;-)

> The average consumer will only use VOIP if their ISP includes and
> supports it in the package - usually triple play: Internet / Phone
> / TV, either over phone or cable-TV infrastructure. They don't
> know it's VOIP though ;)

Here in Germany all landline providers (mostly it's the former 
monopolist T-Com, but as well cable companies, Vodafone, and a few local 
ones) either always sold VoIP telephone lines, or currently in the 
process of converting all their landlines to VoIP (to be concluded by 
2018). However, this is done in a way that the usual consumer won't see 
much of a difference (except for perhaps slightly worse service grades).

Best regards,

Michael

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

#21481

Am 27.07.2015 um 21:56 schrieb Rod Speed:
> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote
>> Kees Nuyt wrote
>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote
>
>>>> It is true in the sense that many providers here in Germany actually
>>>> have a paragraph stating that VOIP is not supported.
>
>>> "Not supported" does not mean "forbidden".
>
>> Nope, they mean it in the sense of 'forbidden'.
>
> BULLSHIT. Skype works fine.

Did I say anything different? *You* don't understand the difference 
between something being being forbidden by the terms of the service 
(which is only a legal matter), and blocking something so that a 
customer can't use it (which is a technical matter). As I already stated 
days ago, a number of German providers have (had?) terms that forbid the 
usage of VoIP connections on their mobile networks - but I have to see a 
provider actually enforcing this regulation by blocking such services 
(like Skype).

>>> They just want to warn you that their helpdesk will not help you
>>> solve any problems with VOIP. You are on your own - but of course
>>> there are webfora and possibly newsgroups with enthousiasts that will
>>> try to help people with VOIP setup questions.
>
>> That is yet another point, but not the one they want to address with
>> that paragraph.
>
> Wrong on that last. VOIP is not forbidden. Skype works fine.

Read up about the difference between 'forbidden' and 'blocked'.

>>>> However, as of now I have not really heard that they actually
>>>> enforce this - which in turn shows that this is not really
>>>> used all that much as of now. Might change, though...
>
>>> Low-cost VOIP is quite common in Europe for the tech savvy crowd.
>
>> Which is still a (comparably small) subset of the overall crowd... ;-)
>
> Bullshit with Skype alone.

You've got no idea about the usage of Skype in Germany. And I'm not 
talking about the number of customers, but the number of minutes 
actually used - just to be precise.

>>> The average consumer will only use VOIP if their ISP includes and
>>> supports it in the package - usually triple play: Internet / Phone /
>>> TV, either over phone or cable-TV infrastructure. They don't know
>>> it's VOIP though ;)
>
>> Here in Germany all landline providers (mostly it's the former
>> monopolist T-Com, but as well cable companies, Vodafone, and a few
>> local ones) either always sold VoIP telephone lines, or currently in
>> the process of converting all their landlines to VoIP (to be concluded
>> by 2018).
>
> Separate matter entirely to what is being discussed.

As if you cared...

>> However, this is done in a way that the usual consumer won't see much
>> of a difference (except for perhaps slightly worse service grades).
>
> It can be significantly better.

Yepp, it can be. Unfortunately, as of now the service grade is not, it's 
worse. I'm on such a service and I (and many colleagues) see much more 
outages than we ever had using POTS. And since we (most of us at least) 
are still using classical phones (and not IP phones), the advantages 
like better voice transmission (due to higher bandwidth) don't really 
show up.

Michael

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

#21549

Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote
>>> Kees Nuyt wrote
>>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote

>>>>> It is true in the sense that many providers here in Germany actually 
>>>>> have a paragraph stating that VOIP is not supported.

>>>> "Not supported" does not mean "forbidden".

>>> Nope, they mean it in the sense of 'forbidden'.

>> BULLSHIT. Skype works fine.

> Did I say anything different?

Everyone can see that you did, fuckwit.

> *You* don't understand the difference between something being being 
> forbidden by the terms of the service

Skype isn't.

> (which is only a legal matter),

Wrong, as always.

> and blocking something so that a customer can't use it

Skype ain't either.

> (which is a technical matter).

Wrong, as always.

> As I already stated days ago, a number of German providers have (had?) 
> terms that forbid the usage of VoIP connections on their mobile networks

BULLSHIT.

> - but I have to see a provider actually enforcing this regulation by 
> blocking such services (like Skype).

Because they aren't allowed to forbid VOIP, fuckwit.

>>>> They just want to warn you that their helpdesk will not help you
>>>> solve any problems with VOIP. You are on your own - but of course
>>>> there are webfora and possibly newsgroups with enthousiasts that will
>>>> try to help people with VOIP setup questions.

>>> That is yet another point, but not the one they want to address with 
>>> that paragraph.

>> Wrong on that last. VOIP is not forbidden. Skype works fine.

> Read up about the difference between 'forbidden' and 'blocked'.

Don’t need to.

>>>>> However, as of now I have not really heard that they actually
>>>>> enforce this - which in turn shows that this is not really
>>>>> used all that much as of now. Might change, though...

>>>> Low-cost VOIP is quite common in Europe for the tech savvy crowd.

>>> Which is still a (comparably small) subset of the overall crowd... ;-)

>> Bullshit with Skype alone.

> You've got no idea about the usage of Skype in Germany.

Wrong, as always.

> And I'm not talking about the number of customers, but the number of 
> minutes actually used - just to be precise.

You don’t either, no one does.

>>>> The average consumer will only use VOIP if their ISP includes and
>>>> supports it in the package - usually triple play: Internet / Phone /
>>>> TV, either over phone or cable-TV infrastructure. They don't know
>>>> it's VOIP though ;)

>>> Here in Germany all landline providers (mostly it's the former
>>> monopolist T-Com, but as well cable companies, Vodafone, and a few local 
>>> ones) either always sold VoIP telephone lines, or currently in the 
>>> process of converting all their landlines to VoIP (to be concluded by 
>>> 2018).

>> Separate matter entirely to what is being discussed.

> As if you cared...

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

>>> However, this is done in a way that the usual consumer won't see much
>>> of a difference (except for perhaps slightly worse service grades).

>> It can be significantly better.

> Yepp, it can be. Unfortunately, as of now the service grade is not, it's 
> worse.

Wrong, as always.

> I'm on such a service and I (and many colleagues) see much more outages 
> than we ever had using POTS.

That isn't with the landlines converted to VOIP internally.

> And since we (most of us at least) are still using classical phones (and 
> not IP phones), the advantages like better voice transmission (due to 
> higher bandwidth) don't really show up.

Even more pig ignorant than you usually manage. 

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

#21559

Am 30.07.2015 um 12:33 schrieb Rod Speed:
> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote
>>>> Kees Nuyt wrote
>>>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote
>
>>>>>> It is true in the sense that many providers here in Germany
>>>>>> actually have a paragraph stating that VOIP is not supported.
>
>>>>> "Not supported" does not mean "forbidden".
>
>>>> Nope, they mean it in the sense of 'forbidden'.
>
>>> BULLSHIT. Skype works fine.
>
>> Did I say anything different?
>
> Everyone can see that you did, fuckwit.
>
>> *You* don't understand the difference between something being being
>> forbidden by the terms of the service
>
> Skype isn't.

And you know the German terms of service from our mobile providers where 
from?

>> (which is only a legal matter),
>
> Wrong, as always.

You don't have a clue, as always.

>> and blocking something so that a customer can't use it
>
> Skype ain't either.

I never said Skype is blocked.

>> (which is a technical matter).
>
> Wrong, as always.

Blocking Skype is no technical matter? That's even for your standards a 
new low in dumbness.

>> As I already stated days ago, a number of German providers have (had?)
>> terms that forbid the usage of VoIP connections on their mobile networks
>
> BULLSHIT.

As if you had any clue about the situation here in Germany.

>> - but I have to see a provider actually enforcing this regulation by
>> blocking such services (like Skype).
>
> Because they aren't allowed to forbid VOIP, fuckwit.

Show me the German(!) law forbidding them such a term.

>>>>> They just want to warn you that their helpdesk will not help you
>>>>> solve any problems with VOIP. You are on your own - but of course
>>>>> there are webfora and possibly newsgroups with enthousiasts that will
>>>>> try to help people with VOIP setup questions.
>
>>>> That is yet another point, but not the one they want to address with
>>>> that paragraph.
>
>>> Wrong on that last. VOIP is not forbidden. Skype works fine.

Two different things, but you wouldn't understand even if it was written 
in bold a meter in front of your eyes.

>> Read up about the difference between 'forbidden' and 'blocked'.
>
> Don’t need to.

No, you dont, Mr. Know-it-all. You've already made well enough of a 
laugh of you with your claims here. :-) This time it took some time, but 
in the end you never disappoint me, you always fall back into your 
childish 'I know it better, and you're an ***' behavior. You really 
should seek professional advice, and not from then sheep doctor next door...

>>>>>> However, as of now I have not really heard that they actually
>>>>>> enforce this - which in turn shows that this is not really
>>>>>> used all that much as of now. Might change, though...
>
>>>>> Low-cost VOIP is quite common in Europe for the tech savvy crowd.
>
>>>> Which is still a (comparably small) subset of the overall crowd... ;-)
>
>>> Bullshit with Skype alone.
>
>> You've got no idea about the usage of Skype in Germany.
>
> Wrong, as always.

Here we go again...

>> And I'm not talking about the number of customers, but the number of
>> minutes actually used - just to be precise.
>
> You don’t either, no one does.

Hm, shall I start using some simple logic on you? Well, you will not 
understand it, but anyway: A few lines up you claimed that my statement 
of you having no idea about Skype usage in Germany is wrong. In turn 
that means that you do know what the Skype usage in Germany is. Here, on 
the other hand, you claim that no one knows these numbers. So, no one 
knows the numbers, but you know about the usage of Skype in Germany. 
Consequence: Either your name is 'no one' or you're an idiot. Guess what 
I'm going for, Mr. Speed. :-)

>>>>> The average consumer will only use VOIP if their ISP includes and
>>>>> supports it in the package - usually triple play: Internet / Phone /
>>>>> TV, either over phone or cable-TV infrastructure. They don't know
>>>>> it's VOIP though ;)
>
>>>> Here in Germany all landline providers (mostly it's the former
>>>> monopolist T-Com, but as well cable companies, Vodafone, and a few
>>>> local ones) either always sold VoIP telephone lines, or currently in
>>>> the process of converting all their landlines to VoIP (to be
>>>> concluded by 2018).
>
>>> Separate matter entirely to what is being discussed.
>
>> As if you cared...
>
> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

Here we go again.

>>>> However, this is done in a way that the usual consumer won't see much
>>>> of a difference (except for perhaps slightly worse service grades).
>
>>> It can be significantly better.
>
>> Yepp, it can be. Unfortunately, as of now the service grade is not,
>> it's worse.
>
> Wrong, as always.

You're living literally on the other side of the earth, but claim to 
know about the service quality here in Germany? Quite a nice joke... ;-)

>> I'm on such a service and I (and many colleagues) see much more
>> outages than we ever had using POTS.
>
> That isn't with the landlines converted to VOIP internally.

You obviously have not the slightest clue what I'm talking about.

>> And since we (most of us at least) are still using classical phones
>> (and not IP phones), the advantages like better voice transmission
>> (due to higher bandwidth) don't really show up.
>
> Even more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

And still another one... :-)

Michael

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

#21570

Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote
>>>>> Kees Nuyt wrote
>>>>>> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote

>>>>>>> It is true in the sense that many providers here in Germany
>>>>>>> actually have a paragraph stating that VOIP is not supported.

>>>>>> "Not supported" does not mean "forbidden".

>>>>> Nope, they mean it in the sense of 'forbidden'.

>>>> BULLSHIT. Skype works fine.

>>> Did I say anything different?

>> Everyone can see that you did, fuckwit.

>>> *You* don't understand the difference between something being being 
>>> forbidden by the terms of the service

>> Skype isn't.

> And you know the German terms of service from our mobile providers where 
> from?

I got real radical and used the net, fuckwit.

>>> (which is only a legal matter),

>> Wrong, as always.

> You don't have a clue, as always.

Terms of service ain't a legal matter, fuckwit.

>>> and blocking something so that a customer can't use it

>> Skype ain't either.

> I never said Skype is blocked.

I never said you did.

>>> (which is a technical matter).

>> Wrong, as always.

> Blocking Skype is no technical matter?

You just said that skype ain't blocked, fuckwit.

>>> As I already stated days ago, a number of German providers have (had?)
>>> terms that forbid the usage of VoIP connections on their mobile networks

>> BULLSHIT.

> As if you had any clue about the situation here in Germany.

You're free to cite kraut providers doing that.

>>> - but I have to see a provider actually enforcing this regulation by 
>>> blocking such services (like Skype).

>> Because they aren't allowed to forbid VOIP, fuckwit.

> Show me the German(!) law forbidding them such a term.

Go and fuck yourself, again.

>>>>>> They just want to warn you that their helpdesk will not help you 
>>>>>> solve any problems with VOIP. You are on your own - but of course 
>>>>>> there are webfora and possibly newsgroups with enthousiasts that will 
>>>>>> try to help people with VOIP setup questions.

>>>>> That is yet another point, but not the one they want to address with
>>>>> that paragraph.

>>>> Wrong on that last. VOIP is not forbidden. Skype works fine.

> Two different things,

Wrong, as always.

<reams of your desperate attempt to bullshit your
way out of your predicament that any 2 year old
could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

>>> Read up about the difference between 'forbidden' and 'blocked'.

>> Don’t need to.

<reams of your desperate attempt to bullshit your
way out of your predicament that any 2 year old
could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

>>>>>>> However, as of now I have not really heard that they actually
>>>>>>> enforce this - which in turn shows that this is not really
>>>>>>> used all that much as of now. Might change, though...

>>>>>> Low-cost VOIP is quite common in Europe for the tech savvy crowd.

>>>>> Which is still a (comparably small) subset of the overall crowd... ;-)

>>>> Bullshit with Skype alone.

>>> You've got no idea about the usage of Skype in Germany.

>> Wrong, as always.

> Here we go again...

Just how many of you are there between those ears, kraut ?

>>> And I'm not talking about the number of customers, but the number of 
>>> minutes actually used - just to be precise.

>> You don’t either, no one does.

<reams of your desperate attempt to bullshit your
way out of your predicament that any 2 year old
could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

>>>>>> The average consumer will only use VOIP if their ISP includes and
>>>>>> supports it in the package - usually triple play: Internet / Phone /
>>>>>> TV, either over phone or cable-TV infrastructure. They don't know
>>>>>> it's VOIP though ;)
>>
>>>>> Here in Germany all landline providers (mostly it's the former
>>>>> monopolist T-Com, but as well cable companies, Vodafone, and a few
>>>>> local ones) either always sold VoIP telephone lines, or currently in
>>>>> the process of converting all their landlines to VoIP (to be
>>>>> concluded by 2018).
>>
>>>> Separate matter entirely to what is being discussed.
>>
>>> As if you cared...
>>
>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>
> Here we go again.

Record's stuck, kraut.

>>>>> However, this is done in a way that the usual consumer won't see much
>>>>> of a difference (except for perhaps slightly worse service grades).

>>>> It can be significantly better.

>>> Yepp, it can be. Unfortunately, as of now the service grade is not, it's 
>>> worse.

>> Wrong, as always.

> You're living literally on the other side of the earth, but claim to know 
> about the service quality here in Germany?

You krauts don’t fuck things like that, fuckwit.

>>> I'm on such a service and I (and many colleagues) see much more outages 
>>> than we ever had using POTS.

>> That isn't with the landlines converted to VOIP internally.

> You obviously have not the slightest clue what I'm talking about.

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

>>> And since we (most of us at least) are still using classical phones
>>> (and not IP phones), the advantages like better voice transmission
>>> (due to higher bandwidth) don't really show up.

>> Even more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

<reams of your desperate attempt to bullshit your
way out of your predicament that any 2 year old
could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
 

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

#21295

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:01:04 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> - We have nowadays three (mobile) network providers (T-Mobile, Vodafone
> and O2/E-Plus 

Wow. 

That was a wonderfully detailed synopsys of European cellphone providers!

> - For all three networks there are plenty of resellers, offering their
> own contract 

Similar to our schemes.

> the area coverage of the different networks is on a comparable
> (and high) level, things certainly differ in detail from area to area.

Same here in the states.

- No operator will be the least interested which
> (type/brand/make/model/...) of phone your putting your SIM card in.

That is a big difference with AT&T in the USA who will charge *more* for 
service on any phone they call a "smart" phone that doesn't have data and 
which even may have a data block!

> There are no surcharges (known to me) just for the fact that you're
> using a smartphone. 

Same with T-mobile in the states; but I don't know about Verizon.

> Or you just take a sharp
> knife and any of the explanations found on the net and cut the Micro-SIM
> down... ;-)

Here, in my local T-mobile store, they cut the normal sim down to a micro-
sim sized card for you in a hand-held press.

> - Contracts (as I already stated elsewhere) run in Germany usually for
> 24 months, though there are some providers offering other (shorter).

Similar to here in the states, I think both Verizon and AT&T habitually 
require 24-month contracts; certainly T-mobile does not for most plans 
(maybe all?).

> the contract will *automatically* extend 

I've had both AT&T and Verizon and I don't think they extend the 
contract, unless you *change* something. So you just go "off contract" 
after your 24 months, as I recall.

> keep in mind not to use that SIM card anymore after the termination,
> some (many?) providers take this as the sign that you want to revive the
> contract, and you're back with a one-year contract... :-(

Here, in the USA, you can terminate at any time, but often (with Verizon 
and AT&T) there is an early termination fee. Of course, every provider 
must give you 30 days in California and usually 15 days in the other 
states to *return* the entire phone & package with no penalty (buyer's 
remorse contracts).

I love buyers-remorse laws because they keep the sellers more honest than 
they would otherwise be since you'll find out most of their lies in the 
first few weeks.

> - If you need a phone, I'd rather go for buying it 'anywhere' than for
> getting a subsidized phone from a provider (unless you really can't
> afford to pay for the phone right away). 

The phone is the same here. While you can get an Android phone for 
something like fifty bucks at a local department store, you really can't 
get a decent unlocked smart phone for less than about two hundred bucks 
(i.e., at least 1GHz CPU, at least 1GB RAM, at least 16GB internal 
memory, and a decent screen). Most very nice unlocked smart phones are 
$350 to $700. 

With T-mobile, you get the phone without a contract simply by paying the 
tax, and then you pay the rest of the phone off in 24 months, with no 
interest (but they charge about fifty bucks more for the phone than you 
would pay if you bought it online).

> 'Subsidized' phones almost
> always cost more than buying them at a cheap local (or internet) dealer.

Same here, in spades!

> However, if one goes for a subsidized phone pay attention to its locking
> status: Is it locked to the network of the provider/network operator or
> not? If it is, you're tightly bound to that particular network/provider
> (details vary) and you'll get this lock lifted after the contract period
> is over.

Same here. The entire locking/unlocking is a "game" played by the phone 
companies, and they try to fight it with copyright laws (long story).

In essence, it really doesn't matter for USA domestic use since there are 
realistically only two providers, and, realistically, people don't switch 
all that often. So, if you are happy with one provider, unlocking is only 
really useful for travel.

> Or, as some providers offer, you can pay an extra amount for
> lifting the block 'immediately' (sometimes only possible after one year
> or so).

It's similar here.

Here, by law, I think, they have to unlock a phone if it's paid for and 
if you still have a "business relationship" with the carrier  (again, 
this is a long story wrapped up in capricious copyright-law decisions).

 if  Unnecessary hassle, if you ask me... ;-) Oh, and by the way, if
> you have a subsidized phone (e.g. on a two year contract) and your
> contract matures, then you'll continue to pay for both the service *and*
> the phone, eventhough you already paid the phone completely (or even
> more than that). 

Yea, same here. If you're dumb enough to own a subsidized phone in the 
first place, then you're also probably dumb enough to *continue* to pay 
the subsidy, long after the contract expires.

You get what you deserve both in Europe, and in the USA, if you're that 
dumb to own a subsidized phone (and, to proclaim triumphantly you got a 
great deal on the phone!).

All in all, it seems like Europe is almost exactly like the USA.
Thanks for the copious detail! It's wonderful to know.

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

#21299

M.L. <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:01:04 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:
> 
> > - We have nowadays three (mobile) network providers (T-Mobile, Vodafone
> > and O2/E-Plus 
> 
> Wow. 
> 
> That was a wonderfully detailed synopsys of European cellphone providers!
[...]
> All in all, it seems like Europe is almost exactly like the USA.
> Thanks for the copious detail! It's wonderful to know.

  Michael will probably respond/correct as well, but in case he doesn't:

  What Michael described is the situation in *Germany*, not in "Europe".

  For example in The Netherlands, we don't have O2/E-Plus (but KPN). And
we do have T-Mobile and Vodafone, but our T-Mobile and Vodafone are
nothing like Michael's/Germany's, in the same way as your (US) T-Mobile
is nothing like Michael's/Germany's. Fun, isn't it! :-(

  BTW, if you ever find this thing "Europe", please let's know, because
we "Europeans" wouldn't have a clue what it is! :-)

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

#21303

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 20:18:20 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:

>   BTW, if you ever find this thing "Europe", please let's know, because
> we "Europeans" wouldn't have a clue what it is!

My mistake. Thanks for correcting me, as I even included GB in that 
designation of "Europe". 

For we Americans, Europe is everything up until it gets fuzzy for us, 
which is, GB, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and then a few more 
countries that we can never remember such as Switzerland, Portugal, 
Norway, Finland, Sweden, Austria, and then, it gets really fuzzy, where 
Belgium, Ireland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, and a few tiny 
states such at the Vatican and San Marino, and, oh, maybe Malta, but 
probably not. 

I can never keep Holland, Denmark, and The Netherlands separate, so, I 
apologize if, without looking it up, I erred.

Europe decidedly stops *before* the deep Warsaw Pact countries though, 
such as the Balkan Peninsula down to Greece and up the Caucasus through 
Poland and the Latvians, Lithuanians, and Estonians.

Anyway, that's "Europe" to me. :)

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

#21417

Am 26.07.2015 um 00:00 schrieb M.L.:
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 20:18:20 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>>    BTW, if you ever find this thing "Europe", please let's know, because
>> we "Europeans" wouldn't have a clue what it is!
>
> My mistake. Thanks for correcting me, as I even included GB in that
> designation of "Europe".
>
> For we Americans, Europe is everything up until it gets fuzzy for us,
> which is, GB, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and then a few more
> countries that we can never remember such as Switzerland, Portugal,
> Norway, Finland, Sweden, Austria, and then, it gets really fuzzy, where
> Belgium, Ireland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, and a few tiny
> states such at the Vatican and San Marino, and, oh, maybe Malta, but
> probably not.
>
> I can never keep Holland, Denmark, and The Netherlands separate, so, I
> apologize if, without looking it up, I erred.
>
> Europe decidedly stops *before* the deep Warsaw Pact countries though,
> such as the Balkan Peninsula down to Greece and up the Caucasus through
> Poland and the Latvians, Lithuanians, and Estonians.
>
> Anyway, that's "Europe" to me. :)

We have so many different 'Europes', you'll be astonished:

- Europe by geography: Everything from the most western parts of 
Portugal up to the Ural mountains deep in Russia (way behind Moscow). 
Consists of some 40-50 countries if I'm not mistaken (too lazy to try 
and count them). To the north, the arctic is the border, to the south 
basically the Mediterranean sea. Actually, even the (small) 
north-western part of Turkey belongs to Europe in this view.

- Politically:
There are so many different European institutions, that I will give only 
a few:
- European Union (EU): 28 countries are a member, from Portugal to 
Poland, Hungary, Romania, Greece in the East. Finland and Sweden are a 
member, Norway is not. And Switzerland is neither (it's the 'hole in the 
middle').
- Economic and Monetary Union EMU: The countries having the Euro as 
their common currency (19), plus a few others (9). Great Britain e.g. is 
a member of this treaty, but does not have the EUR.
- Schengen-States: If I'm not mistaken about 23 states (mostly from the 
EU, but others like Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are a member too), 
plus 4 future members, plus two cooperating member (GB and IRL).
- European Council: This way older than the EU (already founded in 1949 
as a platform to discuss European topics), members are all states (but 
Belarus, which is listed as a candidate) on the soil of continental 
Europe (including their Asian parts), making it 47 countries in total. 
Plus some countries (US, Canada, Israel, Mexico) which are listed as 
'bystanders' (or what's the correct term for somebody taking part in a 
council, but without voter's rights?)
- And there are quite a number of further institutions based around 
European countries... ;-)

And, most importantly, except for the EU (and, to some extent the EMU), 
none of these organisations have any power for forcing countries to 
change their laws. And even the rights of the EU and the EMU are limited 
(though far-reaching in some regards). It's still a very long way until 
there can be something like the United States of Europe - if it ever 
will come... ;-)

Best regards,

Michael

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

#21416

Am 25.07.2015 um 21:50 schrieb M.L.:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:01:04 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
>> - We have nowadays three (mobile) network providers (T-Mobile, Vodafone
>> and O2/E-Plus
>
> Wow.
>
> That was a wonderfully detailed synopsys of European cellphone providers!

Small correction: This is the situation in *Germany*, each European 
country does have its own providers, plans, laws, usual business 
practices, ... ;-)

<...>

> All in all, it seems like Europe is almost exactly like the USA.

There are certainly a rather high amount of similarities between Germany 
and the US (I can't speak for any other European countries), but the 
differences are nowhere near being neglectable... ;-)

> Thanks for the copious detail! It's wonderful to know.

You're welcome,

Michael

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

#21156

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:37:22 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> And, just for your preparation: contract in Germany are almost always
> two-year contracts, other (shorter) durations are quite hard to find.
> And 'leaving the country' usually is not a valid reason for an early
> cancellation of such a contract.

Wow. That's too bad. 

Here in the states, with USA T-mobile, you have no contract, and if you 
buy the phone from them, you just pay off what you owe on it if you leave.

If you are on another carrier, T-mobile will pay all your early 
termination fees (up to about $300 or so per service line) and they will 
buy your old phone from you (up to about $200 or so per phone).

Then they will give you a new phone for the tax alone, and then you just 
pay off that new phone, interest free, at 1/24th the agreed cost of the 
phone (which, in practice, is about $50 more at T-mobile than what you 
could get it yourself from Google Play for - so - the interest is that 
fifty bucks over two years which is somewhere around 5% or so, give or 
take a few points).

Our "freedom" in phone contracts seems to be far greater than yours; 
however, it's not *really* all that free in the USA because we 
effectively only have two GSM choices (AT&T or T-mobile).

Do you guys in Europe have more effective GSM choices than we have?

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

#21308

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:12:25 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> That differs from country to country, but usually there should be not
> less than three network providers (at least for the larger states), plus
> plenty of resellers/providers. So yes, you usually have plenty of choice
> over here, which makes choosing the 'right' contract (or pre-paid) so
> difficult.

Thanks for the insight into the German and other European policies. 

Here, we have three major choices, either Verizon (CDMA) which is well 
entrenched, or AT&T which is next most common, and then T-mobile, which 
is the hungry little guy of the big three.

After that there must be at least a half-dozen companies, from Sprint to 
Virgin, but I don't know them (nor do I understand why people even use 
them).

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

#21125

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:17:53 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:
 
> What data speeds do you get in the US? Here in Germany at least we have
> almost everywhere these days at least 50MBit/s, in most city areas even
> 150MBit/s or above. 

We get the same speeds here in the USA but T-mobile told me that the 
speeds will be lower in Europe due to they have no control over whom you 
will be roaming on. I remember when I traveled, they were usable but not 
lightning fast, but, no worse than some places in the USA that were in 
the middle of nowhere.

Here, in the USA, for four phones, we pay about $100 USD a month for 
about 2.5GB of high-speed (unlimited low speed) data, unlimited calls to 
and from the USA, and unlimited texting to/from anywhere.

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

#21132

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:18:17 -0400, M.L. wrote:

> Here, in the USA, for four phones, we pay about $100 USD a month for
> about 2.5GB of high-speed (unlimited low speed) data, unlimited calls to
> and from the USA, and unlimited texting to/from anywhere.

I should clarify that the T-mobile data isn't shared, so that's $100 per 
month for 4 phones for 2.5 GB of high-speed data per phone (unlimited low 
speed data) and unlimited USA phone calls and unlimited texting.

I used to pay, years ago, for my teen's texting at 200 texts per month, 
but she would blow through that in a week, and then it was something like 
10 cents for every additional text (which was a killer). We finally 
changed the plan to the one we have now, which somehow gets us unlimited 
data per phone in Europe for no additional charge.

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web