Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>
>>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>>
>>>> How would a client-side app know anything about a call until the call
>>>> gets connected to the phone?
>>>
>>> The caller sends his ID along and any app or the phone can suppress
>>> easily the phone ringing.
>>
>> Here the CID data is sent between ring 1 and ring 2.
>
> For landlines in the UK, CLI is sent before the first ring (there's a polarity
> reversal on the line to signal it's going to arrive).

That's interesting. It would prevent the phone ever ringing if it got
blocked by blacklist. Don't know if that works with cell phones,
though. The phone would have to connect, get the CID from the carrier,
before allowing the phone to ring. I could see a dialer app muting the
phone to hide the 1st ring. The ring happens. The phone doesn't hear
it.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> This feature you have in the USA where you can be charged for receiving
> a call is amazing to me, I don't know how that works. Here, the
> receiving side never pays a cent no matter what you do - unless you are
> roaming abroad and answer the call.

The USA system is built from the perspective that as a mobile user,
you are roaming "abroad" (= outside the fixed network) and thus have
to pay for the terminating end of the call.
The caller pays the normal rate for any fixed-line call (maybe nothing
at all) and does not have to know that the receiver is roaming, just
like in Europe the caller always pays national rate even when the receiver
is abroad.

Am 29.11.21 um 08:42 schrieb VanguardLH:
> Where is "here"? I only know how CID data is transferred in the USA.
> Without connecting to the phone, how is the phone going to get the CID?

Here is the European Continent. The sequence of the events seems to be
different "here".

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 29.11.21 um 10:21 schrieb VanguardLH:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> For landlines in the UK, CLI is sent before the first ring (there's a polarity
>> reversal on the line to signal it's going to arrive).
>
> That's interesting. It would prevent the phone ever ringing if it got
> blocked by blacklist. Don't know if that works with cell phones,
> though.

Here it does.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 29.11.21 um 11:18 schrieb Rob:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> This feature you have in the USA where you can be charged for receiving
>> a call is amazing to me, I don't know how that works. Here, the
>> receiving side never pays a cent no matter what you do - unless you are
>> roaming abroad and answer the call.
>
> The USA system is built from the perspective that as a mobile user,
> you are roaming "abroad" (= outside the fixed network) and thus have
> to pay for the terminating end of the call.
> The caller pays the normal rate for any fixed-line call (maybe nothing
> at all) and does not have to know that the receiver is roaming, just
> like in Europe the caller always pays national rate even when the receiver
> is abroad.

That is almost correct. There do not exist roaming fees anymore within
Europe. Everything is viewed as domestic calls. Interconnection fees
among mobile companies are netting out anyway.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 29.11.21 um 09:58 schrieb Andy Burns:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> I'm willing to trust google's judgment and reject every single one of these
>> calls before it gets to me and triggers a charge.  I'm willing to reject any
>> call from someone NOT in my contacts list.
>
> I think pixel phones in the USA have had google's robo call-screening option for
> a couple of years now, we've not been so lucky in the UK.
>
> Last friday I had a call (from a known number) and as well as green=answer,
> red=busy buttons, I got a blue=screen button for the call, since it was a
> customer I answered it, but I'll see if that's a standard feature we get here now.
>
> Charges are not an issue for us as caller pays ...

You are aware that Google now knows who is calling you, when and how long?

That's my provider's job and certainly not Google this evil company.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> Rob wrote:
>
>> The USA system is built from the perspective that as a mobile user,
>> you are roaming "abroad" (= outside the fixed network) and thus have
>> to pay for the terminating end of the call.
>> The caller pays the normal rate for any fixed-line call (maybe nothing
>> at all) and does not have to know that the receiver is roaming, just
>> like in Europe the caller always pays national rate even when the receiver
>> is abroad.
>
> That is almost correct. There do not exist roaming fees anymore within
> Europe.

s/Europe/the EU/

> Everything is viewed as domestic calls. Interconnection fees
> among mobile companies are netting out anyway.

Am 29.11.21 um 11:42 schrieb Andy Burns:
> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> Rob wrote:
>>
>>> The USA system is built from the perspective that as a mobile user,
>>> you are roaming "abroad" (= outside the fixed network) and thus have
>>> to pay for the terminating end of the call.
>>> The caller pays the normal rate for any fixed-line call (maybe nothing
>>> at all) and does not have to know that the receiver is roaming, just
>>> like in Europe the caller always pays national rate even when the receiver
>>> is abroad.
>>
>> That is almost correct. There do not exist roaming fees anymore within
>> Europe.
>
> s/Europe/the EU/

I do not care about the Brits. They wanted it that way.

>> Everything is viewed as domestic calls. Interconnection fees
>> among mobile companies are netting out anyway.
>
>

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> You are aware that Google now knows who is calling you, when and how long?
> That's my provider's job and certainly not Google this evil company.

I'm sure that's been the case for the last 11 years since I got a smartphone.

On 29/11/2021 03.20, VanguardLH wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 29/11/2021 01.54, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pixel2 using the 'phone' app that came with it. Google is very good
>>>> about labeling calls 'spam calls' but then it lets them go through.
>>>> This crap has cost m4 $2.50 in the last month. I pay $10/year for the
>>>> prepaid plan and (obviously) make very few calls, so you can see why
>>>> I'm pissed.
>>>>
>>>> I just set it to 'Block calls from unidentified callers' but that's kind
>>>> of ambiguous. Does it actually connect the call, triggering a charge,
>>>> but prevent it from ringing or leaving voicemail? Just exactly what
>>>> does 'block' mean here?
>>>>
>>>> I'm willing to trust google's judgment and reject every single one of
>>>> these calls before it gets to me and triggers a charge. I'm willing to
>>>> reject any call from someone NOT in my contacts list.
>>>>
>>>> Is such a thing even possible?
>>>
>>> Blocking at the client end (phone) can't do anything until the call
>>> has been accepted, so your phone rings.
>>
>> Mine doesn't.
>
> How would a client-side app know anything about a call until the call
> gets connected to the phone? By the way, call accepted is not the same
> as call completed (answered).

It gets connected, but it doesn't have to ring yet.

>
> How does Caller ID work in Spain? It doesn't have the CID data sent
> between the 1st and 2nd ring? Well, that still means the call got
> accepted by the phone, so the phone rings.

On land lines, not on mobiles.

Mobile phones get also a data path for signaling, the call id number is
there instantly.

>> So I don't know at what point in the call you get charged. It should
>> be only on call completion, ie, on answer.
>
> I would think so, too. I'm on a quota (not unlimited), and don't
> remember getting my quota getting dinged for a call connection that was
> not completed. However, I don't know how all carriers handle call
> accept versus call complete. Yet I do know that I get dinged on a
> completed incoming call while the caller also gets dinged for their
> outbound call; i.e., both ends get dinged, so the sending carrier
> charges the caller and the receiving carrier charges the callee, even if
> caller and callee are using the same carrier. I suppose the calling
> service still has to use resources, and so does the called service, so
> both ends are expending resources to connect a call. The station has to
> pay to put gas into their tank, and you have to pay to take some out.

Here all is paid by the calling part alone. That the receiving side has
to pay anything is outrageous.

The only exception is roaming, when a mobile phone is abroad. The
receiving end pays the international part of the call.

....

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Am 29.11.21 um 11:44 schrieb Andy Burns:
> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> You are aware that Google now knows who is calling you, when and how long?
>> That's my provider's job and certainly not Google this evil company.
>
> I'm sure that's been the case for the last 11 years since I got a smartphone.

In case you trust Google, it is OK.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>
>>> There do not exist roaming fees anymore within Europe.
>>
>> s/Europe/the EU/
>
> I do not care about the Brits. They wanted it that way.

Russia is in Europe, do you get free roaming there?

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>
>>> You are aware that Google now knows who is calling you, when and how long?
>>> That's my provider's job and certainly not Google this evil company.
>>
>> I'm sure that's been the case for the last 11 years since I got a smartphone.
>
> In case you trust Google, it is OK.

When I chose a smartphone, I realised I could either trust numerous apps from
different companies, or (as far as possible) trust apps from a single company,
and so I prefer to use google apps.

Am 29.11.21 um 11:51 schrieb Andy Burns:
> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>
>>>> There do not exist roaming fees anymore within Europe.
>>>
>>> s/Europe/the EU/
>>
>> I do not care about the Brits. They wanted it that way.
>
> Russia is in Europe, do you get free roaming there?

Russia is not a European country. A small part lies still on the
European continent. For this discussion it is irrelevant anyway.

Wikipedia:

Russia (Russian: Россия, Rossiya, Russian pronunciation: [rɐˈsʲijə]), or
the Russian Federation,[b] is a country spanning Eastern Europe and
Northern Asia. It is the largest country in the world, covering over
17,125,191 square kilometres (6,612,073 sq mi), and encompassing
one-eighth of Earth's inhabitable landmass. Russia extends across eleven
time zones,

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Russia is in Europe, do you get free roaming there?
>
> Russia is not a European country. A small part lies still on the
> European continent. For this discussion it is irrelevant anyway.

Well, do you get free roaming in every European country, regardless of whether
it's an EU member?

Am 29.11.21 um 12:08 schrieb Andy Burns:
> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> Russia is in Europe, do you get free roaming there?
>>
>> Russia is not a European country. A small part lies still on the
>> European continent. For this discussion it is irrelevant anyway.
>
> Well, do you get free roaming in every European country, regardless of whether
> it's an EU member?

Yes.

My contract is CHF 45/month ($50)
Unlimited free domestic calls
Unlimited free calls in and to 40 countries(1) including Canada and the
US. Also including the UK.
Free unlimited data roaming in 40 countries including Canada and the US
(including all their foreign territiories). Including the UK.
Free and unlimited text in these 40 countries.

(1)
Alaska, Andorra, Belgien, Bulgarien, Dänemark, Deutschland, Estland,
Färöer, Finnland, Frankreich, Gibraltar, Griechenland, Grossbritannien,
Guernsey, Hawaii, Irland, Island, Isle of Man, Italien, Jersey, Kanada,
Kroatien, Lettland, Litauen, Luxemburg, Malta, Monaco, Niederlande,
Norwegen, Österreich, Polen, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Rumänien, San
Marino, Schweden, Slowakei, Slowenien, Spanien, St. Croix, St. John, St.
Thomas, Tschechien, Türkei, USA, Ungarn, Vatikan, Zypern

Our landline is more or less redundant. We keep it because it is part of
the package with internet and TV. Domestic calls including mobile
numbers are free.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

In article <so1pl5$gf3$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

> > This feature you have in the USA where you can be charged for receiving
> > a call is amazing to me, I don't know how that works. Here, the
> > receiving side never pays a cent no matter what you do - unless you are
> > roaming abroad and answer the call.
>
> I put it down to good lobbying by the cellphone industry.

nope. very early on, they tested caller pays and it was rejected by
consumers, rightly so.

In article <fs5fq3jp7qc4.dlg@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH>
wrote:
>
> Here the CID data is sent between ring 1 and ring 2. That means the
> provider has already connected to the phone, and the phone rings at
> least once. The 2nd and further rings may not happen if the CID is
> blacklisted. Only an app, designated as the dialer, could suppress the
> 1st ring, so you don't hear it. The 2nd ring is the first one you hear,
> but also after the provider and phone have connected. That an app
> suppresses you hearing the 1st ring doesn't mean there wasn't one. I
> can mute the sound and suppress all rings of a call.

only for landlines.

for cellphones, the caller id number is sent when the call is set up,
*before* the cellphone rings, which then has full control over what to
do.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <so1pl5$gf3$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > This feature you have in the USA where you can be charged for receiving
>> > a call is amazing to me, I don't know how that works. Here, the
>> > receiving side never pays a cent no matter what you do - unless you are
>> > roaming abroad and answer the call.
>>
>> I put it down to good lobbying by the cellphone industry.
>
> nope. very early on, they tested caller pays and it was rejected by
> consumers, rightly so.

This is not something that an individual consumer should be able to
choose, that is much too confusing. It should be no problem to transform
the entire system into "caller pays" at some specific date, there would
be nothing to reject.

Over here the network has worked like that from day 1 and nobody has
rejected anything. If you want to have your mobile reachable at fixed
line rates, you can simply forward a fixed line to your mobile using
*21* or *61* forwarding.

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> do you get free roaming in every European country, regardless of whether
>> it's an EU member?
>
> Yes.
>
> Unlimited free calls in and to 40 countries(1) including Canada and the
> US. Also including the UK.

Given there are 50 countries in Europe, you must have meant "no" above

In article <slrnsq9lco.l6t.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nomail@example.com> wrote:

> >> > This feature you have in the USA where you can be charged for receiving
> >> > a call is amazing to me, I don't know how that works. Here, the
> >> > receiving side never pays a cent no matter what you do - unless you are
> >> > roaming abroad and answer the call.
> >>
> >> I put it down to good lobbying by the cellphone industry.
> >
> > nope. very early on, they tested caller pays and it was rejected by
> > consumers, rightly so.
>
> This is not something that an individual consumer should be able to
> choose, that is much too confusing. It should be no problem to transform
> the entire system into "caller pays" at some specific date, there would
> be nothing to reject.

the problem with caller pays is that it puts those with cellphones at a
disadvantage, particularly businesses, since callers will often choose
to call a different business, one with a landline, because it's
cheaper.

cellphones use airtime. those who use airtime pay for it. it's simple,
straightforward and fair.

> Over here the network has worked like that from day 1 and nobody has
> rejected anything.

did they try both systems? if not, it's not valid.

very early on, the usa *did* try both, and customers rejected caller
pays.

> If you want to have your mobile reachable at fixed
> line rates, you can simply forward a fixed line to your mobile using
> *21* or *61* forwarding.

that's more hassle, and not always an option since call forwarding was
originally a paid extra service. these days, it's bundled, but that was
not the case 40 years ago (or even 20 years ago).

On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 22:38:49 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

>> I think you'll agree that it's a good thing that there are so many
>> different options available for folks with different needs...
>
> Of course, but I want what *I* want!

The value is in the degree of choice we each have, to serve our needs.

On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 20:27:09 -0700, AJL wrote:

> Those of us with unlimited talk and text don't worry about it. But of
> course we pay more for the privilege. I pay a whopping US $20/mo per
> line (plus taxes and fees) for nationwide service (data is extra).

I pay $25/line (plus $4/line for taxes & fees) for unlimited calls (within
the USA), text, and 5G data (which can be deprioritized after around
50GB/month/tower but I never get that far so I'm not sure if it happens).
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg>

That even includes two free-for-life 200MB/month SIM cards for the iPads.
<https://i.postimg.cc/L6dFGXVd/tmopromo03.jpg>

Still, there's value in those pay-for-use types of plans, which, if it was
just me, I might consider them since I barely use the phone as a telephone.

The young kids and teen grandkids use all the data, not the octogenarians.

Am 29.11.21 um 13:45 schrieb nospam:
> In article <so1pl5$gf3$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> This feature you have in the USA where you can be charged for receiving
>>> a call is amazing to me, I don't know how that works. Here, the
>>> receiving side never pays a cent no matter what you do - unless you are
>>> roaming abroad and answer the call.
>>
>> I put it down to good lobbying by the cellphone industry.
>
> nope. very early on, they tested caller pays and it was rejected by
> consumers, rightly so.

Bullshit. The consumer never ever had the choice in the US.
The US is the only market with such a stupid system.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 29.11.21 um 14:54 schrieb nospam:
> In article <slrnsq9lco.l6t.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
> <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>> This is not something that an individual consumer should be able to
>> choose, that is much too confusing. It should be no problem to transform
>> the entire system into "caller pays" at some specific date, there would
>> be nothing to reject.
>
> the problem with caller pays is that it puts those with cellphones at a
> disadvantage, particularly businesses, since callers will often choose
> to call a different business, one with a landline, because it's
> cheaper.

These times are gone for more than a decade.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 29.11.21 um 14:42 schrieb Andy Burns:
> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> do you get free roaming in every European country, regardless of whether
>>> it's an EU member?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Unlimited free calls in and to 40 countries(1) including Canada and the
>> US. Also including the UK.
>
> Given there are 50 countries in Europe, you must have meant "no" above

The answer is yes because there are all existing European contries
included.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum