nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 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.

It has been a long time (here) since mobile calls were "expensive"
and that this makes an appreciable difference. If anything, most
people here have a mobile subscription nowadays, and calling to a
mobile number may even be cheaper for them.

As it is now, mainly "large and established businesses" have a fixed
line, usually a leftover from the old days. Small and newer
businesses are all on mobile. When you see a van driving around with
a phone number of e.g. a plumber of carpenter, and you can guess it
is a small operation, seeing a mobile number actually indicates to you
that you can call it at any time, while the person is out on some job.
Fixed line would indicate you need to wait until after hourse so someone
will pickup the phone, or you will get an answering machine or -service
that will require a call back to you.

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

But the airtime is available anyway, and the mobile users usually pay
by "bundle", i.e. they pay for some number of call minutes per month.

Furthermore the fixed network is in rapid decline. In ten years time
here, and sooner in other countries, only mobile will be left.

>> 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.

In the early days, people were hesitant to call mobile numbers, because
that was so expensive. But that was in the days were nobody would
have their main business on a mobile number. Today there are many
more mobile numbers in use than fixed, and it shifts more every year.

>> 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).

Over here we usually don't judge the feasibility of a scheme by what
was true 40 years ago...

Am 29.11.21 um 17:49 schrieb Rob:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It has been a long time (here) since mobile calls were "expensive"
> and that this makes an appreciable difference. If anything, most
> people here have a mobile subscription nowadays, and calling to a
> mobile number may even be cheaper for them.

Exactly. Today people have flat arrangements.

> As it is now, mainly "large and established businesses" have a fixed
> line, usually a leftover from the old days. Small and newer
> businesses are all on mobile. When you see a van driving around with
> a phone number of e.g. a plumber of carpenter, and you can guess it
> is a small operation, seeing a mobile number actually indicates to you
> that you can call it at any time, while the person is out on some job.
> Fixed line would indicate you need to wait until after hourse so someone
> will pickup the phone, or you will get an answering machine or -service
> that will require a call back to you.
>
>> cellphones use airtime. those who use airtime pay for it. it's simple,
>> straightforward and fair.
>
> But the airtime is available anyway, and the mobile users usually pay
> by "bundle", i.e. they pay for some number of call minutes per month.
>
> Furthermore the fixed network is in rapid decline. In ten years time
> here, and sooner in other countries, only mobile will be left.
>
>>> 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.
>
> In the early days, people were hesitant to call mobile numbers, because
> that was so expensive. But that was in the days were nobody would
> have their main business on a mobile number. Today there are many
> more mobile numbers in use than fixed, and it shifts more every year.

+1

>>> 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).
>
> Over here we usually don't judge the feasibility of a scheme by what
> was true 40 years ago...

+1

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:
> 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.

At the time, the USAsians just weren't smart enough to set aside a
dedicated number range - like our 06... (and similar for most any other
country on the planet) - for mobile phones, so they're stuck with the
consequences of their (non-)decision.

nospam is one of the few - and probably the only one - trying to
defend called-party-pays. That says enough by and in itself.

His whole concept of 'airtime' is ludicrous. If anything, it's
*network* time and hence no difference between mobile phones and
'landlines'.

In article <so3045$6oh$3@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
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.

yes they did, when cellular service was initially deployed, nearly 40
years ago.

> The US is the only market with such a stupid system.

it's not stupid at all. it's the most equitable system. those who use
airtime pay for it. those who do not don't.

In article <slrnsqa148.7tl.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nomail@example.com> wrote:

> > very early on, the usa *did* try both, and customers rejected caller
> > pays.
>
> In the early days, people were hesitant to call mobile numbers, because
> that was so expensive.

exactly, which is why those who had cellphones paid for the airtime
they used.

as far as the caller was concerned, it's just another phone number.

> But that was in the days were nobody would
> have their main business on a mobile number. Today there are many
> more mobile numbers in use than fixed, and it shifts more every year.

there are many more, however, the way it's charged remains the same and
there is no motivation to change anything.

In article <so34hs.cdk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> At the time, the USAsians just weren't smart enough to set aside a
> dedicated number range - like our 06... (and similar for most any other
> country on the planet) - for mobile phones, so they're stuck with the
> consequences of their (non-)decision.

they did, but consumers rejected it.

> nospam is one of the few - and probably the only one - trying to
> defend called-party-pays. That says enough by and in itself.

nope. the majority of the usa defends it, because it's the only
equitable system.

charging the caller additional fees for the type of phone the recipient
uses is bizarre.

> His whole concept of 'airtime' is ludicrous. If anything, it's
> *network* time and hence no difference between mobile phones and
> 'landlines'.

the concept of airtime is not ludicrous. there is a limited capacity of
cellular channels.

when they're full, calls may fail to connect, or roll to voicemail even
with a strong signal, because there isn't an available channel to the
phone.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> nospam is one of the few - and probably the only one - trying to
>> defend called-party-pays. That says enough by and in itself.
>
> nope. the majority of the usa defends it, because it's the only
> equitable system.

The USA used to be technologically ahead of many other countries.
Today, it has fallen behind. But some of the Americans have not
yet received that message, and still think they are doing something
right. However, those days are long gone!

On 11/28/2021 11:24 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 29.11.21 um 06:49 schrieb The Real Bev:
>> We have to buy liability insurance for
>> each car we own, regardless of the fact that we can only drive one at a
>> time.
>
> This is more than fair. The risk of an accident is extremely different
> whether you drive a 500 hp sports car or a 150 hp van. Look at the
> statistics. As reasonable driver I do not want to subsidise Porsche- and
> Ferrari drivers ...

So the rate you pay could be based on the most dangerous car you own.
When they were first required, motorcycle liability rates were something
like half that for cars. I defy anyone to do half as much damage with a
500cc bike as a 1970 pickup truck. No idea what they settled down at,
we stopped riding before that.

> And the fact that you can drove only one car at the time you can easily
> drive each car at average miles of each car per year.
> Correct would be to pay for the mileage. But that also is not a linear
> function.

I'd go with a per-mile rate, providing it made sense and wasn't tacked
on IN ADDITION to what we're already paying. Kalifornia's insurance
commissioner is NOT on the side of the hapless customers/victims.hy NOT
a linear function?

Why NOT a linear function? How much is needed for overhead?

--
Cheers, Bev
The people who don't know what they're doing and the people who
don't realize it are generally the same people." -- DAbel

On 11/29/2021 02:36 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> 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?

Of course. If I don't like that I don't have to use their services.
That might be inconvenient, but it's not like I can be put in jail for
rejecting google.

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

Tradeoffs. Benefit vs risk. Anything they know about me costs THEM
money, not me.

--
Cheers, Bev
Warning -- Driver carries less than $20 worth of ammunition

On 11/29/2021 05:28 AM, Rob wrote:
> 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.

Huh? I don't suppose you have a cite...

> 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.

The US landline system has always been caller-pays. Why would a sane
person choose to double the cost for no benefit? Oh yeah -- "It's for
the children..."

--
Cheers, Bev
Warning -- Driver carries less than $20 worth of ammunition

On 11/29/2021 09:27 AM, Rob wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> nospam is one of the few - and probably the only one - trying to
>>> defend called-party-pays. That says enough by and in itself.
>>
>> nope. the majority of the usa defends it, because it's the only
>> equitable system.
>
> The USA used to be technologically ahead of many other countries.
> Today, it has fallen behind. But some of the Americans have not
> yet received that message, and still think they are doing something
> right. However, those days are long gone!

I blame the havoc unions have inflicted on our public school system.
And now they're not even using the SATs. I have to wonder just what
criteria the admissions offices are using. Snappy dresser? Good
singing voice?

When my son applied to Caltech (near-perfect SAT) he was jaw-droppingly
shocked when the interviewer asked about community service -- and this
was in the early 80s; he just mentioned it to us the other day.
Virtue-signaling started a lot earlier than I had thought.

--
Cheers, Bev
Warning -- Driver carries less than $20 worth of ammunition

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> 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.

You still seem to be conflating European = EU member.

In article <slrnsqa3b6.846.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nomail@example.com> wrote:

> The USA used to be technologically ahead of many other countries.

it still is.

> Today, it has fallen behind. But some of the Americans have not
> yet received that message, and still think they are doing something
> right. However, those days are long gone!

false.

In article <so3423$av9$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > That's my provider's job and certainly not Google this evil company.
>
> Tradeoffs. Benefit vs risk. Anything they know about me costs THEM
> money, not me.

you have that backwards. the more google knows about you, the more
money they make. you are paying with your privacy.

In article <so34fm$ebi$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.
>
> Huh? I don't suppose you have a cite...

from 21 years ago:
<https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-oct-19-ss-39025-story.html>

That¹s because as appealing as they may sound to frequent mobile
phone users and those on limited budgets, schemes that make callers
pay the toll have their own drawbacks. Those pitfalls, as well as the
sticky issue of how to bill inbound callers who aren¹t customers,
have left FCC officials less willing to press the matter.

....

There also is growing evidence that U.S. consumers don¹t want to
change to the caller-pays system. Several wireless companies have
launched limited caller-pays plans in areas around the country, but
analysts say none of them have taken off.

Verizon Wireless (formerly AirTouch Cellular), a longtime caller-pays
proponent, has all but given up on it for the moment.

The company made a splash by launching caller-pays plans years ago
in seven states, but now only sells the service on request. The plan
costs an extra $3.95 for the customer, and callers to the customer¹s
phone pay between 39 cents and 45 cents per minute.

For four months this summer, Verizon tried a more flexible version in
Seattle, where customers could turn the caller-pays feature on and
off and could exempt certain callers from the charges. But Verizon
halted the test plan at the end of June, and the company has not said
what plans, if any, it has to press ahead with caller-pays.

Last year, AT&T; Wireless tested a caller-pays plan in Minneapolis
that used a special area code to distinguish the phone numbers for
callers. The company scratched plans for a national roll-out.
Analysts said AT&T;'s trial offering attracted fewer than 100
customers.

Consumers are obviously wary. A limited 1998 survey by the Yankee
Group research firm found that 77% of general users surveyed said
they would be ³not at all willing² or ³not very willing² to pay for
calls to a wireless phone or pager.

....

Even cell phone users themselves--arguably the folks with the most
at stake, because they pay for the calls--seem ambivalent. In a 1999
survey by research firm Cahners In-Stat Group, users said they were
most interested in the caller ID feature for wireless phones and
ranked caller-pays second-to-last as a desirable feature.

Even those who like the idea of caller-pays may be reluctant to sign
up, fearing that reversing the charges may turn off or offend clients
and customers who try to reach them on their mobile phones.

there also was a push for europe to switch *to* called-party pays, not
the caller:
<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2008/03/report-europeans-be-forced-to-p
ay-for-incoming-cell-calls/>
One of the major differences between the US and Europe when it
comes to mobile phones is that when receiving incoming calls,
Americans generally pay for them (the calls are deducted from their
allotted plan minutes) while Europeans do not. The tradeoff for not
having to pay for incoming calls is usually higher monthly fees. But
to those who gab a lot, the bigger bill is worth it for being able to
take three-hour-long calls from your mother at the drop of a hat.

German research group Wissenschaftliches Institut für
Kommunikationsdienste (WIK) disagrees, though, and says that
the current system in Europe is slowing down the development of
next-generation networks (NGNs). In its recent report commissioned
by the European Union, "The Future of IP Interconnection" (PDF), WIK
points out that Europe's wholesale termination fees put the entirety
of payment responsibility on the caller instead of splitting it
evenly between caller and receiver. Additionally, WIK believes that
termination fees are no longer necessary, suggesting that they could
be eliminated (if not reduced and restructured).

> > 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.
>
> The US landline system has always been caller-pays.

as it should be, with the exception of collect calls.

cellphone numbers are indistinguishable from landline numbers, so
there's no way to know if there will be additional charges, making it
not a viable option.

> Why would a sane
> person choose to double the cost for no benefit? Oh yeah -- "It's for
> the children..."

correct. no sane person would choose that.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsqa3b6.846.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
> <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>
>> The USA used to be technologically ahead of many other countries.
>
> it still is.

You know that is no longer the case when you have to move competitors
out of the market using political arguments...

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsqa148.7tl.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
> <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>
>> > very early on, the usa *did* try both, and customers rejected caller
>> > pays.
>>
>> In the early days, people were hesitant to call mobile numbers, because
>> that was so expensive.
>
> exactly, which is why those who had cellphones paid for the airtime
> they used.

But here it has never been the case, the rates have equalized.
Having the call receiver pay as well is just a relic from old times.

> as far as the caller was concerned, it's just another phone number.
>
>> But that was in the days were nobody would
>> have their main business on a mobile number. Today there are many
>> more mobile numbers in use than fixed, and it shifts more every year.
>
> there are many more, however, the way it's charged remains the same and
> there is no motivation to change anything.

Of course the telecom companies will not change it. Never get rid
of a method to charge two different parties a total that is likely
more than you would be able to get from one.

Here we have consumer associations and the EU that put pressure on
the system in such cases. The USA apparently lacks those mechanisms.

On 11/29/2021 5:28 AM, Rob wrote:

<snip>

> 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.

In the U.S. it was "everybody pays" at least for mobile to mobile calls.
"Caller Pays" would not have worked here because you can't distinguish
mobile numbers from landline numbers.

Caller Pays was designed to promote sales of mobile phones since if the
mobile subscriber had to pay for every call they received then fewer
people would subscribe.

> 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.

Yes, and then you pay for that call.

On 11/29/2021 10:41 AM, Rob wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <slrnsqa3b6.846.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
>> <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The USA used to be technologically ahead of many other countries.
>>
>> it still is.
>
> You know that is no longer the case when you have to move competitors
> out of the market using political arguments...

Perhaps, but even before the ban Huawei sold few phones in the U.S..

Xiaomi, OnePlus, Oppo, Realme, and Vivo are all free to sell in the U.S.
but only OnePlus makes any effort in the U.S.. It's too bad, because
some of those brands have excellent products at very competitive price
points. But the carriers don't want to sell those brands and they can
actually ban them from registering on their networks.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> The company made a splash by launching caller-pays plans years ago
> in seven states, but now only sells the service on request. The plan
> costs an extra $3.95 for the customer, and callers to the customer¹s
> phone pay between 39 cents and 45 cents per minute.

Well, there you have your problem!
Typical fixed-to-mobile calling rates are between 5 and 15 cents per
minute, if you pay anything that is. Frequent callers will usually
have some bundle or flat-fee contract.

45 cents per minute rates were what we had 15-20 years ago.

In article <slrnsqa8jl.hoi.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nomail@example.com> wrote:

> > The company made a splash by launching caller-pays plans years ago
> > in seven states, but now only sells the service on request. The plan
> > costs an extra $3.95 for the customer, and callers to the customer1s
> > phone pay between 39 cents and 45 cents per minute.
>
> Well, there you have your problem!
> Typical fixed-to-mobile calling rates are between 5 and 15 cents per
> minute, if you pay anything that is. Frequent callers will usually
> have some bundle or flat-fee contract.
>
> 45 cents per minute rates were what we had 15-20 years ago.

the quote is from an article written 20 years ago.

prices discussed in the article were competitive at that time.

On 11/29/2021 10:09 AM, The Real Bev wrote:

<snip>

> When my son applied to Caltech (near-perfect SAT) he was jaw-droppingly
> shocked when the interviewer asked about community service -- and this
> was in the early 80s; he just mentioned it to us the other day.
> Virtue-signaling started a lot earlier than I had thought.

For Berkeley, UCLA, Cal Tech, etc., applicants with perfect SAT scores,
all AP classes with all with an A, and AP exams all with a 5, are a
dime-a-dozen and are competing against other applicants with the same
academic achievements. One academic advisor was telling parents: "you
want your child to have a better chance of getting into Berkeley or
UCLA? A perfect SAT and a 5.0 GPA is not enough. Have them play a tuba
in marching band instead of a violin in orchestra."

Perhaps the top schools should just take all the applications from
everyone that meet a certain minimum academic standard and then do a
lottery. Trying to evaluate applicants based on extra-curricular
activities, community service, or the quality of their essay, is way too
subjective. A rich kid will hire someone to write their essay and will
have had more time for community service.

On 2021-11-28 11:24 p.m., Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 29.11.21 um 06:49 schrieb The Real Bev:
>> We have to buy liability insurance for
>> each car we own, regardless of the fact that we can only drive one at a
>> time.
>
> This is more than fair. The risk of an accident is extremely different
> whether you drive a 500 hp sports car or a 150 hp van. Look at the
> statistics. As reasonable driver I do not want to subsidise Porsche- and
> Ferrari drivers ...

The risk is actually quite similar if the driver is the same.

The cost of the accident might be different, but the ability of the
driver is the largest factor in the risk of an accident occurring.

On 11/29/2021 5:42 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> 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

Joerg is wrong of course™.

The free roaming is in the EU and EEA countries.

EEA European Countries
----------------------
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Republic of Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden

Other European Countries
------------------------
Albania
Andorra
Belarus
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Holy See
Iceland
Monaco
Montenegro
North Macedonia
Russia
San Marino
Serbia
Ukraine
United Kingdom

UK is neither EU or EEA anymore. Used to be a UK prepaid SIM card from
Vodafone was great for visitors to Europe, even if they never set foot
in the UK. No more.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/2021 10:41 AM, Rob wrote:
>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <slrnsqa3b6.846.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
>>> <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The USA used to be technologically ahead of many other countries.
>>>
>>> it still is.
>>
>> You know that is no longer the case when you have to move competitors
>> out of the market using political arguments...
>
> Perhaps, but even before the ban Huawei sold few phones in the U.S..

But how about base stations? They probably had a large chunk of
that market. They had to be moved out by "they must be spies for China"
claims. As if Cisco and Juniper aren't spies for the USA...