sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> 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.

But that is how you want to have it, right? The receiver pays for the call.

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

But that whole argument against caller pays was that it would be
too costly for the caller. I brought forward that it is no longer.
And it seems you confirm that now.

On 11/29/2021 9:01 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 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.

Remember, in the U.S. for mobile service it was not just "called party
pays," the caller was also paying (if calling from a mobile phone). But
I think that the total per-minute cost was about the same, with "Calling
Party Pays" the cost was just not split up.

"Calling Party Pays" is fine when you know that the number you're
calling is a mobile number, not fine when you don't. In the U.S.,
charging the mobile phone subscriber for every minute of airtime used
made more sense.

Of course with landline phones it has always been "calling party pays,"
though most landline users opted for unlimited local calls. When I first
moved to California I saw how small the local calling areas were and I
opted for metered service. At the time, anyone could sign up for metered
service which included 30 local calls a month and since so few calls
were local there was no reason to pay for unlimited local calling. Now
"Lifeline" service is only for low-income individuals.

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

> 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.

*That* is the crux of the matter. By making it indistinguishable
you're stuck with the consequences. The rest of the world didn't make
that mistake. Face it and move on, instead of bothering us with your
silly fallacies.

Rob <nomail@example.com> 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...

Shall we mention that they need our machines to make their chips? Nah,
let's not.

In article <slrnsqabc8.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.
>
> But that whole argument against caller pays was that it would be
> too costly for the caller. I brought forward that it is no longer.
> And it seems you confirm that now.

the prices are lower now, but the concept is the same.

the fact remains that caller pays was tried and rejected.

In article <so3aua$tbd$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> Remember, in the U.S. for mobile service it was not just "called party
> pays," the caller was also paying (if calling from a mobile phone). But
> I think that the total per-minute cost was about the same, with "Calling
> Party Pays" the cost was just not split up.

it's based on airtime. mobile users use airtime and are charged for it.

a mobile user calling another mobile user each uses airtime, so they're
both billed for the call.

it's very simple and straightforward.

> "Calling Party Pays" is fine when you know that the number you're
> calling is a mobile number, not fine when you don't. In the U.S.,
> charging the mobile phone subscriber for every minute of airtime used
> made more sense.

there is no distinction for cellular numbers in the usa.

In article <so3f5b.cdk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > 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.
>
> *That* is the crux of the matter. By making it indistinguishable
> you're stuck with the consequences. The rest of the world didn't make
> that mistake. Face it and move on, instead of bothering us with your
> silly fallacies.

it's not a mistake nor is anyone stuck with the consequences. it's a
feature, with numerous benefits.

there is no need for the caller to know what type of phone the
recipient has, nor should a caller pay for whatever choice the
recipient has made about their phone service.

porting blurs the line even more. what was once a landline number can
be ported to a cellphone and vice versa.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

> I put it down to good lobbying by the cellphone industry. Same thing
> with the insurance industry. We have to buy liability insurance for
> each car we own, regardless of the fact that we can only drive one at a
> time. It would seem that the liability insurance should attach to the
> person, not the vehicle, but that's not the way it works.

*You* can only drive one car at a time, but *someone* could drive the
other car(s). (Can hubby drive?) And several other people could drive
your cars, while you are driving none of them. The injured party can't
be bothered by all of that, so that's why liability insurance is for the
car, not for the person owning it.

For example one of our kids regularly drives our car. And our 4WD
camper ('mobile home') in Australia is insured by our Australian
relative in hir name, but we/I do most of the driving.

[...]

On 11/29/2021 11:42 AM, Rob wrote:
> 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...

Yes that's true.

The last time I was in China, in 2019, I spoke at a trade conference. I
made some not so nice remarks about the trade war. Afterwards, the U.S.
Trade Representative from Shanghai approached me and I said "oh g-d I
hope I'm not in trouble for what I said," but he laughed and said that
he didn't care. I got back into the U.S. so I guess it was okay.

Later during that visit to China, someone invited me to be on a weekly
conference call with the Huawei CEO regarding the whole trade war as
well as the Huawei ban, but I declined, no way was I going to get
involved in that whole mess, not at my pay grade.

On 11/29/2021 9:47 AM, The Real Bev wrote:

<snip>

> 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.

The excuse is that even though YOU can only drive one car at a time, you
could lend out your vehicles to others so they could all be driven at
the same time.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/2021 9:01 AM, Frank Slootweg 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.
>
> Remember, in the U.S. for mobile service it was not just "called party
> pays," the caller was also paying (if calling from a mobile phone). But
> I think that the total per-minute cost was about the same, with "Calling
> Party Pays" the cost was just not split up.

Yes, we know this all too well. We've been reading nospam's bogus
excuses for the USA's broken system (too) many times.

In the context of this (non-)discussion, the "called-party-pays" bit
means the *extra* cost the called party has to pay (in addition to the
'landline' cost the caller has to pay).

> "Calling Party Pays" is fine when you know that the number you're
> calling is a mobile number, not fine when you don't. In the U.S.,
> charging the mobile phone subscriber for every minute of airtime used
> made more sense.

Yeah, when your system is broken by design, you're faced with the
consequences, news at eleven.

[...]

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <so3f5b.cdk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > *That* is the crux of the matter. By making it indistinguishable
> > you're stuck with the consequences. The rest of the world didn't make
> > that mistake. Face it and move on, instead of bothering us with your
> > silly fallacies.
>
> it's not a mistake nor is anyone stuck with the consequences. it's a
> feature, with numerous benefits.

Yes, it's a mistake. If it was anything remotely beneficial, some
other countries would have done the same, but none did. And yes, if zero
is "numerous", then there are indeed "numerous benefits".

> there is no need for the caller to know what type of phone the
> recipient has, nor should a caller pay for whatever choice the
> recipient has made about their phone service.

Totally agreed. Hence there is so such need here, nor are there any
extra/higher costs for the caller who - knowingly or unknowingly - calls
a mobile number. Bummer heh?

QED.

HTH. HAND. EOD.

On 11/29/2021 1:33 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> when your [US] system is broken by design, you're faced with the
> consequences, news at eleven.

After I pay my $20/mo/phone (plus tax, fees and data) I can make all the
calls I want from anywhere to anywhere in the US, no time limit, no
extra charges. That system is just fine with me. When I was a kid I used
to make many cross country ham phone patches for folks trying to beat Ma
Bell's horrendous long distance charges. There was even a long distance
charge to call to the other side of my city. The good old days just
weren't all that good...

In article <so3imd.mqk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > *That* is the crux of the matter. By making it indistinguishable
> > > you're stuck with the consequences. The rest of the world didn't make
> > > that mistake. Face it and move on, instead of bothering us with your
> > > silly fallacies.
> >
> > it's not a mistake nor is anyone stuck with the consequences. it's a
> > feature, with numerous benefits.
>
> Yes, it's a mistake.

it is not a mistake. it's different than what you're used to, and like
everything, it has advantages and disadvantages.

> If it was anything remotely beneficial, some
> other countries would have done the same, but none did.

logical fallacy.

the reason is because change is disruptive.

also, the usa tried it and customers rejected it.

> And yes, if zero
> is "numerous", then there are indeed "numerous benefits".

it's not zero.

*you* might not see a benefit, but the majority of the usa does, which
is why they rejected caller-pays.

> > there is no need for the caller to know what type of phone the
> > recipient has, nor should a caller pay for whatever choice the
> > recipient has made about their phone service.
>
> Totally agreed. Hence there is so such need here, nor are there any
> extra/higher costs for the caller who - knowingly or unknowingly - calls
> a mobile number. Bummer heh?

then where you are is unique. why haven't other countries done the same?

Am 29.11.21 um 18:10 schrieb nospam:
> 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.

I hope you have the same system for fixed line connections ...
*ROTFLSTC*. Those who use the cable should pay for it.

You are not able to unbundle the paid price. Never. So the consumer pays
twice. There is a good reason why the more advanced areas in the world
in mobile communication than the US never ever considered such a not
very business minded and not very consumerfriendly ripp off.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 29.11.21 um 19:21 schrieb Andy Burns:
> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> The answer is yes because there are all existing European contries
>> included.
>
> You still seem to be conflating European = EU member.

You are handicapped: I do not live in the EU but I still live in the
middle of Europe ... and I mean all existing countries in Europe are
included. But you seem not to understand even the explicit country-list
I added.

I do not pay roaming fees in all of Europe, EU or not, period.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 29.11.21 um 18:10 schrieb nospam:
> 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.

American consumers allow to charge their provider to charge for incoming
calls? Incredible. The same operator charges the caller's provider for
interconnection fees. Equitable? *ROTFLSTC*

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 11/29/2021 12:26 PM, sms wrote:
> On 11/29/2021 9:47 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> 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.
>
> The excuse is that even though YOU can only drive one car at a time, you
> could lend out your vehicles to others so they could all be driven at
> the same time.

THEY would have their own liability insurance. Perhaps there would be
penalties for driving while NOT insured, although the illegals solved
that problem by just running away if they crashed a car.

--
Cheers, Bev
Why should I be tarred with the epithet "loony" merely
because I have a pet halibut? --Monty Python

On 11/29/2021 12:03 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> 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.
>
> *That* is the crux of the matter. By making it indistinguishable
> you're stuck with the consequences. The rest of the world didn't make
> that mistake. Face it and move on, instead of bothering us with your
> silly fallacies.

You may not have heard of the latest idiocy.

We already have 911 for emergencies. The Powers That Be just added...
crap, I can't remember what it is -- which I find hilarious. It's a
suicide prevention hot line. So I guess the theory is that if you think
you might want to be talked out of suicide in the future you should
memorize the number NOW. Apparently there's a 10-digit number in
existence (800-273-8255, I couldn't find the 3-digit magic number), but
apparently that's too difficult.

Some number of area codes (LIKE MINE!) use that same 3-digit prefix as
part of the normal phone number. I think there are 26 in the country,
but I'm unwilling to look it up. So that weak-willed potential suicides
won't have to bother looking up a 10-digit number (generally posted at
both ends of likely suicide sites like Suicide Bridge in Pasadena) or
just calling 911 everybody in those areas will have to dial 1+10 digits
to make local calls.

Is it insensitive to think that people who can't figure out how to call
911 will probably have more problems with the new system? OTOH, perhaps
that's the intent.

"Sure I shot him, the guy has been calling me on the suicide hotline for
months and I knew he didn't have the guts to do it himself..."

--
Cheers, Bev
Why should I be tarred with the epithet "loony" merely
because I have a pet halibut? --Monty Python

On 11/29/2021 01:03 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <so3f5b.cdk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
>> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > > 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.
>> >
>> > *That* is the crux of the matter. By making it indistinguishable
>> > you're stuck with the consequences. The rest of the world didn't make
>> > that mistake. Face it and move on, instead of bothering us with your
>> > silly fallacies.
>>
>> it's not a mistake nor is anyone stuck with the consequences. it's a
>> feature, with numerous benefits.
>
> Yes, it's a mistake. If it was anything remotely beneficial, some
> other countries would have done the same, but none did. And yes, if zero
> is "numerous", then there are indeed "numerous benefits".
>
>> there is no need for the caller to know what type of phone the
>> recipient has, nor should a caller pay for whatever choice the
>> recipient has made about their phone service.
>
> Totally agreed. Hence there is so such need here, nor are there any
> extra/higher costs for the caller who - knowingly or unknowingly - calls
> a mobile number. Bummer heh?

At one point Los Angeles ran out of phone numbers. Rather than assigne
a new area code for cell phones, all Los Angeles areas got changed area
codes. I've had four, including NONE back in the dark ages when you had
to call the operator to make an out-of-area call. Apparently labeling
some numbers as 'cell' was discriminatory in some way.

"Thug" is supposed to be discriminatory too. So is 'stupid' but
apparently that's OK.

> QED.
>
> HTH. HAND. EOD.

YMMV

--
Cheers, Bev
Why should I be tarred with the epithet "loony" merely
because I have a pet halibut? --Monty Python

In article <so3nir$kfe$2@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

> At one point Los Angeles ran out of phone numbers.

many places ran out of phone numbers, not just los angeles. that's why
there have been *many* splits and overlays over the years.

> Rather than assigne
> a new area code for cell phones, all Los Angeles areas got changed area
> codes.

it wasn't just cellphones that caused the number exhaustion.

it also included fax machines and pagers, and these days, it also
includes iot devices, cars, medical equipment and quite a bit more.

new york city had an area code for pagers and cellular (917), but that
didn't work out particularly well.

> I've had four, including NONE back in the dark ages when you had
> to call the operator to make an out-of-area call.

there were far fewer phones back then.

in the dark ages and if the number was in the same exchange and a step
switch, only 5 digits were needed.

> Apparently labeling
> some numbers as 'cell' was discriminatory in some way.

it is.

In article <so3nbb$kfe$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

> Some number of area codes (LIKE MINE!) use that same 3-digit prefix as
> part of the normal phone number. I think there are 26 in the country,
> but I'm unwilling to look it up. So that weak-willed potential suicides
> won't have to bother looking up a 10-digit number (generally posted at
> both ends of likely suicide sites like Suicide Bridge in Pasadena) or
> just calling 911 everybody in those areas will have to dial 1+10 digits
> to make local calls.

using the area code for all calls has been the norm nearly everywhere
for a very long time, around when overlay area codes first appeared.

On 11/29/2021 3:22 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

<snip>

> Is it insensitive to think that people who can't figure out how to call
> 911 will probably have more problems with the new system?  OTOH, perhaps
> that's the intent.

No, it's because the 988 line will be staffed by a different type of
personnel.

There are 207 area codes with the 988 prefix (out of 335 area codes).

According to the FCC, 82 of those area codes still allowed seven-digit
dialing. Those area codes all had to implement ten digit dialing by
October 24th 2021.

I don't know how many of the other 128 area codes, that don't have the
988 prefix, still allow seven-digit dialing, but it's become rarer and
rarer now that rather than doing geographic splits they do overlays.

Most people using cell phones don't often dial the number anyway, they
choose from a list of contacts.

For VOIP services, like the Obi/Google Voice service that I have, and
Ooma, you can program in that if no area code is dialed, and you dial
only seven digits, it will add the local area code (that you select in
setup) automatically.

With rotary phones, dialing three extra digits was a little annoying,
but with touch-tone phones it's no big deal. The last rotary mobile
phones were out of service by the end of the 1990's when IMTS was shut
down. Well other than
<https://www.wired.com/story/justine-haupt-rotary-phone/>.

Surprised that Ajit Pai had the FCC do something useful.

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> Rob <nomail@example.com> 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...
>
> Shall we mention that they need our machines to make their chips? Nah,
> let's not.

:-)