On 01/12/2021 21:26, Alan wrote:
>
> On 2021-12-01 1:15 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> FALSE!  Android is a Google OS, so discussing Google's modus operandi
>> is completely on topic here.
>
> Nothing about the topic under discussion touches in the least on
> anything to do with Android, which you fanbois love to declare is
> utterly without any tie which would allow Google any information about
> its users.

Says the Apple troll in comp.mobile.ANDROID! Any further discussion on
this point will indeed be OT, and therefore be ignored.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 2021-12-01 2:15 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
> On 01/12/2021 21:26, Alan wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-12-01 1:15 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> FALSE!  Android is a Google OS, so discussing Google's modus operandi
>>> is completely on topic here.
>>
>> Nothing about the topic under discussion touches in the least on
>> anything to do with Android, which you fanbois love to declare is
>> utterly without any tie which would allow Google any information about
>> its users.
>
> Says the Apple troll in comp.mobile.ANDROID!  Any further discussion on
> this point will indeed be OT, and therefore be ignored.
>

So once again, we see your hypocrisy.

"Off topic" doesn't really mean "off topic" to you.

It means "I don't like it".

On 2021-12-01 2:15 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
> On 01/12/2021 21:26, Alan wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-12-01 1:15 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> FALSE!  Android is a Google OS, so discussing Google's modus operandi
>>> is completely on topic here.
>>
>> Nothing about the topic under discussion touches in the least on
>> anything to do with Android, which you fanbois love to declare is
>> utterly without any tie which would allow Google any information about
>> its users.
>
> Says the Apple troll in comp.mobile.ANDROID!  Any further discussion on
> this point will indeed be OT, and therefore be ignored.
>

And let us take note of what you snipped from your reply:

"Furthermore, you're about to embark on the obviously off topic
discussion of a book that is a general work and nothing to do with
Google or Android specifically. "

In article <so8kc5.d3c.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> So if Google is so 'smart', then why is it showing me ads for the
> product I bought from the very same vendor?

because more than just google is involved.

<https://www.digitaltrends.com/features/wh-do-you-see-ads-stuff-already-
bought/>
In addition to the advertiser and the host, you have the tech
platform responsible for running the ad, the ad network like Google
or Facebook, data analytics firms that determine how well a campaign
has done, the brand that wants to advertise in the first place,
marketing agencies that design and suggest tweaks based on the
ad¹s performance, and more.

Most of them are never in sync with each other, so when your data
runs through this myriad of channels, there¹s usually a point of
miscommunication that eventually results in inconsistent ads. So, for
instance, if an e-commerce platform knows you¹ve bought a product, it
may not be programmed to feed that information to the advertiser and,
therefore, the rest of the parties will continue to show you ads for
that item.

....

Jim McCloskey, vice president of revenue at Sonobi, an ad-tech
marketplace and developer, believes it¹s nearly impossible to
patch this retargeting problem because the collaboration and
effort required to do so is so enormous that it¹s not worth it.

In article <slrnsqfpk7.eb1.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nomail@example.com> wrote:

> I don't understand these concepts. When your "area is split", why
> could you not keep the same area code and new subscribers get another one?

that's an overlay, where two (or more) area codes cover the same
geographical area.

a split is when the original area is reduced in size with the remaining
area getting a new area code.

there are advantages and disadvantages to each.

for example, area code 303 was originally *all* of colorado.

it's now split into four area codes. the original 303 covers only part
of the denver area, along with 720 for the other part. an overlay area
code will be added next year.
<https://www.uncovercolorado.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/colorado-are
a-codes-map.png>

In article <so8cc5.nk8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > It appears that the USA is trying more to keep numbers the same
> > > and introduce more complexity when required, instead of just adding
> > > extra digits and/or changing the numbering plan.
> >
> > because the former has minimal impact and the latter is highly
> > disruptive and will break things.
>
> Note that as Rob described, there was only *one* change - in our
> lifetime - which affected normal subscriber numbers. As Rob explained,
> 'all' other changes were in the special numbers, not in normal
> subscriber numbers.
>
> Our - single - change was not "highly disruptive", because it was well
> designed and implemented, including things like grace period, user
> tools, extensive communication, etc.. It was mostly a non-event and note
> that I was in IT (supply/support), so if it was "highly disruptive" we
> would be amongst the ones feeling most of the pain.
>
> Just an example: My change was from 01724-NNNN to 0172-40NNNN (dashes
> for clarity only), so just inserting a zero before my local number. Big
> fscking deal! (All other changes were similar.)
>
> Moral: Often it's better to bite the - relatively small - bullet, than
> to keep applying patch on patch on patch and continuing the mess
> forever.

if the bullet is actually small, yes. in this case, it's very much not.

you greatly underestimate the extent of the impact.

it's not like they haven't thought about expanding the number space.

they have, and even reserved number-space for it, but the conclusion is
that it's not viable and may never be.

first, the phone switches themselves would need to be updated.

next, there are hundreds of millions of existing systems that have
hardcoded 10 digits, including pbxes, point of sale terminals,
databases and much more.

many non-smartphones (landline, cordless, alarm systems, etc.) have
10-digit memories for numbers and some can only display 10 digits to
the user. even websites assume 10 digit phone numbers, often formatting
them automatically to 3-3-4 as the user types.

all of that will need to be replaced or upgraded, which is not free.

another problem is political. changing nanp will affect not just the
usa, which itself is going to be a problem, but also canada and the
carribean.

there is also the issue of number portability. people can (and do) port
numbers from landline to cellphone and from cellphone to landline. that
would no longer be possible without changing numbers. people don't like
to change numbers.

even mandatory 10-digit dialing, which is a minor change, has caused
problems and complaints.

how do you propose to remedy all of that along with all of the other
issues that might occur?

who pays for it?

how do you deal with the *huge* public and political pushback?

long ago, when area codes first split, not all pbxes were ready.

some people became unreachable to some callers because the new area
code was seen as invalid by their pbx system, even if the new area code
had the original 0/1 format.

there was a grace period where both old and new area codes could be
used, but at least for the company i was at (a large one, who should
have known better), they did not reprogram their pbx until *after* the
grace period expired, causing all sorts of problems for a few weeks.

On 12/1/2021 12:53 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

> Heh, remember you're talking to a Dutchie! :-) I actually have such a
> 'plan'. In my case a PAYDNG (Pay As You Do Not Go) :-) non-plan.
> Costs a whopping 40 cents per year.

If your wife can stay on the phone for hours a day no matter where you
are in a country the size of the USA for 40 cents a year then you indeed
have a good plan.

> AFAICT, *everybody* in the US pays the called-party costs for a
> 'landline' to mobile call.

Not me. There in no extra charge for landlines calling my mobile and
visa versa. So your 'everybody' apparently doesn't include me.

>> Easy solution #1: Don't respond.

> I don't, unless my arguments get attacked, misrepresented, etc.. But
> normally only one or a few slaps.

That's fair if you slap the assertion and not the assertee.

>> Easy solution #2: Attack the arguments and not the person...

> Of course, assuming the person plays fair and isn't intentionally
> dishonest. Guess what ...

So attacking the person and not the subject is OK if he does it to you
first? Rolling around in the mud gets you both dirty you know...

On 12/1/2021 10:47 AM, sms wrote:
> On 12/1/2021 8:30 AM, AJL wrote:

> The big fear of carriers has been that high-value postpaid customers
> will change to lower cost prepaid plans.

If I had one of those 'cheap' plans it would likely cost me a fortune.
The wife spends hours on the phone to family and friends around the
country, both calling from here and when we travel.

> I now have service on a Verizon-owned prepaid carrier and it's about
> 55% of the cost that I would pay for postpaid Verizon service, though
> there are drawbacks: 1) no domestic or international roaming, 2) no
> eSIM support (yet), 3) if system is congested they will de-prioritize
> prepaid users.

As I've said several times to folks on this thread bragging about their
cheap rates (present company excepted): YMMV.

> The person enjoying the convenience of having a mobile phone should
> not be pushing the cost of their service off on whoever happens to be
> calling them.

And the receiving party doesn't have to take it. I don't. If they don't
like their plan, change it. Or continue to bitch about it if it makes
them feel better...

> Easy solution #3: filter out the person.

I see lots of "plonk!" and filter threats here on Usenet. I always
figured it was a 'I don't like you and I'm stomping off with my lower
lip out' kinda thing. Then I figure the complainer probably sneaks a
peek from time to time. But who knows. I read pretty much everything and
have never used a filter. I simply ignore those who are annoying. Easy
peasy...

On 12/1/2021 1:17 PM, Rob wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> In the U.S., we've had ten digit numbers for many decades, so there was
>> no need to do those kludges, we had plenty of numbers. Because of how
>> switching systems are designed, the ten digit numbers consisted of a
>> three digit area code, a three digit central office prefix, and a four
>> digit suffix, with certain limitations as to what digits were
>> unavailable, most of which have since been removed.
>>
>> Also, the North American Numbering Plan covers not just the United
>> States and its territories, but also Canada, Bermuda, and seventeen
>> nations of the Caribbean.
>
> In the Netherlands we have 9-digit numbers (the total length of the
> number is 10 digits but the first digit is similar in function to the
> leading 1 digit in the US numbers, it merely introduces an area code),
> but our area is only about the size of New Hampshire.
>
> And we have had this number length for 26 years now. Before that, the
> length was variable (users in cities had a digit less).
>
>> The slight annoyance used to be when an area was split, because the
>> phone company was running out of numbers, and your area code changed.
>> Even then they gave you plenty of notice, a grace period during which it
>> was not necessary to dial the area code, and so it was not as disruptive
>> as changing the main part of the phone number. Now, they don't do area
>> code splits anymore, they do overlays.
>
> I don't understand these concepts. When your "area is split", why
> could you not keep the same area code and new subscribers get another one?

That's how overlays work, and it's what's done now. When they do an
overlay they mandate 10 digit dialing even if calling within the same
area code. But in the past, they would split up a area and give part of
the area a new code while part of the area got a new area code.

>> What others were complaining about is that the North American Numbering
>> Plan makes it impossible to distinguish between landline numbers and
>> mobile numbers. The unintended benefit to his is that it fortunately
>> prevented the costly (to landline users) "Caller Pays" system from
>> appearing in the U.S..
>
> Well, the disadvantage is that you (as a mobile user) have to pay
> for calls you do not want.

You do not. You see the number calling you (and the name if it's in your
contact list). If you do not answer then you are not charged. You can
let it go to voicemail at no charge. In the past you could retrieve your
cellular voice mail from a landline, using a backdoor number, but not
sure if that still works.

> Also, I expect that in your system the
> total expenditure by all users (calling and called) is more than
> in a "caller pays" system.

I remember reading an article many years ago that insisted that the
"Caller Pays" system was actually more expensive because there was a big
incentive for some cellular carriers to provide high termination fees.

But it depends on the carrier in each country. If you look at a list of
international per minute rates you can see how some carriers are gouging
in termination fees:

Italy (LocalPhone)
Landlines: All Landlines 0.7¢
Mobiles: 26.9¢-39¢

Italy (Google Voice)
Landline: 1¢
Mobile: 22¢

> In the past, we had a system where a letter mailed with insufficient
> postage would be delivered to the addressee with an additional card
> attached with an amount to be paid.

Yes, they used to do that in the U.S. as well, but I think now they just
return it to the sender.

> Nowadays, those cards are mailed
> to the sender. Better, I think. It used to be a way to nag the
> receiver when you did not like them, and that problem is now gone.
> Not much different from nagging people with calls they have to pay for.

Except there is no requirement to answer a call if you don't recognize
the number.

On 12/1/2021 3:01 PM, AJL wrote:
> On 12/1/2021 10:47 AM, sms wrote:
>> On 12/1/2021 8:30 AM, AJL wrote:
>
>> The big fear of carriers has been that high-value postpaid customers
>> will change to lower cost prepaid plans.
>
> If I had one of those 'cheap' plans it would likely cost me a fortune.
> The wife spends hours on the phone to family and friends around the
> country, both calling from here and when we travel.

Yes, if you had one of those pay-per-minute plans. But not many people
do those anymore. You can get a plan with unlimited voice minutes for as
little as $5 per month. In the U.S., if there's Wi-Fi you can call for
free using Google Voice.

In article <so922g$6t6$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > If I had one of those 'cheap' plans it would likely cost me a fortune.
> > The wife spends hours on the phone to family and friends around the
> > country, both calling from here and when we travel.
>
> Yes, if you had one of those pay-per-minute plans. But not many people
> do those anymore.

yes they do.

> You can get a plan with unlimited voice minutes for as
> little as $5 per month.

which plan is that?
what other details are you not disclosing?

> In the U.S., if there's Wi-Fi you can call for
> free using Google Voice.

that won't replace a cellphone.

On 12/1/2021 3:48 PM, sms wrote:

<snip>

> That's how overlays work, and it's what's done now. When they do an
> overlay they mandate 10 digit dialing even if calling within the same
> area code. But in the past, they would split up a area and give part of
> the area a new code while part of the area got a new area code.

Oops. Obviously I meant that part of the area kept the old area code!

A new area code, while it may have required that businesses change their
signage, business cards, and other forms, was not a really big deal
because the transition was well-managed with grace periods and plenty of
notice, and then recordings advising you that you now needed to dial an
area code if you dialed a prefix in the new area code. Prefixes were not
re-used right away, IIRC it was something like a year before a prefix
was re-used. It was a lot better than suddenly adding another digit to a
phone number, as apparently was required in some countries.

On 12/1/2021 4:55 PM, sms wrote:

> You can get a plan with unlimited voice minutes for as little as $5
> per month. In the U.S.,

That sounds pretty amazing. Include texting? On a reliable network?
Data? Work with most phones? Any examples?

> if there's Wi-Fi you can call for free using Google Voice.

I used Google Voice years ago. No need these days with unlimited.

Talking about WiFi, I sometimes use the WiFi calling capability of my
phone when the cell signal is weak. One granddaughters house is in a new
build area and towers are scarce. I entered her WiFi into my phone on
the first visit and now when I arrive it remembers the WiFi, hooks up
automatically, and the phone works great.

In article <so97n0$4vj$1@dont-email.me>, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

> On 12/1/2021 4:55 PM, sms wrote:
> > You can get a plan with unlimited voice minutes for as little as $5
> > per month. In the U.S.,
>
> That sounds pretty amazing. Include texting? On a reliable network?
> Data? Work with most phones? Any examples?

if it sounds too good to be true...

On 12/1/2021 5:32 PM, AJL wrote:
> On 12/1/2021 4:55 PM, sms wrote:
>
>> You can get a plan with unlimited voice minutes for as little as $5
>> per month. In the U.S.,
>
> That sounds pretty amazing. Include texting?

Yes.

> On a reliable network?

Well that plan is _not_ on the most reliable network, it's on T-Mobile.
But as long as you stay in urban areas then T-Mobile is acceptable, it's
when you go to less populated areas that T-Mobile has issues. On a more
reliable network it's around $10.

> Data?

500MB

> Work with most phones?

Yes

> Any examples?

<https://hellomobile.com/shop/plans>. Click on "View More Plans."

This web site: <https://prepaidcompare.net/> is really good for
comparing prepaid plans, and the filters work well.

> Talking about WiFi, I sometimes use the WiFi calling capability of my
> phone when the cell signal is weak. One granddaughters house is in a new
> build area and towers are scarce. I entered her WiFi into my phone on
> the first visit and now when I arrive it remembers the WiFi, hooks up
> automatically, and the phone works great.

Wi-Fi calling is very useful in areas with weak or no coverage. It's not
usually necessary with AT&T or Verizon, but often needed with T-Mobile.
In places like National Parks, lodging will usually have Wi-Fi but often
there is no cellular coverage on some networks (or at all). See
<https://imgur.com/9zJhPUq> which is place that we've often stayed at
Yosemite. The black dot is where there's a big collection of rental
homes and condominiums. Only Verizon covers that area. Prior to Sprint
being acquired by T-Mobile, Sprint could roam onto Verizon in that area,
but no more.

In article <so992k$bv2$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Well that plan is _not_ on the most reliable network, it's on T-Mobile.
> But as long as you stay in urban areas then T-Mobile is acceptable, it's
> when you go to less populated areas that T-Mobile has issues. On a more
> reliable network it's around $10.

t-mobile is very reliable and works well. it also has the widest
deployment of 5g.

>
> Wi-Fi calling is very useful in areas with weak or no coverage.

only if someone is not mobile, and it's really only practical at home.

outside home, you'd need to associate to the wifi network at every
place you visit, assuming there is one to use. captive portals make
that a bigger hassle. there may be time and/or data limits.

it's not an option while moving.

it's not very useful.

On 12/1/2021 6:55 PM, sms wrote:
> On 12/1/2021 5:32 PM, AJL wrote:
>> On 12/1/2021 4:55 PM, sms wrote:

>>> You can get a plan with unlimited voice minutes for as little as $5
>>> per month. In the U.S.,

>> Any examples?

> <https://hellomobile.com/shop/plans>. Click on "View More Plans."

<https://www.moneysavingpro.com/carriers/hello-mobile/reviews/>

On 11/30/2021 10:01 AM, sms wrote:
> On 11/28/2021 2:42 PM, The Real Bev 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?
>
> Bev, read this
> <https://www.kare11.com/article/money/how-a-minnesota-woman-is-making-thousands-off-annoying-robocallers/89-07eff40b-7c29-490b-a1ae-dea066548f62>
> and turn those spam calls into cash!

You can sue them in small claims court. No lawyers. If they ignore it
you win. BUT they can appeal, which CAN involve lawyers, which the
telemarketer companies probably have on retainer. OR you can have the
Marshal seize enough of their property to satisfy the judgment. BUT you
have to find the property.

I've won 2/3 of my small claims suits. More trouble than it's worth.

> I don't think that you even need to shell out for that kit.

I'm sure you don't -- you just need a cite for the law in question. If
you took a shorthand class back in the 1950s you know how to write
collection letters :-)

> Alas, it's unlikely to work for me. With Google Voice numbers for my
> home phone and cell phones, and with call screening, I get very few
> scam, spam, or robocalls anymore.

I already have sunk costs in anti-telemarketer equipment. It just sits
there and kills spammers silently -- I don't even hear their screams.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Not everyone can be above average so why
shouldn't we be the ones to suck?"
--Anonymous School Board Member

On 11/29/2021 10:44 AM, Rob wrote:
> 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.

I honestly don't remember when/how we were charged more to call
cellphones. LD cost a lot, but if the cell had a local number it was
just a free local call covered in the base price of your service. Los
Angeles County, CA. Maybe different elsewhere.

>> 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.

My guess is that they get bought off pretty quickly.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Not everyone can be above average so why
shouldn't we be the ones to suck?"
--Anonymous School Board Member

On 11/29/2021 11:06 AM, sms wrote:
> 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

They didn't have AP classes then. Just the ordinary SATs at 800 points
each. Son was in the top 10% of scores admitted to Caltech, but in the
top 1% of UCB admissions -- which is where he wanted to go anyway. UCB
even gave him early admission. No questions about extracurricular
activities, just SATs and transcripts.

In 6th grade he biked over to the HS to take math classes and helped the
math teacher install the school's first computer system. He said they
got cheated.

> 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."

Kids took cello to please us. Making music is about as good a talent as
it's possible to have, and I wish I had it. They played in the school
orchestra, but they just weren't interested.

From 'Take The Money And Run': "He had no concept of the cello. He
was blowing into it." One of the few Woody Allen movie bits I actually
thought funny.

> Perhaps the top schools should just take all the applications from
> everyone that meet a certain minimum academic standard and then do a
> lottery.

I wouldn't mind that. Same with elected politicians. Maybe cops too,
with a minimum age of 30.

> 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.

Have you been following the USC admission scandals wherein bribes were
paid to coaches to provide admission or athletic scholarships to kids
who had never even played the sport in question?

Is rousting the homeless and trashing their stuff community service? A
lot of people think it would be.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Not everyone can be above average so why
shouldn't we be the ones to suck?"
--Anonymous School Board Member

On 11/29/2021 11:50 AM, sms wrote:
> 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.

All of our calls were local, and some lasted for hours. Metered service
wouldn't have worked out.

> Now "Lifeline" service is only for low-income individuals.

And you get something like $10 off a $30 phone bill. Last time I
checked, anyway. Maybe 5 years ago.

I nearly signed up for free broadband service outside the 99-Cents-Store
the other day. What a taxpayer ripoff.

--
Cheers, Bev
Linux: The penguin is mightier than the sword

On 11/29/2021 02:43 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> 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*

When cell service started it was incredibly expensive. People had car
phones, not things that fit in their pocket. If you were sufficiently
important your employer paid for one. If you were rich and wanted one,
the cost was irrelevant. The phone companies were smart right from the
beginning. I don't know if there's any law regarding who pays, but
there are taxes ($6.00/month or so) attached to each monthly account.

Allow? What are we going to do, rise up and burn our cellphones? I
don't actually NEED mine, but I suspect I'm in a very small minority.

I'd guess it's pretty much invisible now since most people pay a fixed
amount for "unlimited" calling.

--
Cheers, Bev
Linux: The penguin is mightier than the sword

On 11/30/2021 01:47 AM, Rob wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.

You can't license a car now in California unless you have liability
insurance, which info is provided to the DMV by the insurance companies.
Same with smog tests if your car is 1976 or newer. OTOH, the odds of
being caught are pretty small. I used to see CHP cars on the freeway a
LOT, but not any more. Local cops work local streets, but I have to
wonder how many would stop someone because they didn't have a 2" square
number-sticker on their license plate. So you buy a car for cash, steal
somebody else's license plate and there you are.

> Ah is that happening over there as well?
> It used to be culture here to stay at the place and possibly help others
> when you are in an accident. Nobody ever would think about leaving
> before having arranged everyone's wellbeing and exchanging insurance
> information.

I think legal drivers still do that. Minimum liability medical
insurance is $25K, and if your hospital bills are more the insurance
company ignores them -- you have to sue for the overage. 'Liability' is
ONLY for damage you cause to someone else, not damage to yourself. That
costs extra.

> But lately, we have "imported" folks which do not have that culture,
> and we read on the news every day that people have been hurt or killed
> on the road and the car or the driver fleed the scene.
> Seems to be normal in some cultures.

I'd guess it doesn't happen much any more since being an illegal alien
is no longer a big problem unless you want a career-type job. They
would run to avoid being arrested and deported.

--
Cheers, Bev
Linux: The penguin is mightier than the sword

On 11/30/2021 05:39 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Different kind - and additional - liability insurance. If I visit you
> in your home and knock over the TV, *my* *personal* liability insurance
> covers it [1]. If I drive your car - with your consent - and cause an
> accident, *your* *car* insurance covers it.

Indeed. But if the liability insurance attached to the driver, HE would
be on the hook rather than me. Each of us would pay for our auto
liability insurance based on the car we owned that would cause the most
damage. REAL Hummers pay the most, 50cc motorcycles pay the least.

> [1] Not bloody likely, because the insurance will say you accepted the
> risk of letting such an idiot into your home.

Hrm. A guest claimed 'Dogs love me' and hugged the owner's dog tightly.
The dog bit the guest on the cheek. The guest made a monumental stink
about it, went to the ER for possible stitches and put in a claim to the
friend's homeowner's insurance. They paid the bills and told the friend
that if she didn't get rid of the dog they'd cancel her insurance. The
dog was really nice and friendly. It was a crying shame.

I figure anybody who hugs somebody else's dog deserves whatever they get
-- animals don't like to be restrained, especially by people who aren't
their family.

--
Cheers, Bev
Linux: The penguin is mightier than the sword

On 11/30/2021 05:54 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> I was often amazed by how badly thought out the USA number plan is!
>
> Yes, it boggles the mind that this is yet another area where the US
> apparently didn't learn from how other countries approached and solved
> those problems.

Where and when did cellphone usage really take off? My first experience
was with my boss' carphone in 1993.

--
Cheers, Bev
Linux: The penguin is mightier than the sword