"Will Kemp" <will@xxxx.swaggie.net> wrote in message
news:VeH6k.30740$GF6.12010@newsfe27.ams2...
> Michael wrote:
>> "Will Kemp" <will@xxxx.swaggie.net> wrote in message
>> news:Jot6k.17983$zs1.3900@newsfe28.ams2...
>>> Snapper wrote:
>>>> Will Kemp wrote...
>>>>
>>>>> Nah, they wouldn't dare. They know it would only lose them money.
>>>> Well, in the US, the home of the Consumer is King, they have a similar
>>>> thing. If
>>>> you receive a call you don't pay for the call per se, but rather the
>>>> airtime.
>>>> So, both parties are getting slugged. And the phone companies are
>>>> getting away
>>>> with it.
>>>>
>>>> If it was introduced, a few people would whinge about it. But then
>>>> they'd sigh,
>>>> go "oh well, that's life" and continue to enjoy the BOHICA Effect.
>>> No, it wouldn't work like that. One dumb telco would probably try it
>>> (guess who) and the rest would just ignore it, so the telco charging for
>>> incoming calls would lose customers. Unlike many industries in Aus,
>>> telecoms doesn't seem to operate as a cartel - mainly due to telstra's
>>> greed and stupidity, i suppose.
>>
>> And still has 45% of the market, 15 years after GSM was introduced.
>>
>> the proof is in the pudding
>>
>> more people want telstra than anyone else
>
> Nobody actually *wants* Telstra. Some people are stuck with it because
> there's no choice. Some people don't even know there *is* a choice. Only a
> fool could actually want *telstra*.
The $$$ that Telstra receives from its customers do not have emotions
attached.
>>>> No, it wouldn't work like that. One dumb telco would probably try
>>>> it (guess who) and the rest would just ignore it, so the telco
>>>> charging for incoming calls would lose customers. Unlike many
>>>> industries in Aus, telecoms doesn't seem to operate as a cartel -
>>>> mainly due to telstra's greed and stupidity, i suppose.
>>> And still has 45% of the market, 15 years after GSM was introduced.
>> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> Easily done,
Nope.
> annual reports,
Just because Telstra CLAIMS that there, doesnt qualify as
substantiation, you stupid pig ignorant dunny cleaning fuckwit child.
> off you go
You went off LONG ago, you stupid pig ignorant dunny cleaning fuckwit child.
Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Will Kemp" <will@xxxx.swaggie.net> wrote in message
> news:VeH6k.30740$GF6.12010@newsfe27.ams2...
>> Michael wrote:
>>> "Will Kemp" <will@xxxx.swaggie.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Jot6k.17983$zs1.3900@newsfe28.ams2...
>>>> Snapper wrote:
>>>>> Will Kemp wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nah, they wouldn't dare. They know it would only lose them money.
>>>>> Well, in the US, the home of the Consumer is King, they have a
>>>>> similar thing. If
>>>>> you receive a call you don't pay for the call per se, but rather
>>>>> the airtime.
>>>>> So, both parties are getting slugged. And the phone companies are
>>>>> getting away
>>>>> with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it was introduced, a few people would whinge about it. But then
>>>>> they'd sigh,
>>>>> go "oh well, that's life" and continue to enjoy the BOHICA Effect.
>>>> No, it wouldn't work like that. One dumb telco would probably try
>>>> it (guess who) and the rest would just ignore it, so the telco
>>>> charging for incoming calls would lose customers. Unlike many
>>>> industries in Aus, telecoms doesn't seem to operate as a cartel -
>>>> mainly due to telstra's greed and stupidity, i suppose.
>>>
>>> And still has 45% of the market, 15 years after GSM was introduced.
>>>
>>> the proof is in the pudding
>>>
>>> more people want telstra than anyone else
>>
>> Nobody actually *wants* Telstra. Some people are stuck with it
>> because there's no choice. Some people don't even know there *is* a
>> choice. Only a fool could actually want *telstra*.
> The $$$ that Telstra receives from its customers do not have emotions attached.
Anyone can BUY market share, you stupid pig ignorant dunny cleaning fuckwit child.
Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Snapper <snapper1@y7mail.com.invalid> wrote
>>>> Polly the Parrot wrote
>>>>> In the European Union, they are considering allowing mobile
>>>>> network operators charging punters for receiving calls.
>>>> Some countries in Europe have had that for landline calls since
>>>> year dot. Not surprised that they'd try it on the mobile community.
>>>>> If this happens, how long before they try it in Oz?
>>>> All they need is for one greedy operator to try it on, then the
>>>> others will rush in, en masse, in the name of "competition".
>>> Its too expensive to implement, IT-wise
>> As if you'd have a fucking clue about how much it would cost IT wise.
> You'd be surprised.
Nope, I know you dont have a fucking clue what that would cost IT wise.
>>>>> No, it wouldn't work like that. One dumb telco would probably try
>>>>> it (guess who) and the rest would just ignore it, so the telco
>>>>> charging for incoming calls would lose customers. Unlike many
>>>>> industries in Aus, telecoms doesn't seem to operate as a cartel -
>>>>> mainly due to telstra's greed and stupidity, i suppose.
>
>>>> And still has 45% of the market, 15 years after GSM was introduced.
>
>>> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
>
>> Easily done,
>
> Nope.
>
>> annual reports,
>
> Just because Telstra CLAIMS that there, doesnt qualify as
> substantiation, you stupid pig ignorant dunny cleaning fuckwit child.
ACMA would be all over them if they lied, you moron
>>>>>> No, it wouldn't work like that. One dumb telco would probably try
>>>>>> it (guess who) and the rest would just ignore it, so the telco
>>>>>> charging for incoming calls would lose customers. Unlike many
>>>>>> industries in Aus, telecoms doesn't seem to operate as a cartel -
>>>>>> mainly due to telstra's greed and stupidity, i suppose.
>>>>> And still has 45% of the market, 15 years after GSM was introduced.
>>>> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
>>> Easily done,
>> Nope.
>>> annual reports,
>> Just because Telstra CLAIMS that there, doesnt qualify as
>> substantiation, you stupid pig ignorant dunny cleaning fuckwit child.
> ACMA would be all over them if they lied
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland, you stupid
pig ignorant drug crazed illiterate dunny cleaning fuckwit child.
The ACCC gets no say what so ever on that sort of claim, you stupid
pig ignorant drug crazed illiterate dunny cleaning fuckwit child.
Re: Bad news for mobile users 
Linear Mode
