"Polly the Parrot" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:20080619084403.588c7fe4@linux-k6os.site...
| In the European Union, they are considering allowing mobile network
| operators charging punters for receiving calls.
|
| If this happens, how long before they try it in Oz?
Sunny wrote:
> "Polly the Parrot" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:20080619084403.588c7fe4@linux-k6os.site...
> | In the European Union, they are considering allowing mobile network
> | operators charging punters for receiving calls.
> |
> | If this happens, how long before they try it in Oz?
>
> not long, Singapore has had it for years.
>
>
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:33:52 +1000 "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In the European Union, they are considering allowing mobile
> > network operators charging punters for receiving calls.
>
> That aint up to the EU.
There was an article in newspaper when I was there last week, the
"Communications Minister" (new speak) of the EU is considering allowing
it, claims it will cut costs of outgoing calls??????
Polly the Parrot <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Polly the Parrot <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote
>>> In the European Union, they are considering allowing mobile
>>> network operators charging punters for receiving calls.
>> That aint up to the EU.
> There was an article in newspaper when I was there last
> week, the "Communications Minister" (new speak) of the EU
No such animal.
> is considering allowing it,
The EU doesnt get to allow or disallow that.
> claims it will cut costs of outgoing calls??????
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:00:06 +1000 "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> That aint up to the EU.
>
> > There was an article in newspaper when I was there last
> > week, the "Communications Minister" (new speak) of the EU
>
> No such animal.
Actually Telecoms Commisioner
>
> > is considering allowing it,
Actually have said that they will not oppose.
>
> The EU doesnt get to allow or disallow that.
They do. The EU regulates such matters amongst member companies, and
is also about to whack a upper limit on roaming charges.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:42:27 +1000 "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The EU regulates such matters amongst member companies,
Opps typo, should have written "countries".
>
> Wrong. And thats got nothing to do with the vast bulk of
> calls that originate and terminate within a single country.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:44:58 +1000, Graeme Willox wrote:
> Sunny wrote:
>> "Polly the Parrot" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:20080619084403.588c7fe4@linux-k6os.site...
>> | In the European Union, they are considering allowing mobile network
>> | operators charging punters for receiving calls.
>> |
>> | If this happens, how long before they try it in Oz?
>>
>> not long, Singapore has had it for years.
>>
>>
>
> We had it here years ago.
On the lower value Flexiplans on the Telstra AMPS network. FP 20, from
memory.
Polly the Parrot <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Polly the Parrot <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> That aint up to the EU.
>>>>> There was an article in newspaper when I was there last
>>>>> week, the "Communications Minister" (new speak) of the EU
>>>> No such animal.
>>> Actually Telecoms Commisioner
>> Who is nothing like a Minister and who doesnt get to decide EU policy either.
>>>>> is considering allowing it,
>>> Actually have said that they will not oppose.
>> The EP doesnt get to oppose that either. It gets no say on that.
>>>> The EU doesnt get to allow or disallow that.
>>> They do.
>> They dont.
>>> The EU regulates such matters amongst member companies,
> Opps typo, should have written "countries".
>> Wrong. And thats got nothing to do with the vast bulk of
>> calls that originate and terminate within a single country.
Snapper 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".
Nah, they wouldn't dare. They know it would only lose them money.
> 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.
Snapper <snapper1@y7mail.com.invalid> 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.
Their system is very different tho. You cant tell from the number itself that its
a mobile you are calling, so they have to do the charging the way they do 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.
Bet they wouldnt wear it here.
And I bet no mobile telco would be stupid enough to try it either.
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.
Horry wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:44:58 +1000, Graeme Willox wrote:
>
>> Sunny wrote:
>>> "Polly the Parrot" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:20080619084403.588c7fe4@linux-k6os.site...
>>> | In the European Union, they are considering allowing mobile network
>>> | operators charging punters for receiving calls.
>>> |
>>> | If this happens, how long before they try it in Oz?
>>>
>>> not long, Singapore has had it for years.
>>>
>>>
>> We had it here years ago.
>
> On the lower value Flexiplans on the Telstra AMPS network. FP 20, from
> memory.
>
>
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:57:31 +1000, Graeme Willox wrote:
> Horry wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:44:58 +1000, Graeme Willox wrote:
>>
>>> Sunny wrote:
>>>> "Polly the Parrot" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:20080619084403.588c7fe4@linux-k6os.site...
>>>> | In the European Union, they are considering allowing mobile network
>>>> | operators charging punters for receiving calls.
>>>> |
>>>> | If this happens, how long before they try it in Oz?
>>>>
>>>> not long, Singapore has had it for years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> We had it here years ago.
>>
>> On the lower value Flexiplans on the Telstra AMPS network. FP 20, from
>> memory.
>>
>>
>
> I think you're right.
It was a long time ago. Early 90s at the latest. Possibly even 1989.
"Sunny" <wombatlodge@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hwg6k.12412$IK1.12262@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Polly the Parrot" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:20080619084403.588c7fe4@linux-k6os.site...
> | In the European Union, they are considering allowing mobile network
> | operators charging punters for receiving calls.
> |
> | If this happens, how long before they try it in Oz?
>
> not long, Singapore has had it for years.
"Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
newsan.2008.06.19.06.21.50.466519@gmail.com...
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:44:58 +1000, Graeme Willox wrote:
>
>> Sunny wrote:
>>> "Polly the Parrot" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:20080619084403.588c7fe4@linux-k6os.site...
>>> | In the European Union, they are considering allowing mobile network
>>> | operators charging punters for receiving calls.
>>> |
>>> | If this happens, how long before they try it in Oz?
>>>
>>> not long, Singapore has had it for years.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> We had it here years ago.
>
> On the lower value Flexiplans on the Telstra AMPS network. FP 20, from
> memory.
No, just FP 10.
And the first time it occurred, it took call rating about 48 hours to
process 24 hours worth of calls!
"Polly the Parrot" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:20080619181326.7f4b94fd@linux-k6os.site...
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:22:41 +1000 "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Do try and keep up!
>>
>> You couldnt even manage to grasp that the telecoms commissioner
>> doesnt get to set EU policy.
>
> Usual Roddles bluster when proved wrong.
"Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:5inj54t8rau6daaq0c3p9ag73if9v4hlfd@yarwho.com ...
> 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".
"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.
Michael <michael@yahoo.com> 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.
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> the proof is in the pudding
There is no pudding except the one between your ears, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child.
> more people want telstra than anyone else
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:5inj54t8rau6daaq0c3p9ag73if9v4hlfd@yarwho.com ...
>> 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.
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*.
>>> 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.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c0j7jF3e4m1sU1@mid.individual.net...
> Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:5inj54t8rau6daaq0c3p9ag73if9v4hlfd@yarwho.com ...
>>> 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.
Bad news for mobile users 
an.2008.06.19.06.21.50.466519@gmail.com...
Linear Mode
