Porting Sipgate to Voip.co.uk

"alexd" <look@my.sig> wrote in message
news:1318746.RAX3AN576t@ale.cx
> Mr Man wrote:
>
> > alexd wrote:

[snip]

> > Not a good idea using a company who's servers are so
> > far away!
>
> You appear to be missing the point of VoIP here - it
> doesn't matter where anyone or anything is, so long as
> delay and jitter are within acceptable levels and you've
> got enough bandwidth. Case in point: My office is 18
> hops/70ms and 2.5 miles away. Sipgate's voice gateway is
> 13 hops/30ms and it's in Germany. Go figure!

I did a bit of checking and from what I can gather, in normal
circumstances the audio path goes directly between the two callers, not
via Sipgate's systems, but it can happen that the media stream does go
through Sipgate's RTP proxy, mainly if both users are behind NAT. But
"alexd" is correct, it doesn't matter where anything is as long as delay
and jitter are within acceptable levels.

Ivor

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:56:28 GMT, alexd <look@my.sig> wrote:

>why can't I port a landline number to a mobile
>and have the option of paying for inbound calls?

No need to port. Get a voip.co.uk number, and set it up to divert all
calls to your mobile. No need for any voip hardware or anything. You
pay for the divert leg, but voip.co.uk mobile rates are reasonable.

However, if you want to port an existing landline number in, I think
you can take it to voip.co.uk but I'm not sure.

<hairydog@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:vro4l29j337lvvfudda3sqkbroaf15p23k@4ax.com
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:56:28 GMT, alexd <look@my.sig>
> wrote:
>
> > why can't I port a landline number to a mobile
> > and have the option of paying for inbound calls?
>
> No need to port. Get a voip.co.uk number, and set it up
> to divert all calls to your mobile. No need for any voip
> hardware or anything. You pay for the divert leg, but
> voip.co.uk mobile rates are reasonable.

But as I've said before when this topic has come up, you can't pay for the
incoming calls out of inclusive minutes or PAYG credit, as is possible
with the US system.

That is what I want to be able to do, but I doubt I will ever be able to
in the UK due to the sheer short-sightedness of some people.


Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:
> But as I've said before when this topic has come up, you can't pay for the
> incoming calls out of inclusive minutes or PAYG credit, as is possible
> with the US system.
>
> That is what I want to be able to do, but I doubt I will ever be able to
> in the UK due to the sheer short-sightedness of some people.

Get a high-up job at a mobile telco (or start your own) and offer the
same product you would like to be available.

"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eittd7$209t$1@custnews.inweb.co.uk
> Ivor Jones wrote:
> > But as I've said before when this topic has come up,
> > you can't pay for the incoming calls out of inclusive
> > minutes or PAYG credit, as is possible with the US
> > system.
> >
> > That is what I want to be able to do, but I doubt I
> > will ever be able to in the UK due to the sheer
> > short-sightedness of some people.
>
> Get a high-up job at a mobile telco (or start your own)
> and offer the same product you would like to be available.

And the next sensible suggestion is..?

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eittd7$209t$1@custnews.inweb.co.uk
>> Ivor Jones wrote:
>>> But as I've said before when this topic has come up,
>>> you can't pay for the incoming calls out of inclusive
>>> minutes or PAYG credit, as is possible with the US
>>> system.
>>>
>>> That is what I want to be able to do, but I doubt I
>>> will ever be able to in the UK due to the sheer
>>> short-sightedness of some people.
>> Get a high-up job at a mobile telco (or start your own)
>> and offer the same product you would like to be available.
>
> And the next sensible suggestion is..?

Move to the US?

Start a petition?

Whinge on uk.telecom or uk.telecom.voip about it every few weeks for the
rest of your life, or until some company implements your request,
whichever is the sooner?

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:4rfbdiFqu83rU1@mid.individual.net...
> <hairydog@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:vro4l29j337lvvfudda3sqkbroaf15p23k@4ax.com
>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:56:28 GMT, alexd <look@my.sig>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > why can't I port a landline number to a mobile
>> > and have the option of paying for inbound calls?
>>
>> No need to port. Get a voip.co.uk number, and set it up
>> to divert all calls to your mobile. No need for any voip
>> hardware or anything. You pay for the divert leg, but
>> voip.co.uk mobile rates are reasonable.
>
> But as I've said before when this topic has come up, you can't pay for the
> incoming calls out of inclusive minutes or PAYG credit, as is possible
> with the US system.
>
> That is what I want to be able to do, but I doubt I will ever be able to
> in the UK due to the sheer short-sightedness of some people.

Orange used to (still do?) offer normal geo numbers in certain major cities,
which would be charged just as you require.

The alternative is diverting a landline to your mobile......isn't it? Apart
from the extra rental & inability to receive texts. Incidentally, if you
have a landline diverted to a mobile & someone texts the landline number,
does BT's text-to-voice app ring the landline & divert to the mobile, or
not?

"Jono" <jono@NoThanksNeverBlueYonder.com> wrote in message
news:SeB4h.49528$r61.16010@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4rfbdiFqu83rU1@mid.individual.net...
> > <hairydog@despammed.com> wrote in message
> > news:vro4l29j337lvvfudda3sqkbroaf15p23k@4ax.com
> > > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:56:28 GMT, alexd <look@my.sig>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > why can't I port a landline number to a mobile
> > > > and have the option of paying for inbound calls?
> > >
> > > No need to port. Get a voip.co.uk number, and set it
> > > up to divert all calls to your mobile. No need for
> > > any voip hardware or anything. You pay for the divert
> > > leg, but voip.co.uk mobile rates are reasonable.
> >
> > But as I've said before when this topic has come up,
> > you can't pay for the incoming calls out of inclusive
> > minutes or PAYG credit, as is possible with the US
> > system. That is what I want to be able to do, but I doubt I
> > will ever be able to in the UK due to the sheer
> > short-sightedness of some people.
>
> Orange used to (still do?) offer normal geo numbers in
> certain major cities, which would be charged just as you
> require.

No, you cannot have this service charged for out of inclusive minutes or
PAYG credit, the incoming calls are billed separately, and at a much
higher rate.

> The alternative is diverting a landline to your
> mobile......isn't it? Apart from the extra rental &
> inability to receive texts.

There is no alternative to this function. Any other means of getting a
call to a landline number to ring a mobile won't charge in the correct
way, so is therefore useless to me.

> Incidentally, if you have a
> landline diverted to a mobile & someone texts the
> landline number, does BT's text-to-voice app ring the
> landline & divert to the mobile, or not?

No idea. I have text to voice disabled on all of my numbers. Horrible
system.

Ivor

Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
> <hairydog@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:vro4l29j337lvvfudda3sqkbroaf15p23k@4ax.com
>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:56:28 GMT, alexd <look@my.sig>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> why can't I port a landline number to a mobile
>>> and have the option of paying for inbound calls?
>>
>> No need to port. Get a voip.co.uk number, and set it up
>> to divert all calls to your mobile. No need for any voip
>> hardware or anything. You pay for the divert leg, but
>> voip.co.uk mobile rates are reasonable.
>
> But as I've said before when this topic has come up, you can't pay
> for the incoming calls out of inclusive minutes or PAYG credit, as is
> possible with the US system.
>
> That is what I want to be able to do, but I doubt I will ever be able
> to in the UK due to the sheer short-sightedness of some people.
>
>
> Ivor

If it was such a good idea why over the last couple of years have
several countries that did follow the USA system switch to the system
used in most of the world as is the UK system?

Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
> "Jono" <jono@NoThanksNeverBlueYonder.com> wrote in message
> news:SeB4h.49528$r61.16010@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk
>> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:4rfbdiFqu83rU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> <hairydog@despammed.com> wrote in message
>>> news:vro4l29j337lvvfudda3sqkbroaf15p23k@4ax.com
>>>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:56:28 GMT, alexd <look@my.sig>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> why can't I port a landline number to a mobile
>>>>> and have the option of paying for inbound calls?
>>>>
>>>> No need to port. Get a voip.co.uk number, and set it
>>>> up to divert all calls to your mobile. No need for
>>>> any voip hardware or anything. You pay for the divert
>>>> leg, but voip.co.uk mobile rates are reasonable.
>>>
>>> But as I've said before when this topic has come up,
>>> you can't pay for the incoming calls out of inclusive
>>> minutes or PAYG credit, as is possible with the US
>>> system. That is what I want to be able to do, but I doubt I
>>> will ever be able to in the UK due to the sheer
>>> short-sightedness of some people.
>>
>> Orange used to (still do?) offer normal geo numbers in
>> certain major cities, which would be charged just as you
>> require.
>
> No, you cannot have this service charged for out of inclusive minutes
> or PAYG credit, the incoming calls are billed separately, and at a
> much higher rate.
>
>> The alternative is diverting a landline to your
>> mobile......isn't it? Apart from the extra rental &
>> inability to receive texts.
>
> There is no alternative to this function. Any other means of getting a
> call to a landline number to ring a mobile won't charge in the correct
> way, so is therefore useless to me.
>
>> Incidentally, if you have a
>> landline diverted to a mobile & someone texts the
>> landline number, does BT's text-to-voice app ring the
>> landline & divert to the mobile, or not?
>
> No idea. I have text to voice disabled on all of my numbers. Horrible
> system.
>
> Ivor

If the USA system did come into being then, just like the USA they would
have higher cost monthly contracts so they can add in extra minutes, and
also like the USA on PAYG incoming calls at silly prices.

"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk>
wrote in message
news:%XU4h.50136$r61.31575@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk

[snip]

> If the USA system did come into being then, just like the
> USA they would have higher cost monthly contracts so they
> can add in extra minutes, and also like the USA on PAYG
> incoming calls at silly prices.

Funny that. My friends in San Francisco have a contract for something like
2000 minutes (incoming and outgoing) for around $35 a month.

Ivor

"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk>
wrote in message
news:0WU4h.50135$r61.15955@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk

[snip]

> If it was such a good idea why over the last couple of
> years have several countries that did follow the USA
> system switch to the system used in most of the world as
> is the UK system?

I have no idea. But the system should at least be available as an option
for those who do want it.

Ivor

Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
> "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote in message
> news:0WU4h.50135$r61.15955@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk
>
> [snip]
>
>> If it was such a good idea why over the last couple of
>> years have several countries that did follow the USA
>> system switch to the system used in most of the world as
>> is the UK system?
>
> I have no idea. But the system should at least be available as an
> option for those who do want it.
>
> Ivor

Yes, that it should.

{{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:

>
> If it was such a good idea why over the last couple of years have
> several countries that did follow the USA system switch to the system
> used in most of the world as is the UK system?

Probably because paying for incoming calls is generally an unattractive
prospect.

(Ignoring the fact that the american system is in complete disarray
because they didn't allocate any numbers for mobile phones amongst other
reasons).

I wouldn't look forward to the day when someone will phone me up trying
to sell me double glazing and expecting me to pay for the privelidge.

"Thomas Kenyon" <tom@art-it-services.co.uk> wrote in
message news:3b%4h.13226$GX2.4317@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net
> {{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
>
> >
> > If it was such a good idea why over the last couple of
> > years have several countries that did follow the USA
> > system switch to the system used in most of the world
> > as is the UK system?
>
> Probably because paying for incoming calls is generally
> an unattractive prospect.

But if your mobile contract gives you more inclusive minutes than you use
on outgoing calls, using some of them for incoming calls isn't such a bad
prospect..? My friends in San Francisco have a contract that gives them
2000 minutes a month for around $35. Using some for incoming doesn't
bother them, as they know when they call someone they don't have to worry
about whether that person has gone out mobile or not.

The American mindset is this - if *you choose* to go mobile, why should
*I* pay extra to call you..? You want the convenience of being able to go
mobile, you pay for it..!

> (Ignoring the fact that the american system is in
> complete disarray because they didn't allocate any
> numbers for mobile phones amongst other reasons).

They don't need a separate number range. Numbers are interchangeable and
indeed portable between landlines and mobiles. You don't need to know
whether a number is a mobile or not.

> I wouldn't look forward to the day when someone will
> phone me up trying to sell me double glazing and
> expecting me to pay for the privelidge.

How many cold sales calls do you get a month on your mobile..? I don't
think I've ever had a single one in almost 10 years.


Ivor

"Thomas Kenyon" <tom@art-it-services.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3b%4h.13226$GX2.4317@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
> {{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
>
>>
>> If it was such a good idea why over the last couple of years have several
>> countries that did follow the USA system switch to the system used in
>> most of the world as is the UK system?
>
> Probably because paying for incoming calls is generally an unattractive
> prospect.
>
> (Ignoring the fact that the american system is in complete disarray
> because they didn't allocate any numbers for mobile phones amongst other
> reasons).
>
> I wouldn't look forward to the day when someone will phone me up trying to
> sell me double glazing and expecting me to pay for the privelidge.

This happens to me on a regular basis, since I operate a divert from my SOHO
number to my mobile when I'm out and about.

If (and as the technology/industry is now approaching maturity it is
increasingly monstrous) mobiles are "more expensive" to call than landlines,
it should be person wanting the convenience of mibility who pays for the
extra not the poor SOB who is calling them.

The mobile telcos like things the way they are, as there is no competitive
interest in bringing the termination charges down, as their customers don't
have to pay them.

IMNSHO Ofcom should simply step in and mandate that in a couple of years
termination charges for mobiles may not exceed those for standard landlines.

--
Thomas Sandford

Ivor Jones wrote:
> How many cold sales calls do you get a month on your mobile..? I don't
> think I've ever had a single one in almost 10 years.

Thats because the companies have to pay extra to call you in the UK.. If
it was free for them to call you they would, trust me. Another reason to
keep mobile calls free for incoming calls, no? ;-)

Also, it forces you to buy a contract with inclusive minutes.. The way
you go on about sipgate being pay as you go I would have thought you
were all for a pay as you go mobile phone aswell - however, then you
would have to pay for any incoming calls (if we had the same system here).

Something to think about.. ;-)

Scope

"Scope" <scope@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:455488bb$0$12580$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com
> Ivor Jones wrote:
> > How many cold sales calls do you get a month on your
> > mobile..? I don't think I've ever had a single one in
> > almost 10 years.
>
> Thats because the companies have to pay extra to call you
> in the UK.. If it was free for them to call you they
> would, trust me. Another reason to keep mobile calls free
> for incoming calls, no? ;-)

No.

> Also, it forces you to buy a contract with inclusive
> minutes.. The way you go on about sipgate being pay as
> you go I would have thought you were all for a pay as you go mobile
> phone aswell -
> however, then you would have to pay for any incoming
> calls (if we had the same system here).

Funny that the people I know there don't seem to get cold calls.

Besides, the system doesn't force you to buy a contract at all. I always
get a PAYG SIM from someone like T-Mobile when I go to the States. I get
something like 180 minutes for both incoming and outgoing, I rarely use
all that in a two-week trip..!

Ivor

Thomas Sandford submitted this idea :
> This happens to me on a regular basis, since I operate a divert from my SOHO
> number to my mobile when I'm out and about.
>
> If (and as the technology/industry is now approaching maturity it is
> increasingly monstrous) mobiles are "more expensive" to call than landlines,
> it should be person wanting the convenience of mobility who pays for the
> extra not the poor SOB who is calling them.

Why?

I publish my landline number and my mobile.

If someone wants the convenience of speaking to me now, they can, if
they choose, call my mobile number. Their choice. Why should I pay for
them to ring me?

"Jono" <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid> wrote in message
news:mn.54447d6b3cd9219a.48968@blueyonder.invalid

[snip]

> If someone wants the convenience of speaking to me now,
> they can, if they choose, call my mobile number. Their
> choice. Why should I pay for them to ring me?

Then again, the American viewpoint is if you want the convenience of going
mobile, why should people pay extra to call you..?

Ivor

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:56:32 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:

>The American mindset is this - if *you choose* to go mobile, why should
>*I* pay extra to call you..? You want the convenience of being able to go
>mobile, you pay for it..!

My response to that would be, its because *you* are the one who wants
to speak to *me*. I'm not asking you to call me and I'm not going to
pay the extra cost if *you* choose to do so.

In the same way, if you want to send me a letter through the post, you
will be the one to pay the postage. If you want to visit me in person
you will be the one to pay for the petrol or other transport cost to
get here.

Chris

"Chris Blunt" <chris_blunt@spamfence.net> wrote in message
news:ng1bl2p0vk9id35j0b5nqce1gf685tngu8@4ax.com
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:56:32 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> > The American mindset is this - if *you choose* to go
> > mobile, why should *I* pay extra to call you..? You
> > want the convenience of being able to go mobile, you
> > pay for it..!
>
> My response to that would be, its because *you* are the
> one who wants to speak to *me*. I'm not asking you to
> call me and I'm not going to pay the extra cost if *you*
> choose to do so.

Ah, but you *are* asking me to call you, because (a) you have taken your
phone with you and (b) you have given me the number..! If that isn't an
invitation to call, what is..?!

> In the same way, if you want to send me a letter through
> the post, you will be the one to pay the postage. If you
> want to visit me in person you will be the one to pay for
> the petrol or other transport cost to get here.

Not a parallel, as the postal system doesn't work in the same way.

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Chris Blunt" <chris_blunt@spamfence.net> wrote in message
> news:ng1bl2p0vk9id35j0b5nqce1gf685tngu8@4ax.com
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:56:32 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
>> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> The American mindset is this - if *you choose* to go
>>> mobile, why should *I* pay extra to call you..? You
>>> want the convenience of being able to go mobile, you
>>> pay for it..!
>>
>> My response to that would be, its because *you* are the
>> one who wants to speak to *me*. I'm not asking you to
>> call me and I'm not going to pay the extra cost if *you*
>> choose to do so.
>
> Ah, but you *are* asking me to call you, because (a) you have taken your
> phone with you and (b) you have given me the number..! If that isn't an
> invitation to call, what is..?!

No, he's making it possible for you to call him, not requesting a call
from you.

"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ej4aa8$2iv7$1@custnews.inweb.co.uk
> Ivor Jones wrote:
> > "Chris Blunt" <chris_blunt@spamfence.net> wrote in
> > message news:ng1bl2p0vk9id35j0b5nqce1gf685tngu8@4ax.com
> > > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:56:32 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
> > > <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The American mindset is this - if *you choose* to go
> > > > mobile, why should *I* pay extra to call you..? You
> > > > want the convenience of being able to go mobile, you
> > > > pay for it..!
> > >
> > > My response to that would be, its because *you* are
> > > the one who wants to speak to *me*. I'm not asking
> > > you to call me and I'm not going to pay the extra
> > > cost if *you* choose to do so.
> >
> > Ah, but you *are* asking me to call you, because (a)
> > you have taken your phone with you and (b) you have
> > given me the number..! If that isn't an invitation to
> > call, what is..?!
>
> No, he's making it possible for you to call him, not
> requesting a call from you.

Giving me your number would to me indicate you are requesting a call. It's
*possible* for me to call anyone with a phone, but without knowing the
number it would be difficult.

Giving someone your number is a request to call. If you don't want me to
call, don't give me the number.

Ivor

Ivor Jones brought next idea :
> "Jono" <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid> wrote in message
> news:mn.54447d6b3cd9219a.48968@blueyonder.invalid
>
> [snip]
>
>> If someone wants the convenience of speaking to me now,
>> they can, if they choose, call my mobile number. Their
>> choice. Why should I pay for them to ring me?
>
> Then again, the American viewpoint is if you want the convenience of going
> mobile, why should people pay extra to call you..?
>
> Ivor

Spin.

I was going to reply with something about Americans not being very
bright, however, I thought better of it as I've met too few to judge.

Anyway, I can't think of anything less convenient than being hassled
when I'm out. Life was much more peaceful before mobiles came along.

Mobiles provide convenience to make calls when you're out & about. They
provide the /caller/ convenience to catch people they would ordinarily
have to wait for.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:54:29 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:

>"Chris Blunt" <chris_blunt@spamfence.net> wrote in message
>news:ng1bl2p0vk9id35j0b5nqce1gf685tngu8@4ax.com
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:56:32 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
>> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > The American mindset is this - if *you choose* to go
>> > mobile, why should *I* pay extra to call you..? You
>> > want the convenience of being able to go mobile, you
>> > pay for it..!
>>
>> My response to that would be, its because *you* are the
>> one who wants to speak to *me*. I'm not asking you to
>> call me and I'm not going to pay the extra cost if *you*
>> choose to do so.
>
>Ah, but you *are* asking me to call you, because (a) you have taken your
>phone with you and (b) you have given me the number..! If that isn't an
>invitation to call, what is..?!

Not at all. Providing you with my number is doing nothing more than
advising you of the fact that a facility exists for you to contact me
if you choose to do so. In no way is it a request for you to call me,
and its certainly not an offer to pay for the cost of any calls you do
choose to make.

The principal that the caller pays has been accepted ever since
telephones have existed. I don't see why that should change merely
because the connection is wireless rather than hard wired.

>> In the same way, if you want to send me a letter through
>> the post, you will be the one to pay the postage. If you
>> want to visit me in person you will be the one to pay for
>> the petrol or other transport cost to get here.
>
>Not a parallel, as the postal system doesn't work in the same way.

Why not? Its just another method of communication to which the same
principal applies. If you want to send a letter to communicate with
me, you pay the postage cost. If I move overseas and it becomes more
expensive to send that letter you still pay the extra cost of the
air-mail postage, not me.

This American mentality that the caller shouldn't have to pay seems to
be just another example of the ridiculous concept people there seem to
have that a person is not responsible for the consequences of their
own actions. They always want somebody else to accept responsibility
for what they do; always expect somebody else to pay for their lack of
thought.

Chris

Chris Blunt formulated on Saturday :
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:54:29 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Chris Blunt" <chris_blunt@spamfence.net> wrote in message
>> news:ng1bl2p0vk9id35j0b5nqce1gf685tngu8@4ax.com
>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:56:32 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
>>> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The American mindset is this - if *you choose* to go
>>>> mobile, why should *I* pay extra to call you..? You
>>>> want the convenience of being able to go mobile, you
>>>> pay for it..!
>>>
>>> My response to that would be, its because *you* are the
>>> one who wants to speak to *me*. I'm not asking you to
>>> call me and I'm not going to pay the extra cost if *you*
>>> choose to do so.
>>
>> Ah, but you *are* asking me to call you, because (a) you have taken your
>> phone with you and (b) you have given me the number..! If that isn't an
>> invitation to call, what is..?!
>
> Not at all. Providing you with my number is doing nothing more than
> advising you of the fact that a facility exists for you to contact me
> if you choose to do so. In no way is it a request for you to call me,
> and its certainly not an offer to pay for the cost of any calls you do
> choose to make.
>
> The principal that the caller pays has been accepted ever since
> telephones have existed. I don't see why that should change merely
> because the connection is wireless rather than hard wired.
>
>>> In the same way, if you want to send me a letter through
>>> the post, you will be the one to pay the postage. If you
>>> want to visit me in person you will be the one to pay for
>>> the petrol or other transport cost to get here.
>>
>> Not a parallel, as the postal system doesn't work in the same way.
>
> Why not? Its just another method of communication to which the same
> principal applies. If you want to send a letter to communicate with
> me, you pay the postage cost. If I move overseas and it becomes more
> expensive to send that letter you still pay the extra cost of the
> air-mail postage, not me.


In some ways, the postal analogy is not a parallel - for two way
communication, the cost is shared, for instance.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:53:53 GMT, Jono <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid>
wrote:

>Chris Blunt formulated on Saturday :
>> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:54:29 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
>> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> "Chris Blunt" <chris_blunt@spamfence.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ng1bl2p0vk9id35j0b5nqce1gf685tngu8@4ax.com
>>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:56:32 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
>>>> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The American mindset is this - if *you choose* to go
>>>>> mobile, why should *I* pay extra to call you..? You
>>>>> want the convenience of being able to go mobile, you
>>>>> pay for it..!
>>>>
>>>> My response to that would be, its because *you* are the
>>>> one who wants to speak to *me*. I'm not asking you to
>>>> call me and I'm not going to pay the extra cost if *you*
>>>> choose to do so.
>>>
>>> Ah, but you *are* asking me to call you, because (a) you have taken your
>>> phone with you and (b) you have given me the number..! If that isn't an
>>> invitation to call, what is..?!
>>
>> Not at all. Providing you with my number is doing nothing more than
>> advising you of the fact that a facility exists for you to contact me
>> if you choose to do so. In no way is it a request for you to call me,
>> and its certainly not an offer to pay for the cost of any calls you do
>> choose to make.
>>
>> The principal that the caller pays has been accepted ever since
>> telephones have existed. I don't see why that should change merely
>> because the connection is wireless rather than hard wired.
>>
>>>> In the same way, if you want to send me a letter through
>>>> the post, you will be the one to pay the postage. If you
>>>> want to visit me in person you will be the one to pay for
>>>> the petrol or other transport cost to get here.
>>>
>>> Not a parallel, as the postal system doesn't work in the same way.
>>
>> Why not? Its just another method of communication to which the same
>> principal applies. If you want to send a letter to communicate with
>> me, you pay the postage cost. If I move overseas and it becomes more
>> expensive to send that letter you still pay the extra cost of the
>> air-mail postage, not me.
>
>
>In some ways, the postal analogy is not a parallel - for two way
>communication, the cost is shared, for instance.

The cost isn't shared. If you call me, you pay. If I call you, I pay.
And that's the way it should be.

Chris

Chris Blunt formulated on Saturday :

>>
>> In some ways, the postal analogy is not a parallel - for two way
>> communication, the cost is shared, for instance.
>
> The cost isn't shared. If you call me, you pay. If I call you, I pay.
> And that's the way it should be.

Erm, OK. <sigh>

I don't mind the UK system (the costs I do mind), so please don't think
I do.

I was merely pointing out that to have a conversation by post, both
parties would be paying for the transmission of their "voice"

Ivor Jones wrote:

> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote

>> No, he's making it possible for you to call him, not
>> requesting a call from you.

> Giving someone your number is a request to call. If you don't want me to
> call, don't give me the number.

Who gave you the name of this newsgroup? ;-)

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
14:06:16 up 17 days, 21:52, 2 users, load average: 3.21, 3.13, 3.05
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK