 Re: Porting rules [was Re: Porting Sipgate to Voip.co.uk]
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:52:15 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>"Chris Blunt" <chris_blunt@spamfence.net> wrote in message
>news:uacbl210b6dhv3q2pluq79uqu86n1t5j58@4ax.com
>> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:54:29 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
>> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> > 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.
>
>Then don't ever give me your number, because if you do, it is an
>invitation to call..!
If you insist on interpreting that way its still not an invitation to
pay for that call.
>> 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.
>
>It is a principle, not a headmaster. And it does not apply in the USA,
>which seems to manage perfectly well. You don't hear them complaining
>about it, rather the opposite.
On the contrary, they complain vehemently when they get unwanted sales
calls. Those are bad enough when they don't cost you anything to
receive. I hate to think how infuriating they would be if they cost
the recipient money as well.
>> 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.
>
>Not at all. The reasoning is valid - *you* choose to go mobile, nobody
>forces you. If while mobile you want to be contacted, you take a phone
>with you. Why should I pay extra because you want the convenience of
>mobile communications..?
I carry a mobile so that *I* have the convenience of being able to
make outgoing calls if *I* need to. I accept that I will have to pay a
higher tariff to do so as a result of being mobile, and that's fine
with me.
At the same time, it also provides a facility for you to call me if
you choose to make use of it. I don't "want to be contacted", its
*you* who wants to contact me since *you* were the one to pick up the
phone and dial my number. You know that if you do that you will have
to pay for the convenience of being able to speak to me while I'm out
and about. If you don't want to pay, then its simple, don't call, or
call me at home later. Don't come crying to me because you had to pay
for a call that you chose to make. Grow up, and accept responsibility
for the actions which *you* took.
Chris
 | 
Linear Mode
