[Asterisk-Users] Bill seconds

[Terry H. Gilsenan]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com 
> [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of C F
> Sent: Monday, 20 June 2005 3:46 AM
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Bill seconds
> 
> > > Why is it that if you pay 10 times as much to call a cell 
> phone you 
> > > consider it NOT part of your cell phone bill?
> > 
> > Who says I do? Where did you pull that "10 times" stuff? I 
> don't have 
> > to pay anything more to call a Cell phone that I do to call a land 
> > line. In fact
> 
> OK, here it looks like you either misuderstood somthing or 
> you are a liar. 

Oooo, a diplomat! :)

I showed you that your link to a mob called "cucumber" was not helpful to
you or anyone else. Their pricing is fure fiction as far as .au telco
pricing is concerned.

> I already included the link where it showed 
> it costs more to call a cell phone. As for the the 10 times 
> figure I made a mistake (since I was still under the 
> impression that it costs only $.039 to call australia 
> landline) and make it 4+ times as much (7 cents to landline 
> and 30 to cell, that makes; 30/7=4+2/7 times as much as to a 
> landline).

That's what happens when you pull figures out of the air. <chuckle>

> 
> > for the 5 mobiles that I own, (my family members) the calls between 
> > them and my land lines are free.
> > 
> 
> You already mentioned that (see below) that is NOT the argument.
> 

Why not?

> > Again, as the originator of the call I get to choose the 
> amount I spend.
> > 
> > > Don't
> > > you see how they succeeded in making you believe that your cell 
> > > phone is cheaper? I told you that none Amercians might not 
> > > understand this. :)
> > 
> > Yeah, I see how _some_ americans don't get it.....
> > 
> > >
> > > > when I don't originate the call, however in .us if you get
> > > called, you
> > > > pay, that can easily cost you a heap of money that you can only 
> > > > control by switching the phone off, and where is the 
> point in that?
> > >
> > > Really?? cost you a heap of money? only by swithcing the 
> phone off?
> > > what ever happened to not picking up?
> > 
> > Ok, there is that, so long as you take time to determine 
> whether you 
> > recognise the number etc.... It does however make rec'ving calls on 
> > the Cell phone much less attractive.
> 
> I totaly agree that it makes it unattractive, but in no way 
> does't it make the person calling me hesitate, so I can realy 
> keep in touch.

And so your spending level is dictated to you buy people that want to call
you, at the whim of another (so to speak)

> 
> > 
> > > what about unlimited
> > > nights and weekends completely free that most providers give you 
> > > here. What about the fact that even when you do pay for 
> the incoming 
> > > it costs around
> > > $.05 a minute?
> > 
> > How about just not having to pay for incoming calls at all, that 
> > sounds much better. It makes being in touch easier and cheaper.
> 
> Maybe, it makes it easier for the receiver but not for the 
> one making the call. 

And it is the one that _chooses_ to make the call that make the decision to
spend the money. Who's money should they be able to choose to spend? Quite
frankly someone else being able to spend my money at their whim scares the
willies out of me. 

> So this part is again debateable, and 
> not what the argument is about. But if you add up the cents 
> and dollars it is cheaper to use cell phones in the states - 
> where incoming costs sometimes as little as making a LD 
> domestic call for the owner of the cell phone - than it is in 
> Australia, or all the other countries that they charge as 
> much as 4+ times to call the cell network.

So the caller is more likely to (a) not waste my time, (b) not waste my
money, (c) Get on with what they wanted to tell me, etc.....

> 
> > 
> > > I think I said enough.
> > 
> > <chuckle> how does one respond to that?
> > 
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So if I rec'v 500 calls a week on my cell phone, it still
> > > costs me nothing.
> > >
> > > Wrong, because your provider succeeded in convincing your 
> freind to 
> > > make the same calculation, so when you have to call your 
> friend you 
> > > then pay 10 times as much than to a regular phone.
> > 
> > Pure and unadulterated crapola, did you know that when people pluck 
> > numbers out of the air like that it belittles their entire point?
> 
> Can you explain why you can't argue this in english? or is it 
> that you see that I am right? Now the only thing that I made 
> a mistake about is the 10 times it should be 4+ times.
> 
> > 
> > >
> > > > And in some cases if I have the Cell and the Landline from the 
> > > > same telco (in .au), calls between them are free too, regardless
> > > of where I
> > > > happen to be in australia at the time.
> > >
> > > So this we will take out of the argument since most American 
> > > providers don't charge in network either.
> > 
> > They do for out of zone calls, however with the telco I am 
> using and 
> > the account arrangements I have, it doesn't matter where the cell 
> > phone is, even 4000km away is still a free call to my home 
> land line.
> 
> Really? I have a cell phone here in the states since January 
> 1998, I have had cell phones with: Verizon, SprintPCS, AT&T, 
> Cingular, and Nextel. None of them ever had so called out of 
> zones, as long as I was anywhere on their network (CA to NY, 
> to FL to WA, and all of the lower
> 48) had the same rate. In my family we currently have more 
> than 10 cell phones, none pay any extra based on where they are.
> 

Very good, it seems that some sanity may begin to gain a foothold there, all
they need to do now is to change the parasitic cost shifted charging model,
and they will be on the right track.

> 
> Here show me how many plans have what you describe:
> http://www.sprintpcs.com/
> http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/index.jsp
> http://www.nextel.com/
> http://www.cingular.com/indexc
> http://www.t-mobile.com/
> 
> > > > Oh, and cucumber seem to be doing you no favours either....
> > > >
> > > > I can place a call to the US using my Cell phone for 
> 1-2c/minute, 
> > > > <shrug> Caviat Emptor?
> > >
> > > Actualy you are right about this one, didn't realize they changed 
> > > the rates to au, it used to be $.039 a minute. Thanks for 
> pointing 
> > > this out. In any case I know that Australia has now very 
> good rates 
> > > to call UK and the states, but that is only as far as LD goes.
> > 
> > I have VoIP for calls to the .us and .uk I also can route 
> my call via 
> > my home * box and then over VoIP to many other places to make the 
> > calls
> > *<free>* so with a call to .us for instance, I can use my 
> cell to call 
> > one of my home land lines *<free>* and then via * connect to the us 
> > using one of the IP Telcos *<1c/min>* , or to my office in 
> Houston to 
> > the * box there
> > *<free>*
> 
> Well, this has nothing to do with the rates of cell phones, I 
> think you agree on this one.
> 
> > 
> > Further: In the .US there is a groundswell of people that are angry 
> > with telemarketers calling them on their cell phones, Why 
> is this? A: 
> > because the cost of the call is shifted to the called 
> party, just like 
> > spam. The .au model of "caller pays" has pretty much ensured that 
> > telemarketers wont be a problem on _my_ cell phone.
> > 
> 
> Again I don't see that makes the cost of cell phones more 
> expensive in any way.
> 
> BTW, to call UK landline it's $.029 and UK Cell $.30.
> Source:
> http://www.cucumber.com/fullinternational29.htm#u
> Most providers aren't as cheap to regular UK that it comes 
> out to 10 times as much, but this might tell you where I got 
> the idea from.

Again with cucumber? What gives? <cringe>