[Asterisk-Users] Bill seconds [so far off topic that it has become a singularity]

[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 12:38 PM
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Bill seconds
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Really pure fiction? Mob? let see:
> http://www.tel3advantage.com/rates.aspx?AgentNumber=036333&CID=124
> $.03 to regulare, and $.17 to mobile (more than 5 times as much)
> 
> http://www.packet8.net/about/international.asp
> again $.03 to regular, and $.23 cents to mobile more than 7 
> times as much
> 
> http://www.broadvoice.com/rateplans_international_li.html
> $.02 to regular, and $.18 to mobile 9 times as much
> 
> http://www.voicepulse.com/plans/InternationalRates.aspx
> $.06 to regular and $.26 to mobile, that makes more than 4 
> times as much.
> 
> anyhow to show you that cucumber is not the most expensive one:
> http://www22.verizon.com/ForYourHome/sas/sas_con_LongDescription.aspx
> $1.30 to australia
> here is one thats even better:
> http://www22.verizon.com/ForYourHome/sas/sas_basicinternationa
> lcallingcardrates.aspx
> 
> Here is another Verizon rate:
> http://www22.verizon.com/ForYourhome/voip/CallingRates.aspx
> Don't ask me why the difference, but I promise you they don't 
> even know.

Fantastic, but not a single .au telco among them....... Your telcos may not
get great rates taling to our mobiles, but so what? 

> 
> > 
> > > 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>
> 
> Really out of the air? 

Yep. 

> the interesting part here is that you 
> know better than me that a huge chunk of your monthly phone 
> bill (not your cell phone) goes towards phone calls made to 
> mobile phones, 

Really? I have already told you that calls from my land line to my mobiles
are free, what part of that didn't you understand?

> which is something that in the states doesn't 
> exist, and still you argue that it doesn't cost you, and you 
> divert this argument about what some company charges to 
> Australia. 

Huh? What are you taking about?

> In an avarage month every American can tell you 
> EXACTLY how much they are GOING to pay for their cellphone 
> that month, and in most cases it is not a lot based on the 
> minutes used. 

Ditto for .au

> However in places like Australia that you pay 
> for your cell phone when calling from your home phone, there 
> is no way of telling how much it is costing you since it 
> costs you sometimes as much as 9 times as much to call a cell phone.

*<Sigh>* I pay _exactly_ $0.00 each month to call my mobiles regardless of
the number of calls, however you would have to pay to call _my_ mobiles, its
called preselection, and it's a feature of my telco.

> 
> > 
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > 
> 
> Because basic math teaches us that 2 negatives cancel each 
> other, and I told you that the same is available in the 
> states, so this argument is negated with the exact same 
> argument that I have, and that is that I don't have to pay to 
> ANY customer that is in the same network that I am (currently 
> SprintPCS) nor does he pay for the incoming. So far all you 
> have is only 5, and in the states I get about 30 Million 
> phone numbers that I can call for free UNLIMITED (besides for 
> nights and weekends that are completely free), so if you want 
> this is another one for me.
> 

Kewl! Its tit-for-tat time :D

> > 
> > > > 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)
> 
> Not really, but lets say that yes, the bottom line is that 
> compare the same amount of minutes from your cell phone and 
> landline with an american, and whoops you overpaid. All 
> because of the call you make to cell phones.
> 

<chuckle>

> > 
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> 
> You keep missing the point here, you are right when keeping 
> in touch is a choice, but take a simple example from lets say 
> a painter. In the states he keeps open a landline phone, and 
> since he is not at his desk during the day (he is painting 
> now by some customer), he has to run an answering machine 
> that takes the calls. Why? because he does not want to 
> advertise the cell phone number since it costs him money the 
> incoming. 

Uh-huh.

> However in australia the cell providers succeeded 
> in making sure that the oposite happens, now the painter gets 
> a cell phone instead of a landline (it's cheaper for him, 
> since if he doesn't make outgoing calls he deosn't pay 
> anything, unlike landlines)

FYI: If the Cell charging model was changed in .au to rec'ver pays, there
would be a riot.

>, you want that painter, you have 
> got no choice but to call his cell phone, and here it is that 
> they took the choice from you. 

In .au the caller has the choice as to whether he/she/it wants to make the
call and spend _their_ money. But in the states the caller makes the choice
as to whether he/she/it wants to make the call and spend _your_ money.

See? By taking that pain of spending away from the caller, your telcos have
backed your entire cel phone paradigm into a cash-cow for them. There is
less financial dis-incentive for the caller, and no choice for the callee.

> Look around and you will see 
> how much for daily stuff like delivery guys, painters, 
> contractors, and all the other types of day workers you can't 
> reach on landlines because they simply don't have one for 
> business, you HAVE to call them on their moblies.
> 

Ha Ha Ha... Nonsence, have you take a look at the business directories,
etc.. Etc...

> > 
> > > 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.....
> 
> That would imply that people that pay for outgoing would not 
> (a) waste my time, (b) waste my money, (c) get on with what 
> they wanted to tell me, etc...

For the most part yes :D

> So how come I (and I believe you can say the same) 

Whoa! Don't you be putting words into my mouth boy'o

> do have 
> people calling me from their home where they have to pay at 
> least the long distance part (I'm not talking about people 
> for whom to call my cell phone is local) that (a) do waste my 
> time, 

Some times perhaps, but it is their cost, not mine.

>(b) waste my moeny, 

Nope, its their cost to call me

>(c) just keep beating around the 
> bush untill the get on to what they wanted to tell me, etc......

Nope, because the antisocial person that I am hangs up on them.

<snip>

> > 
> > 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.
> 
> English please?

That was english, I don't know how to translate into american though, sorry.

<snip>

I think that this is so far off topic that this will be my last post on the
matter