> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
