The cost ends up at the consumer, no matter which way around you twist it.
Yes, but there is consumer and consumer. There is the person who chose to make the call, he's the one that should pay. Simple. He knows I'm on a cellphone since the number indicates it. He used to know that I was on a different carrier because the number indicated it (This is not true anymore considering number-portability)
What you say is that I pay for the croissants other people eat even though I only eat bread because both are made of grain.
You are paying the same price for something that costs vastly different amounts for the service provider.
From a customer point of view: So what? It's the service my provider chose to offer me. Besides, you're completely missing the point of this. My provider offers this not because of kindness of heart, but because he wants to attract customers (in a saturated market). The more customers he gets, the more likely it is that one customer will call another customer on the internal network which are the high-margin calls for them.
Other providers will follow because their offer (from the customer point of view) is inferior and they want to keep competing. So, they also reduce prices. Now the next step is wonderful: to cut costs, they'll review inter-operator costs and negotiate better terms between each other because it is in their own interest to lower such costs.
This all works according to free market.
The only reason why this hasn't spun completely out of control is that the antitrust authorities are limiting inter-carrier rates.
Actually, because there aren't much players the anti-trust measures are to ensure that no oligopolies formed, cutting out the customer. That means, only the last phase happens: companies getting together to negotiate better terms, but only for them.
If either the market or the antitrust authorities were doing the job properly, those rates would be approximately the same.
And yet, I have been telling you that in my country exactly this is happening! Are you obtuse or what?
My experiences in the EU is that phones don't let you roam for free across most borders
True. Yet, the logic behind this is equal to the logic that originated the "pay-for-reception" in the US. (Read my other comment) A caller, calling a cellphone has no way to know where the other person is. If I call my brother right now, he might be in Germany for all I know. Who gets to pay? Not me, since I didn't know and it would be unfair to me. So he gets to pay. That's the basic idea behind roaming.
/If/ your carriers would be state-based instead of country-based you would have exactly the same problem that we have in Europe.
If you do a lot of peak calling you can get an unlimited plan for around $100 and need not worry about minutes at all.
This brings us back to "backwards".... In my country an unlimited plan like that is 30€/month. Sure, roaming isn't included in that, which limits it to my country but the same is true for the US... After all it still is one country and the networks in different states are owned by one and the same company.
I understood what you mean by now. By "paying for incoming" calls you mean "paying more for an outgoing call because you call a different carrier". It's not "paying for incoming" calls at all. Your logic is extremely twisted.
The market will take care of that: if one carrier wants to attract customers is will market the fact that it doesn't ask much more for outgoing calls to other carriers. Exactly this is happening right now. I checked with my carrier and outgoing calls to any carrier (fixed and mobile) in my country are exactly the same price an outgoing to a cellphone on the same network. They Advertise this fact and use it as a competitive advantage.
Frankly, this must be something backward in Danmark;-)
As it is in Europe, providers can extort pretty much any rate they want on incoming calls, and the market doesn't punish them -- because
*blink*
My wife and I used to be on different carriers. If she called me from cell to cell, yes, she had to pay more for that call (which is outgoing for her). Incoming, I paid exactly nothing at all. Inter-carrier rates for incoming calls are non-existent where I live and I know they don't exist in Belgium, France, Germany and The Netherlands. Maybe Danmark is special in this case?
Technically, I can have a cellphone and it will cost me nothing if I never ever call with it. Incoming calls are always free (roaming being an exception, of course). I have a "pay-as-you-call" plan. I effectively pay only when I call. No monthly fees, no recharge cards. Only a slightly higher rate for my outgoing calls. Still only 0.09€/min My bills are pretty much 15€ per month, and that's with my wife and my phone tied to that bill.
Now if you're talking about *roaming* you open another can of worms, but roaming is a special case.
Finally, what you say makes no economic sense. If you had to pay for incoming calls at one carrier, and the next carrier asks less or even nothing, who are people going to flock to? Indeed...
While I laugh at that too, one has to see that in a historical context. This stems from the days where local calls were free in the US which was a result of competition. We never had such luxury in Europe. Best I remember was that one local call would cost "one unit" (which was about 0.13€ back then) for 60 minutes of calling. After 60 minutes you'd be cut off and you had to call again. (I was a child back then, so it may not be accurate)
Now the mistake the carriers made was to consider cell-phones (okay, back then the analog "carry" beasts) as normal phones and hence give them normal phone numbers indistinguishable from real fixed-phone lines. However the costs for operating wireless communications had to be paid by someone. That couldn't be the originating caller because a) he couldn't know it was a mobile phone and b) expected to pay nothing when calling a local number. The logical solution was: the mobile phone user pays for the luxury of getting calls while being on the move.
While I find it weird to pay nothing for local phone calls and weird to pay for incoming calls, within the historical context it isn't all that crazy. The US should fix this and it is fixable by using predefined prefixes for mobile phones. They can even keep free local calls that way.
The 286 even had memory protection, so they could have done it. The limitation was that you couldn't revert to real mode, and somehow that causes problems with..... backward compatibility.
I doubt most programs adjust how they use memory based on how much physical memory your machine has (though there are probably some).
Photoshop, The Gimp and (AFAIK) Firefox.
For most programs, there's a point at which it fits entirely into physical memory, and once you're there for the programs you're using, adding more memory won't really help at all. You just need enough to prevent paging.
Again, I stress, I said "normal"... Preventing paging is indeed what I'm after. My wife computer (my main computer) has 2Gig RAM. It's simple DDR400 and the CPU is a P-IV 2.6HT. We usually use 600Meg to 800Meg RAM. The question here is, if I'd replace the RAM with high speed RAM (of that generation) would it be noticable in general use.
Oh, I know about the problem. That's why I said "normal" usage. Yes, high-end gamers will notice a difference, but only once they maxed out their rig. For the rest of us, value RAM will do nicely.
Actually, I never overclocked anything... Never saw the need versus the risk. I recalled that early celerons were very overclockable, so, ehm... I must have been wrong?
For most application the quantity of memory is more important than the speed of the memory. As I said "most"... I know my usage patterns are fine with completely normal memory.
Overclocking? Not bothered with since the early Celeron days...
What are feet? I have two of them, but apart from that I don't know what you're talking about. Could you use more civilised measurements?
Re:My 10 Million Dollar Business Plan for Transmet
on
Transmeta Up For Sale
·
· Score: 1
I know that, but I was talking about generic applications. Games, I don't care. Flash can most probably be implemented patent free.... And so on, the reason still stays the hegemony of x86.
What I think? They promised x86 instruction set (with all the apps that existed), with ARM power savings. They never delivered. Intel Atom might be it.
Re:My 10 Million Dollar Business Plan for Transmet
on
Transmeta Up For Sale
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But you omit the reason.... We are stuck with x86 because the dominant platform runs on that. If we had an open source operating system that was popular enough, we could have applications in source form that would compile equally well on ARM, SPARC, MIPS, x86 or AMD64.... Heck, this is the case now for open source operating systems, and the ones causing problems like Flash are.... you guessed it developed for 32-bit Win32 systems.
I know discussing taste is something you shouldn't do. I do however have one question for you: Did you seriously take that movie as a sci-fi-action flic? Because it isn't: it's a parody of sci-fi-action flics, a comedy, humour.... I thought that the fact that it's a French movie would give that away;-)
Indeed, but you're ignoring inflation. That $1700 in 10 years isn't going to be worth as much as that $1700 now. Also, this assumes you did a good investment, which is not guaranteed.
$25,700 for the subcompact Ford! I can get two Toyotas for that price...
Not in Europe... At current rates, $25,700 is €18,116. I just jumped over to my national Toyota site and configured a Toyota Auris with a Diesel Engine (That model is similar in size to a Fiesta) and that would cost €17.185.
Even taking their smallest model, the Toyota Yaris it would still cost €12.405. (Again, I took a Diesel model to be fair).
I'm sure I'd be able to get two second hand Toyotas for that price, but that wouldn't be a fair comparison.
Evidently.... The fact that we pay per minute in Europe pushed the broadband acceptance. In the early DSL days, we had over 100€/month ISDN connection fees for Internet alone (evidently we weren't a bunch of Grannies). That was enough reason to switch to ADSL, which was 75€/month for 256kbps/128kbps flatrate, but that was a very very long time ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but there is consumer and consumer. There is the person who chose to make the call, he's the one that should pay. Simple. He knows I'm on a cellphone since the number indicates it. He used to know that I was on a different carrier because the number indicated it (This is not true anymore considering number-portability)
What you say is that I pay for the croissants other people eat even though I only eat bread because both are made of grain.
From a customer point of view: So what? It's the service my provider chose to offer me. Besides, you're completely missing the point of this. My provider offers this not because of kindness of heart, but because he wants to attract customers (in a saturated market). The more customers he gets, the more likely it is that one customer will call another customer on the internal network which are the high-margin calls for them.
Other providers will follow because their offer (from the customer point of view) is inferior and they want to keep competing. So, they also reduce prices. Now the next step is wonderful: to cut costs, they'll review inter-operator costs and negotiate better terms between each other because it is in their own interest to lower such costs.
This all works according to free market.
Actually, because there aren't much players the anti-trust measures are to ensure that no oligopolies formed, cutting out the customer. That means, only the last phase happens: companies getting together to negotiate better terms, but only for them.
And yet, I have been telling you that in my country exactly this is happening! Are you obtuse or what?
That doesn't matter to me as a customer.... You do realise that?
True. Yet, the logic behind this is equal to the logic that originated the "pay-for-reception" in the US. (Read my other comment) A caller, calling a cellphone has no way to know where the other person is. If I call my brother right now, he might be in Germany for all I know. Who gets to pay? Not me, since I didn't know and it would be unfair to me. So he gets to pay. That's the basic idea behind roaming.
/If/ your carriers would be state-based instead of country-based you would have exactly the same problem that we have in Europe.
This brings us back to "backwards".... In my country an unlimited plan like that is 30€/month. Sure, roaming isn't included in that, which limits it to my country but the same is true for the US... After all it still is one country and the networks in different states are owned by one and the same company.
I understood what you mean by now. By "paying for incoming" calls you mean "paying more for an outgoing call because you call a different carrier". It's not "paying for incoming" calls at all. Your logic is extremely twisted.
The market will take care of that: if one carrier wants to attract customers is will market the fact that it doesn't ask much more for outgoing calls to other carriers. Exactly this is happening right now. I checked with my carrier and outgoing calls to any carrier (fixed and mobile) in my country are exactly the same price an outgoing to a cellphone on the same network. They Advertise this fact and use it as a competitive advantage.
Frankly, this must be something backward in Danmark ;-)
*blink*
My wife and I used to be on different carriers. If she called me from cell to cell, yes, she had to pay more for that call (which is outgoing for her). Incoming, I paid exactly nothing at all. Inter-carrier rates for incoming calls are non-existent where I live and I know they don't exist in Belgium, France, Germany and The Netherlands. Maybe Danmark is special in this case?
Technically, I can have a cellphone and it will cost me nothing if I never ever call with it. Incoming calls are always free (roaming being an exception, of course). I have a "pay-as-you-call" plan. I effectively pay only when I call. No monthly fees, no recharge cards. Only a slightly higher rate for my outgoing calls. Still only 0.09€/min My bills are pretty much 15€ per month, and that's with my wife and my phone tied to that bill.
Now if you're talking about *roaming* you open another can of worms, but roaming is a special case.
Finally, what you say makes no economic sense. If you had to pay for incoming calls at one carrier, and the next carrier asks less or even nothing, who are people going to flock to? Indeed...
Judging from the other comments, it seems to be.
While I laugh at that too, one has to see that in a historical context. This stems from the days where local calls were free in the US which was a result of competition. We never had such luxury in Europe. Best I remember was that one local call would cost "one unit" (which was about 0.13€ back then) for 60 minutes of calling. After 60 minutes you'd be cut off and you had to call again. (I was a child back then, so it may not be accurate)
Now the mistake the carriers made was to consider cell-phones (okay, back then the analog "carry" beasts) as normal phones and hence give them normal phone numbers indistinguishable from real fixed-phone lines. However the costs for operating wireless communications had to be paid by someone. That couldn't be the originating caller because a) he couldn't know it was a mobile phone and b) expected to pay nothing when calling a local number. The logical solution was: the mobile phone user pays for the luxury of getting calls while being on the move.
While I find it weird to pay nothing for local phone calls and weird to pay for incoming calls, within the historical context it isn't all that crazy. The US should fix this and it is fixable by using predefined prefixes for mobile phones. They can even keep free local calls that way.
I wonder why they say "soon". In my country they already do this, at at least two mobile phone operators. It seems like a rather logical step to me.
The 286 even had memory protection, so they could have done it. The limitation was that you couldn't revert to real mode, and somehow that causes problems with..... backward compatibility.
Photoshop, The Gimp and (AFAIK) Firefox.
Again, I stress, I said "normal"... Preventing paging is indeed what I'm after. My wife computer (my main computer) has 2Gig RAM. It's simple DDR400 and the CPU is a P-IV 2.6HT. We usually use 600Meg to 800Meg RAM. The question here is, if I'd replace the RAM with high speed RAM (of that generation) would it be noticable in general use.
My bet is no.... That's my whole point....
Oh, I know about the problem. That's why I said "normal" usage. Yes, high-end gamers will notice a difference, but only once they maxed out their rig. For the rest of us, value RAM will do nicely.
Actually, I never overclocked anything... Never saw the need versus the risk. I recalled that early celerons were very overclockable, so, ehm... I must have been wrong?
For most application the quantity of memory is more important than the speed of the memory. As I said "most"... I know my usage patterns are fine with completely normal memory.
Overclocking? Not bothered with since the early Celeron days...
You're a bean and a human at the same time... Wow! I thought that only Rowan Atkinson could say that, and then the "human" part would be dubious.
What are feet? I have two of them, but apart from that I don't know what you're talking about. Could you use more civilised measurements?
I know that, but I was talking about generic applications. Games, I don't care. Flash can most probably be implemented patent free.... And so on, the reason still stays the hegemony of x86.
What I think? They promised x86 instruction set (with all the apps that existed), with ARM power savings. They never delivered. Intel Atom might be it.
But you omit the reason.... We are stuck with x86 because the dominant platform runs on that. If we had an open source operating system that was popular enough, we could have applications in source form that would compile equally well on ARM, SPARC, MIPS, x86 or AMD64.... Heck, this is the case now for open source operating systems, and the ones causing problems like Flash are.... you guessed it developed for 32-bit Win32 systems.
Actually no... It was going to save us from x86 dependency.... *sigh*
It must be a cultural thing. I'm actually quite familiar with French humour and this fits right in.
I know discussing taste is something you shouldn't do. I do however have one question for you: Did you seriously take that movie as a sci-fi-action flic? Because it isn't: it's a parody of sci-fi-action flics, a comedy, humour.... I thought that the fact that it's a French movie would give that away ;-)
I laugh myself to tears with that movie.
Indeed, but you're ignoring inflation. That $1700 in 10 years isn't going to be worth as much as that $1700 now. Also, this assumes you did a good investment, which is not guaranteed.
Not in Europe... At current rates, $25,700 is €18,116. I just jumped over to my national Toyota site and configured a Toyota Auris with a Diesel Engine (That model is similar in size to a Fiesta) and that would cost €17.185.
Even taking their smallest model, the Toyota Yaris it would still cost €12.405. (Again, I took a Diesel model to be fair).
I'm sure I'd be able to get two second hand Toyotas for that price, but that wouldn't be a fair comparison.
There were questions about creationism? I mean, despite all the facts that say it can't be true. Mmmmmkay...
Evidently.... The fact that we pay per minute in Europe pushed the broadband acceptance. In the early DSL days, we had over 100€/month ISDN connection fees for Internet alone (evidently we weren't a bunch of Grannies). That was enough reason to switch to ADSL, which was 75€/month for 256kbps/128kbps flatrate, but that was a very very long time ago.
I know... tried to explain that to someone yesterday. Wouldn't listen. *deep sigh*