Re: Roaming charges

[tgp]

Re: Roaming charges

@tgp you do realise that a) The EU eliminated roaming charges

Yes, I said "Until recently..."

So until the roaming charges in Europe were eliminated, what did you do when you traveled abroad? (Traveling abroad to a European is a distance that an American calls going to town.) Did you turn your phones off? Did you pay the roaming charges? Sure, you can talk about your $20/month phone bills, but when your phone is either unusable or incurs very high roaming charges, is it really that cheap?

The US hasn't had roaming charges for many years, even if you are on another carrier's network. I think the last time I paid a roaming charge was in 1998.

And even today, can a customer of a European carrier travel 8,000 km from home and still not incur a roaming charge?

and b) you are rationalising the profit mongering of corporate greed.

I didn't say I think it is OK. I was stating facts.

If the infrastructure was that expensive then explain why Verizon has continued to make YoY profits in terms of operating revenue, hmm?

Because they charge so much? The lower population density does raise costs per customer. There is no way to deny that!

My previous post contains no opinion. But the following is opinion:

I for the most part am against heavy corporate regulation. I say let the market work it out. Even though the US has higher prices in a couple areas such as internet, mobile service, some public transportation, and health care, living costs overall are generally lower in the US. Almost everything besides the few items I mentioned above costs more in Europe than in the US. This "unregulated corporate greed" you talk about has produced overall lower costs of living.

 

[ioaniro]

Re: Paranoid about security of laptop?

My previous post contains no opinion. But the following is opinion:

I for the most part am against heavy corporate regulation. I say let the market work it out. Even though the US has higher prices in a couple areas such as internet, mobile service, some public transportation, and health care, living costs overall are generally lower in the US. Almost everything besides the few items I mentioned above costs more in Europe than in the US. This "unregulated corporate greed" you talk about has produced overall lower costs of living.

I'm not sure about the overall lower costs of living. I don't think we should put in the same boat health care, public transport and all the things you list there. Internet access is one thing and basic health care or decent public transport are different things.
And yes, maybe the market would actually sort it out but only if the government steps in much more aggressive when monopolies form (and break up the offenders not just fine them) and if they enforce quicker rules about how long can companies work while losing money.

About roaming, before the law you would just log in or call your provider and sign up for a roaming package that included your destination for the dates you were traveling. It was not expensive you just needed to plan ahead. remember I had roaming turned off by default with the provider so it doesn't trigger accidentally in case I would forget when crossing borders :angel: Alternatively, I would just buy a prepaid card in the other country.

 

[TechFreak1]

Re: Roaming charges

@tgp.
Really? You had to go an derail this thread - https://forums.windowscentral.com/m...anoid-about-security-laptop.html#post3789751?


You could have sent me this in a PM.


However for the sake of clarity for anyone else who persists on defending corporations in ripping them off I will respond to your points and moved to this discussion to the relevant place.

Yes, I said "Until recently..."

So until the roaming charges in Europe were eliminated, what did you do when you traveled abroad? (Traveling abroad to a European is a distance that an American calls going to town.) Did you turn your phones off? Did you pay the roaming charges? Sure, you can talk about your $20/month phone bills, but when your phone is either unusable or incurs very high roaming charges, is it really that cheap?

Actually yes, it is that cheap because many plans included calls and texts in the US as standard as a Unique selling point in market saturated with unlimited data plans with unlimited texts and minutes.


(The only thing that hardly any of these plan include is MMS which hardly anyone uses in the UK anymore due to protocols not being updated to support complex images such as Gifs and quality compression to meet data restrictions in a MMS message, additionally tethering was also included but many plans changed to include only a set limit of tethering to sell mobile hotspot plans).


Plus it is best to buy the local regional sim with a set package on it. The reason is three fold it's cheaper for local businesses to contact you i.e. tour guides, local cabs, even food deliveries, you hotel. b) you reduce the amount of hops required to maintain your home sims signal therefore reducing the battery drain.
And C) When you are in rural areas the only signal you will receive is local carriers or MVNOs that do not have roaming agreements.


The point you make is if your phone is unusable that usually applies phones not supporting the required frequency bands.

The US hasn't had roaming charges for many years, even if you are on another carrier's network. I think the last time I paid a roaming charge was in 1998.

Are you talking about using the phone in the same country or in a different country?
See below.

And even today, can a customer of a European carrier travel 8,000 km from home and still not incur a roaming charge?

Really?

So you picked an arbitrary figure to prove your flawed point?

You do realise that 8,000 KM is the approximate distance between London and Ntem, Africa for example.

To prove the absurdity of your point, I have picked an arbitrary location in Scotland to Ntem, Africa.

Which works out to roughly 8,300 KM approx at the shortest driving distance.


When I say flawed, does any US carrier allow you to roam in Africa without any charges?

Heck, you have to pay roaming charges if you go to Canada on top of what you currently pay (unless you have a plan that allows to roam which or pay extra for a travel pass).

https://forums.windowscentral.com/e...a495c0bd1511e981d3036e0a180513&token=lzPtDJiB

You are conflating domestic "roaming" with international roaming charges ergo your point is flawed.

I didn't say I think it is OK. I was stating facts.

let me you ask why do you feel it's your duty to defend corporate greed?

Because it is corporate greed and profiteering at your own expense as these corporations do not give two hoots about you or anyone other than their bottom line.

If anything impacts their profits they will pull out all their stops to remedy that problem but any individual issues?

Good luck with that as the US does not have any basic consumer protections in place.

Because they charge so much? The lower population density does raise costs per customer. There is no way to deny that!

So, what your saying the equipment becomes less durable when servicing lower population density?

Because there is no rational or logic behind your statement that makes any sort of sense at all.

Telecoms equipment are highly durable and are built to last to reduce the number of maintenance cycle as well as to retain high signal strength regardless population density. So over time the equipment pays for it's self and the cost of that equipment is covered (offset) thus at point it will start making profit after breaking even.

At lower population density, it will take longer to cost of the equipment to be paid off (similar principle to a loan) the cost of equipment or location goes up only if upgrades are made or the equipment is replaced. But that cost is generally distributed or offset.


However, the queuing system or backhaul is capable of set limit and that limit is only saturated when a disaster occurs as that is when hell of a lot of people send calls and messages at the same time. Otherwise if network / backhaul / equipment was saturated at a low population density than it would be pretty useless for large towns and cities wouldn't it?

My previous post contains no opinion. But the following is opinion:
I for the most part am against heavy corporate regulation. I say let the market work it out.

I disagree.

We have fair market regulations that prevent any company from having a monopoly (sure there are loopholes) for example BT own pretty much the entire broadband infrastructure but even then they cannot undercut the competition nor can they charge extortionate prices to the competition let alone freeze out the competition from using their network.

As a result, we have extremely good broadband service that does not cost £100 a month. Heck, we can even get a

Unlimited 1 Gig / 1 Gig symmetrical service for £48 a month via HyperOptic (then £60 a month after the first 12).

Who in fact they are using BT's owned exchanges to provide this service - a service that even BT does not have at present.

Also due to regulations BT has been mandated by law since they own infrastructure that they have to keep upgrading the network as well as providing broadband services in rural areas.

Additionally, ISPs cannot increase the price whilst you are in a contract nor can they change the data allocations on your contract or anything else on your contract whilst your contract is in effect. Your personal data cannot be changed without your express permission either. Additionally, we have data privacy laws which have been bolstered by EU's GDPR laws.

Furthermore ISPs and carriers are classed as utilities.


We also have laws and regulations that prevent misselling.

But yea, enjoy paying out your nose.

Even though the US has higher prices in a couple areas such as internet, mobile service, some public transportation, and health care, living costs overall are generally lower in the US. Almost everything besides the few items I mentioned above costs more in Europe than in the US. This "unregulated corporate greed" you talk about has produced overall lower costs of living.

In fact, things in the EU cost far less overall as well a higher standard of living as we have a health service that you don't pay an arm a leg for to use an ambulance for example. We also workers rights so you don't get fired for taking your kids to school or taking time out due to sickness etc. To cover that we have statutory sick pay along with maternity leave and paternity leave.

The US has none of this - so keep drinking that koolaid.

If the cost of living was lower, tell me why is there a major push to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour? ​

Hell, the republican party did not want to extend healthcare to 9/11 responders without a major push from people like Jon Stewart.

Edit: @ioaniro I've moved your post so as to ensure that thread doesn't go off topic :winktongue:.

Wow, there are so many formatting issues with the forum template...