oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:

Don't know, in fact I don't think so. SIMs are typical for GPRS
networks, with a possible compatibility with iDEN (South America -
Brazil?). Never heard of Japanese phones using SIMs.

M.

No.

Well, considering that Japan doesn't use 2G GSM which is what's used
in the majority of places in Europe, Asia and Africa.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree (John S.) wrote:

Of course there was. We are not talking about practic, but about
the technical specifications of GSM when they were set up. And
they were set up in a way that moving into a country were GSM
worked on another band, your SIM (originally the large credit card
format) could be put into a phone of that country and roam - if
there was a roaming agreement between the home and the guest
carrier.

M.

Jer wrote:

Uhh, no, I'm not. I know full well that nobody's going to install cell
towers for moose. I said they needed cellular coverage, I didn't say
that anybody would install towers for them. hint: use things like the
smiley to interpret humor.

The vastly reduced signal strength required can let the batteries last
much, much longer than with the VHF radios they normally used. This
can allow more frequent updates if they choose. It's also a lot
smaller for the moose, although I don't think they care.

If you'd cared to read the article at all, it does in fact talk about
the benefits of the GSM collars compared to the older style. The
wildlife researchers who work in the field seem to think these new
collars are really great, and, to be honest, I'll take their word for
it. Just because they could do it before doesn't mean this isn't a
good advance.

Not that I'm aware of.

So, you're trying to make me believe cellular service was provided for
moose tracking?  Try again.  No doubt using cellular is handy, and maybe
even cheaper, but the only reason they considered using cellular for
that is because it was made available for other reason.  Truth is,
they've been tracking animals by radio for the last twenty odd years
without cellular.  So, don't expect me to buy into this sham of excuses.

Why anyone would be impressed about destroying the pristine nature of a
national park is beyond comprehension.

This will undoubtedly come as a shock to those companies that sell external
antennas for their 802.11 devices.  ;-)
http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?grid=33&scid=38&prid=648
http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?grid=33&scid=38&prid=643

In the U.S. we already have something of that sort - it's called a law,
which forbids telemarketer calls to any wireless communication device.
Mind you, the phone numbers for these devices are always predictable,
and are used by the automated dialing equipment as a filter.  Also, on
my personal home phone lines, there is another telco feature called
"Privacy Manager" which also disallows inbound calls to me if the call
lacks Caller ID data.

Here in America, we have a nasty little thing called responsibility, and
since I'm responsible for the bill, I get to decide whom I talk to.
Unidentified telemarketer calls used to be a major pain, because my home
phone auto-forwards to my cell when I step out the door.  Now, since I
also pay for the Caller ID feature on my home phones, telemarketer calls
*are* identified when they aren't filtered by Privacy Manager (most
are).  Since I always know the mumber of those who have my permission to
call me, I always know a stranger's number when I see one, and I let
those calls ring through to voice mail, and if it's important, I'll hear
the message sooner or later.  It's less an issue of cost, it's more an
issue of I've never spoken to a telemarketer that had anything to say
that I wanted to hear.  More recently, I might get 2-3 tm calls a week,
when it used to >10 a day.  I live in a neighbourhood that is routinely
targeted by tm weenies.

So, telemarketers use the phone system and the snailmail system and the
email system, all at a significantly reduced cost to them.  And my point
is if their costs were more in line with people's opinion of them, I
think they'd STFU more often without having to be told to do so.

I'm afraid I'll never get the chance.  :)

[....]

AFAIC, telemarketers deserve to pay a load of money to expect me to
listen to their pie hole flap around expecting me to be interested in
whatever trinket trash they're hawking on any particular day.  I've
never received a call from any stranger that I ever cared to listen to,
let alone actually be engaged in meaningful dialog long enough to press
a send button.  If someone wants to waste my time, they should pay for
the privilege.  Dearly.

It is hard to combine the systems, one basically has to have either one
in a country. On a receiver pays system a caller pays phone is really
like a raised middle finger especially if one already pays a high monthly
fee that should cover all calls.  On a caller pays country nobody would
get a receiver pays phone.

The caller pays system increases the spread of mobile phones as that's
the way to avoid the high land line to mobile fees. The caller pays system
has annoying aspects relating to international calls. I can make local calls
here to land-lines or mobiles at 10.5 cents a minute. If I make a call to
a foreign land line it costs additional foreign call fee which to, say,
Germany would be 16,8 cents a minute (using the came carrier as I have
for my mobile). That gives me only a call to a land line. If I need to call
a mobile there is additional cost of 16,8 cents/min for the downlink.
I basically end up paying the down link twice. If I called to U.S. that
would be only 10,5+15 cents a minute regardless of the type of the
receiving phone. Remember also that on foreign numbers it is not easy
to know it they are land lines or cellular phones. The rules vary on
country to country though one can get them on the net.

Also if one travels abroad one starts to pay for receiving calls.
In Germany it would cost me 50-68 cents a minute to receive calls.
That's more than it would cost me to call to a German mobile from
Finland. This is because in roaming one cannot choose the international
carrier.

In a caller pays country there is a problem of high termination fees (i.e.
fees that a network charges for other carriers for calls that end in its
phones.) The fees in Finland are 9-11 cents a minute and that's without
the 22% tax. So I pay 10.5 cents for a call. The state gets 1.9 cents a
minute as tax. The operator gets 8.6 cents but it has to pay 10-11 cents
a minute to the receiving network if the call exits the network. (This
is simplified as it makes no distinction between service and network
operators). The termination fees are not direct to competive pressure so
they tend to be as high as the state an other operators allow them to be.
Operators actually lose money on calls to other networks and tend to
get that from calls to land lines, calls from land lines, calls to
own network and as termination fees from received calls. In a reciever
pays system there are no such problems and the cost of the downlink
is also subject to direct competive pressure. There is less need for
the operators to negotiate prices and the state to get involved.

So there are arguments for either system. I personally like the
caller pays system as I expect the one who has something to say
to me to pay for it.

Osmo

Don't worry, he is just a troll.  Maybe we shouldn't feed the trolls?

Too funny, my brother dislikes teleweenies as much as I, and whenever he
gets one at home, he always complains to them about having called him on
his cell.  Click!  they're history.  And so stupid.