On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:32:44AM -0500, wrote:
(David Cantrell) wrote:
wrote:
Even if you were in a cabled area you'd have to pay for a Virgin
Media landline even if you didn't use it.
These days they'll sell you interweb without phone service.
Evidence?

Their website, today.

--
David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice

You may now start misinterpreting what I just
wrote, and attacking that misinterpretation.

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 07:14:07PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:08:31
on Wed, 13 Jun 2012, David Cantrell remarked:
As for having a landline, I need it for ADSL. I also think it's a bit
rude to expect friends and family to call an expensive mobile number
rather than a landline.
I think it's a bit rude of people to expect me to pay to receieve calls
from them. Cos that's what having a landline would mean.
So which rudeness is worse? At least the landline cost is fixed each
month, and not per minute of call made.

The landline cost is of the order of 10 to 15 quid a month, every month.
The cost to my mother (the only person to regularly call me from a
landline) of calling my mobile a few times a month is considerably less
than that.

--
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing

Hail Caesar! Those about to vi ^[ you!

In message , at 12:48:48
on Thu, 21 Jun 2012, David Cantrell remarked:
As for having a landline, I need it for ADSL. I also think it's a bit
rude to expect friends and family to call an expensive mobile number
rather than a landline.
I think it's a bit rude of people to expect me to pay to receieve calls
from them. Cos that's what having a landline would mean.
So which rudeness is worse? At least the landline cost is fixed each
month, and not per minute of call made.

The landline cost is of the order of 10 to 15 quid a month, every month.
The cost to my mother (the only person to regularly call me from a
landline) of calling my mobile a few times a month is considerably less
than that.

YMMV.
--
Roland Perry

On 21/06/2012 13:05, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 12:48:48
on Thu, 21 Jun 2012, David Cantrell remarked:

As for having a landline, I need it for ADSL. I also think it's a bit
rude to expect friends and family to call an expensive mobile number
rather than a landline.

I think it's a bit rude of people to expect me to pay to receieve calls
from them. Cos that's what having a landline would mean.

So which rudeness is worse? At least the landline cost is fixed each
month, and not per minute of call made.

The landline cost is of the order of 10 to 15 quid a month, every month.
The cost to my mother (the only person to regularly call me from a
landline) of calling my mobile a few times a month is considerably less
than that.

YMMV.

Indeed. FWIW, a stat I heard this morning was that 1 in 7 UK households
now only use mobiles... googles... and here's a reference to said stat
in an Indy article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/-7872099.html

It'd be interesting to have a bit more info on that, for example the
vague way it's worded in the aforementioned article could potentially
include households that have a landline (e.g. for ADSL) but never use it.

In message , at 13:21:50 on Thu, 21 Jun
2012, Mizter T remarked:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/-7872099.html

It'd be interesting to have a bit more info on that, for example the
vague way it's worded in the aforementioned article could potentially
include households that have a landline (e.g. for ADSL) but never use it.

That articles a bit at the "bleeding heart" end of the spectrum. No-one
forced those households to eschew a landline for a mobile whose costs
were well known.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 02:16:44PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:21:50 on Thu, 21 Jun
2012, Mizter T remarked:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/-7872099.html
That articles a bit at the "bleeding heart" end of the spectrum. No-one
forced those households to eschew a landline for a mobile whose costs
were well known.

Quite.

It's full of lies from the companies they talk to though.

Churchill said "The 0800 numbers are used for new customers looking to
take up our insurance cover and 0845 for existing customers seeking
changes to policies or making claims. We cap the 0845 numbers to local
rate so existing customers can take time to discuss their policy with
our experts without worrying about premium rate phone calls."

But if they only care about people worrying about premium rate phone
calls, they could use an 0800 number, or an 03whatever number, or a
geographic number. On most tariffs these days there's little difference
between calling a local number and any other geographic number, and 0845
is sometimes more expensive than both.

HSBC said "Our use of differing prefix telephone numbers enables us to
ensure we offer an effective, flexible and resilient service for the
tens of millions of customer calls we receive each month."

The prefix has nothing to do with it. Offering different *numbers* for
different purposes might make sense, but different prefices are *only*
useful for doing different billing and charging.

Scottish Power said "The main reason we use non geographic numbers is
because we operate across multiple locations and call centres in the UK.
Non geographic telephone numbers allow us to direct customer calls
quickly and efficiently to any call centre agent at any location"

Any number can be directed to any place these days. I know people who
have 020 numbers that ring phones in Cornwall, but which get forwarded
to all kinds of different places in Cornwall (home, office, mobile,
whatever) depending on how the PBX is set up. If an individual can do
that, so can Scottish Power, and so can anyone provided a phone service
to any business.

--
David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire

" In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's ... programs should be
indented six feet downward and covered with dirt. "
--Blair P. Houghton

In message , at 17:38:59
on Mon, 25 Jun 2012, David Cantrell remarked:
Any number can be directed to any place these days. I know people who
have 020 numbers that ring phones in Cornwall, but which get forwarded
to all kinds of different places in Cornwall (home, office, mobile,
whatever) depending on how the PBX is set up. If an individual can do
that, so can Scottish Power, and so can anyone provided a phone service
to any business.

Yes, but I expect it costs them more to redirect a geographic like that.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:17:10PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:38:59
on Mon, 25 Jun 2012, David Cantrell remarked:
Any number can be directed to any place these days. I know people who
have 020 numbers that ring phones in Cornwall, but which get forwarded
to all kinds of different places in Cornwall (home, office, mobile,
whatever) depending on how the PBX is set up. If an individual can do
that, so can Scottish Power, and so can anyone provided a phone service
to any business.
Yes, but I expect it costs them more to redirect a geographic like that.

Depends on the number. It would be cheaper (for the recipient) to have
a geographic number going to the "wrong" place than to have an 0800
number, and for any non-trivial number of calls the costs would be
overwhelmingly the costs of dealing with calls, followed by the costs of
routing the calls, with any fixed costs being utterly insignificant.

Well, at least that's how it would have been when I was writing telecoms
billing software a few years ago.

--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic

"There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza."
"WHAT MAKES YOU SAY THERE IS A HOLE IN YOUR BUCKET?"

In message , at 12:59:43
on Tue, 26 Jun 2012, David Cantrell remarked:
Any number can be directed to any place these days. I know people who
have 020 numbers that ring phones in Cornwall, but which get forwarded
to all kinds of different places in Cornwall (home, office, mobile,
whatever) depending on how the PBX is set up. If an individual can do
that, so can Scottish Power, and so can anyone provided a phone service
to any business.
Yes, but I expect it costs them more to redirect a geographic like that.

Depends on the number. It would be cheaper (for the recipient) to have
a geographic number going to the "wrong" place than to have an 0800
number,

Isn't the alternative here an 0845?

and for any non-trivial number of calls the costs would be
overwhelmingly the costs of dealing with calls, followed by the costs of
routing the calls,

It's the cost of routing the calls I was talking about.

with any fixed costs being utterly insignificant.

--
Roland Perry

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 04:32:48PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, but I expect it costs them more to redirect a geographic like that.
Depends on the number. It would be cheaper (for the recipient) to have
a geographic number going to the "wrong" place than to have an 0800
number,
Isn't the alternative here an 0845?

I forget exactly what the rates were, and I know that revenue sharing
has changed a bit since. Wikipedia says that revenue share only exists
on 0844 these days, not 0845.

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

Computer Science is about lofty design goals and careful algorithmic
optimisation. Sysadminning is about cleaning up the resulting mess.