On 19/07/2019 12:20, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:

I use a lot of mobile data when I’m out and about - on the bus, travelling
by train, sitting in the park, on breaks at work etc. Mostly it’s social
media, maps, messaging and web browsing, including uploading photographs of
days out etc. My laptop often doesn’t get switched on from one month to the
next, I do almost everything I would have used that for, on my phone now.

Hmmm, ok if that's what floats your boat I suppose, but I find fiddling
with phones for that sort of thing extremely tiresome. The laptop comes
with me if I'm away overnight anywhere, and I can do things on a
reasonably sized keyboard and a 14" screen. Nothing I need to do online
is so urgent it can't wait until I'm back wherever I'm staying.

"Social media" are two words that should never have been combined in the
same sentence if you ask me. I've seen teenagers on the bus
communicating with each other by FarceBuke or whatever when they could
just as easily turn their heads and open their mouths. Why..??!!

--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

On 19/07/2019 06:52, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:31:24 on Thu, 18
Jul 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:
On 18/07/2019 15:18, Roland Perry wrote:

Networks have tried hard over the years to introduce their equivalent
ofÂ* "standing charges" to fight back a little bit. One I'll be
writing aboutÂ* later (in more detail) in another subthread, is the O2
requirement thatÂ* PAYG phones wanting to use the tube Wifi are topped
up at least once aÂ* month.

A standing charge equals a contract. Making someone top up monthly is
effectively forcing them onto one in all but name.

It's a slight discount, because the typical top-up would be £10 and the
typical contract £30. And because you can stop any time you like (apart
from some more recent hybrid plans that include a partly-subsidised
phone) it's not in any sense a "contract".

Semantics. In all but name it is. If you have to pay a certain amount of
money each month regardless of how much you use it, then to me it's a
contract.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

In message , at 19:13:03 on Wed, 17 Jul
2019, Tweed remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:49:32 on Wed, 17 Jul
2019, Tweed remarked:

Just for anecdata, my iPhone on Vodafone connects without user intervention
to the Underground WiFi. You don’t need to be a VM customer to use it.

That kind of reciprocal arrangement comes and goes, almost too fast to
keep up. But yes, at the moment some Vodafone plans include the Virgin
Wifi on the tube.

I think you will find all the main networks work with the underground
system. See https://tfl.gov.uk/campaign/station-wifi

If we read that as "many customers of any of the main networks..." then
that comes firmly under 'arrangements come and go'.

Vodafone has their particular subset, and as O2 seems to be mentioned
here a lot, here's their particular bit of arm-waving:

"Most current phones with an O2 sim will connect automatically.
You just need to make sure your software is up to date, your
wifi is switched on, and that (if you're on Pay As You Go)
you've topped up in the last 30 days. And you're good to go."

No detail on what they mean by "current phone", and what it is about a
non-current phone that might stop it working. Nor exactly what "up to
date" means. Could be at one extreme "you MUST HAVE Android 9", or at
the other extreme "if you've got whatever the last update your supplier
pushed to you, even if that's only Android 6, you are OK".

And it's not so much a facility for qualifying O2 subscribers, as a
reciprocal arrangement for people who have an O2 wifi account. With
pages of additional instructions on how to jump through hoops get one of
those.

I'm none the wiser (and don't really care at this point) whether all of
this applies equally to Tesco subscribers, who are of course users of
the O2 network, or even if it might apply to a user of any network who
also happened to have signed up to O2 wifi (assuming that's even
possible).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:42:33 on Fri, 19
Jul 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:

I've seen teenagers on the bus communicating with each other by
FarceBuke or whatever when they could just as easily turn their heads
and open their mouths.

Not a new thing. In the office where I was working in 2001, people would
email someone sat beside them, to ask when they wanted to go out to
lunch.

It was less intrusive than interrupting their train of thought with a
verbal question.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:45:40 on Fri, 19
Jul 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:
Networks have tried hard over the years to introduce their
equivalent of* "standing charges" to fight back a little bit. One
I'll be writing about* later (in more detail) in another subthread,
is the O2 requirement that* PAYG phones wanting to use the tube
Wifi are topped up at least once a* month.

A standing charge equals a contract. Making someone top up monthly
is effectively forcing them onto one in all but name.
It's a slight discount, because the typical top-up would be £10 and
the typical contract £30. And because you can stop any time you like
(apart from some more recent hybrid plans that include a
partly-subsidised phone) it's not in any sense a "contract".

Semantics. In all but name it is. If you have to pay a certain amount
of money each month regardless of how much you use it, then to me it's
a contract.

It's vastly more than semantics. The whole point of the "contract"
system for mobile phones (and many other infrastructure accounts) is
locking someone in for a minimum period. The impossibility of resigning
early is the only thing about the contract that ever really maters.

--
Roland Perry

MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 19/07/2019 12:20, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:

I use a lot of mobile data when I’m out and about - on the bus, travelling
by train, sitting in the park, on breaks at work etc. Mostly it’s social
media, maps, messaging and web browsing, including uploading photographs of
days out etc. My laptop often doesn’t get switched on from one month to the
next, I do almost everything I would have used that for, on my phone now.

Hmmm, ok if that's what floats your boat I suppose, but I find fiddling
with phones for that sort of thing extremely tiresome. The laptop comes
with me if I'm away overnight anywhere, and I can do things on a
reasonably sized keyboard and a 14" screen. Nothing I need to do online
is so urgent it can't wait until I'm back wherever I'm staying.

"Social media" are two words that should never have been combined in the
same sentence if you ask me. I've seen teenagers on the bus
communicating with each other by FarceBuke or whatever when they could
just as easily turn their heads and open their mouths. Why..??!!


Usenet is social media

Facebook is a great way of keeping up to date with friends and
acquaintances who I don’t see for years at a time and don’t have any need
to communicate with regularly on a 1-to-1 basis. It’s also great for
discussions between like-minded individuals on specific topics - rather
like Usenet was back in the day, except that discussions can be controlled
by group admins and trolls can be blocked! Currently the group about GA’s
new Stadler and Bombardier stock is very informative, while the 4 different
HST groups are full of wibble about 43002. The Southend Pier Railway group
continues to teach me new things about one of my favourite railways,
various tram groups (old, new, British and worldwide) are very interesting,
and I’ve learned more about Japanese railways than I thought I could ever
know!


Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message , at 08:14:45 on Fri, 19 Jul
2019, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:31:24 on Thu, 18
Jul 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:
On 18/07/2019 15:18, Roland Perry wrote:

Networks have tried hard over the years to introduce their equivalent
of "standing charges" to fight back a little bit. One I'll be writing
about later (in more detail) in another subthread, is the O2
requirement that PAYG phones wanting to use the tube Wifi are topped
up at least once a month.

A standing charge equals a contract. Making someone top up monthly is
effectively forcing them onto one in all but name.

It's a slight discount, because the typical top-up would be £10 and the
typical contract £30.

A £30 monthly contract will usually include the phone as well, so you can't
compare it with a PAYG top-up.

I'm contrasting them.

You need to compare the latter with SIM-only contracts, and they're
typically around £10pm.

You are skirting round the half-way house:

And because you can stop any time you like (apart from some more
recent hybrid plans that include a partly-subsidised phone) it's not
in any sense a "contract".

For example Tesco plans which will sell you a locked phone combined with
a minimum of 12 month pay-monthly SIM for less than a true unlocked
SIM-free one.

So PAYG only works out cheaper if you don't top up every month.

That depends entirely on the underlying cost[s] of the phone hardware
and the respective monthly payments.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:13:46 on Fri, 19 Jul
2019, Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked:

Facebook is a great way of keeping up to date with friends and
acquaintances who I don’t see for years at a time and don’t have any need
to communicate with regularly on a 1-to-1 basis.

There's also the bods one has never met (but might do one day).

Joking apart, Facebook has sufficient critical mass, and manages to keep
kooks out successfully enough, that it's possible to link up with people
who are almost famous in their day jobs (and will never have heard of
Usenet; nor if they had, be the slightest bit inclined to join in).

It’s also great for
discussions between like-minded individuals on specific topics - rather
like Usenet was back in the day, except that discussions can be controlled
by group admins and trolls can be blocked!

And a refreshing difference between Facebook and moderated Usenet is
that you don't get infantile trolls running around trying to find
"teacher" to complain to if their crap gets rejected. Or moaning about
"freedom of speech" if blocked.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:14:45 on Fri, 19 Jul
2019, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:31:24 on Thu, 18
Jul 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:
On 18/07/2019 15:18, Roland Perry wrote:

Networks have tried hard over the years to introduce their equivalent
of "standing charges" to fight back a little bit. One I'll be writing
about later (in more detail) in another subthread, is the O2
requirement that PAYG phones wanting to use the tube Wifi are topped
up at least once a month.

A standing charge equals a contract. Making someone top up monthly is
effectively forcing them onto one in all but name.

It's a slight discount, because the typical top-up would be £10 and the
typical contract £30.

A £30 monthly contract will usually include the phone as well, so you can't
compare it with a PAYG top-up.

I'm contrasting them.

No, you were comparing them when you said that it was a slight discount.


You need to compare the latter with SIM-only contracts, and they're
typically around £10pm.

You are skirting round the half-way house:

And because you can stop any time you like (apart from some more
recent hybrid plans that include a partly-subsidised phone) it's not
in any sense a "contract".

For example Tesco plans which will sell you a locked phone combined with
a minimum of 12 month pay-monthly SIM for less than a true unlocked
SIM-free one.

So PAYG only works out cheaper if you don't top up every month.

That depends entirely on the underlying cost[s] of the phone hardware
and the respective monthly payments.

No, I was correctly stating that, "PAYG only works out cheaper [than a
SIM-only contract] if you don't top up every month". No phone hardware is
included in either, so its cost is irrelevant.

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:13:46 on Fri, 19 Jul
2019, Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked:

Facebook is a great way of keeping up to date with friends and
acquaintances who I don’t see for years at a time and don’t have any need
to communicate with regularly on a 1-to-1 basis.

There's also the bods one has never met (but might do one day).


Indeed so! I have comparatively few of those, mostly from this group!

Joking apart, Facebook has sufficient critical mass, and manages to keep
kooks out successfully enough, that it's possible to link up with people
who are almost famous in their day jobs (and will never have heard of
Usenet; nor if they had, be the slightest bit inclined to join in).


Facebook connections being split into Friends (for people) and Pages (for
famous people and organisations) means that I’m unlikely to send a friend
request to the personal profile of someone remotely famous; Twitter OTOH is
much better for that sort of thing, as it has only one level of
'Following'.


Anna Noyd-Dryver