About Us

Roland Perry · July 19th 19, 05:54 AM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london

In message , at 15:43:43 on Thu, 18 Jul
2019, remarked:
Ones where the credit rolls over and you don't have to make a regular
calls to keep them alive, aren't quite as common as you claim. The
networks hate them because they tend to get used in "glovebox" phones
were they have all the costs of maintaining the number and the billing
records, for virtually no revenue.

Oh come on, its costs them precisely Â£0.00 to maintain a number, its simply
data in a database.

Ah, the marginal costs fallacy rears its ugly head.

The only cost involved in an unused number is the cost to the user when the
phone company disconnects the SIM. The rest of it costs nothing because the
infrastructure would be needed regardless and linking a phone number to a
SIM id is probably a few hundred bytes or less in a DB. You could store the
entire UK phone book and every cellphone IMEI number on a USB stick with room to
spare never mind a fully fledged datacentre.

Let me know when you need a new spade, if that one wears out.

That's even assuming there's facilities which aren't charged to the
operator on a per-number basis.

O2 are not a virtual network.

O2 *are* an operator, they own the base station equipment.

Sure about that? It's not uncommon for it to be outsourced to people
like Ericsson.

They may well have, but any charges relating to the physical layer RF systems
will have nothing to do with how many subscribers the network has in its DB
unless they have so many they need to upgrade.

Ditto. Or are you an expert in the fees charged for outsourcing, now?
--
Roland Perry

[email protected] · July 20th 19, 11:06 AM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 06:54:13 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:43:43 on Thu, 18 Jul
2019, remarked:
Ones where the credit rolls over and you don't have to make a regular
calls to keep them alive, aren't quite as common as you claim. The
networks hate them because they tend to get used in "glovebox" phones
were they have all the costs of maintaining the number and the billing
records, for virtually no revenue.

Oh come on, its costs them precisely Â£0.00 to maintain a number, its simply

data in a database.

Ah, the marginal costs fallacy rears its ugly head.

The only cost involved in an unused number is the cost to the user when the
phone company disconnects the SIM. The rest of it costs nothing because the
infrastructure would be needed regardless and linking a phone number to a
SIM id is probably a few hundred bytes or less in a DB. You could store the
entire UK phone book and every cellphone IMEI number on a USB stick with room
to
spare never mind a fully fledged datacentre.

Let me know when you need a new spade, if that one wears out.

Ok Mr Telecoms Expert, exactly how much disk space does all the relevant
information about a single cellular phone number take up then? Obviously you
have the figures to hand so please share them.

They may well have, but any charges relating to the physical layer RF systems
will have nothing to do with how many subscribers the network has in its DB
unless they have so many they need to upgrade.

Ditto. Or are you an expert in the fees charged for outsourcing, now?

Unless the system is completely insane there should be no relation. Perhaps
you're going to tell us next that radio stations transmitter charges are
based on the number of listeners they have?

Roland Perry · July 20th 19, 01:13 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london

In message , at 11:06:30 on Sat, 20 Jul
2019, remarked:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 06:54:13 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:43:43 on Thu, 18 Jul
2019, remarked:
Ones where the credit rolls over and you don't have to make a regular
calls to keep them alive, aren't quite as common as you claim. The
networks hate them because they tend to get used in "glovebox" phones
were they have all the costs of maintaining the number and the billing
records, for virtually no revenue.

Oh come on, its costs them precisely Â£0.00 to maintain a number,
its simply

data in a database.

Ah, the marginal costs fallacy rears its ugly head.

The only cost involved in an unused number is the cost to the user when the
phone company disconnects the SIM. The rest of it costs nothing because the
infrastructure would be needed regardless and linking a phone number to a
SIM id is probably a few hundred bytes or less in a DB. You could store the
entire UK phone book and every cellphone IMEI number on a USB stick with room
to
spare never mind a fully fledged datacentre.

Let me know when you need a new spade, if that one wears out.

Ok Mr Telecoms Expert, exactly how much disk space does all the relevant
information about a single cellular phone number take up then? Obviously you
have the figures to hand so please share them.

I can't explain something like this when you have completely the wrong
architectural and business model as an underlying assumption.

They may well have, but any charges relating to the physical layer RF systems
will have nothing to do with how many subscribers the network has in its DB
unless they have so many they need to upgrade.

Ditto. Or are you an expert in the fees charged for outsourcing, now?

Unless the system is completely insane there should be no relation. Perhaps
you're going to tell us next that radio stations transmitter charges are
based on the number of listeners they have?

A Freeview-type transmitter might well charge based on the number of
stations you wish to transmit (eg CH4 and Ch4+1, costing more than just
Ch4).

Apart from that, your ability to fail to distinguish between
broadcasting and telecoms speaks volumes.
--
Roland Perry

[email protected] · July 20th 19, 03:27 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london

On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 14:13:12 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:06:30 on Sat, 20 Jul
2019, remarked:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 06:54:13 +0100
Ok Mr Telecoms Expert, exactly how much disk space does all the relevant
information about a single cellular phone number take up then? Obviously you
have the figures to hand so please share them.

I can't explain something like this when you have completely the wrong
architectural and business model as an underlying assumption.

Go on, live dangerously, give it a go. How much data does it take up? Or are
you going to claim that telecoms companies use dilithium quantum computers
that store information in hyperspace rather than standard databases or hash
maps?

Unless the system is completely insane there should be no relation. Perhaps
you're going to tell us next that radio stations transmitter charges are
based on the number of listeners they have?

A Freeview-type transmitter might well charge based on the number of
stations you wish to transmit (eg CH4 and Ch4+1, costing more than just
Ch4).

Yes, congratulations - because each station takes up bandwidth. How much
bandwidth does an unused phone number use?

Apart from that, your ability to fail to distinguish between
broadcasting and telecoms speaks volumes.

Your refusal to acknowledge an obvious analogy speaks volumes that you've
been painted into a corner.

Roland Perry · July 21st 19, 12:51 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london

In message , at 15:27:02 on Sat, 20 Jul
2019, remarked:
Ok Mr Telecoms Expert, exactly how much disk space does all the relevant
information about a single cellular phone number take up then? Obviously you
have the figures to hand so please share them.

I can't explain something like this when you have completely the wrong
architectural and business model as an underlying assumption.

Go on, live dangerously, give it a go. How much data does it take up? Or are
you going to claim that telecoms companies use dilithium quantum computers
that store information in hyperspace rather than standard databases or hash
maps?

Unless the system is completely insane there should be no relation. Perhaps
you're going to tell us next that radio stations transmitter charges are
based on the number of listeners they have?

A Freeview-type transmitter might well charge based on the number of
stations you wish to transmit (eg CH4 and Ch4+1, costing more than just
Ch4).

Yes, congratulations - because each station takes up bandwidth. How much
bandwidth does an unused phone number use?

Apart from that, your ability to fail to distinguish between
broadcasting and telecoms speaks volumes.

Your refusal to acknowledge an obvious analogy speaks volumes that you've
been painted into a corner.

Let us know when you get to Australia.
--
Roland Perry

[email protected] · July 21st 19, 02:32 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london

On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 13:51:14 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:27:02 on Sat, 20 Jul
2019, remarked:
Ok Mr Telecoms Expert, exactly how much disk space does all the relevant
information about a single cellular phone number take up then? Obviously you

have the figures to hand so please share them.

I can't explain something like this when you have completely the wrong
architectural and business model as an underlying assumption.

Go on, live dangerously, give it a go. How much data does it take up? Or are
you going to claim that telecoms companies use dilithium quantum computers
that store information in hyperspace rather than standard databases or hash
maps?

Unless the system is completely insane there should be no relation. Perhaps
you're going to tell us next that radio stations transmitter charges are
based on the number of listeners they have?

A Freeview-type transmitter might well charge based on the number of
stations you wish to transmit (eg CH4 and Ch4+1, costing more than just
Ch4).

Yes, congratulations - because each station takes up bandwidth. How much
bandwidth does an unused phone number use?

Apart from that, your ability to fail to distinguish between
broadcasting and telecoms speaks volumes.

Your refusal to acknowledge an obvious analogy speaks volumes that you've
been painted into a corner.

Let us know when you get to Australia.

I'll take that as a no, you can't back up anything you said. As I suspected.

Roland Perry · July 22nd 19, 01:47 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london

In message , at 14:32:55 on Sun, 21 Jul
2019, remarked:
Ok Mr Telecoms Expert, exactly how much disk space does all the relevant
information about a single cellular phone number take up then? Obviously you

have the figures to hand so please share them.

I can't explain something like this when you have completely the wrong
architectural and business model as an underlying assumption.

Go on, live dangerously, give it a go. How much data does it take up? Or are
you going to claim that telecoms companies use dilithium quantum computers
that store information in hyperspace rather than standard databases or hash
maps?

Unless the system is completely insane there should be no relation. Perhaps
you're going to tell us next that radio stations transmitter charges are
based on the number of listeners they have?

A Freeview-type transmitter might well charge based on the number of
stations you wish to transmit (eg CH4 and Ch4+1, costing more than just
Ch4).

Yes, congratulations - because each station takes up bandwidth. How much
bandwidth does an unused phone number use?

Apart from that, your ability to fail to distinguish between
broadcasting and telecoms speaks volumes.

Your refusal to acknowledge an obvious analogy speaks volumes that you've
been painted into a corner.

Let us know when you get to Australia.

I'll take that as a no, you can't back up anything you said. As I suspected.

I'm not here to provide someone as wilfully obtuse as you, a primer in
cellphone architecture. Although we both know you aren't so much being
wilfully obtuse as deliberately trolling.
--
Roland Perry

Someone Somewhere · July 21st 19, 06:55 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london

On 20/07/2019 12:06, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 06:54:13 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:43:43 on Thu, 18 Jul
2019, remarked:
Ones where the credit rolls over and you don't have to make a regular
calls to keep them alive, aren't quite as common as you claim. The
networks hate them because they tend to get used in "glovebox" phones
were they have all the costs of maintaining the number and the billing
records, for virtually no revenue.

Oh come on, its costs them precisely Ã‚Â£0.00 to maintain a number, its simply

data in a database.

Ah, the marginal costs fallacy rears its ugly head.

The only cost involved in an unused number is the cost to the user when the
phone company disconnects the SIM. The rest of it costs nothing because the
infrastructure would be needed regardless and linking a phone number to a
SIM id is probably a few hundred bytes or less in a DB. You could store the
entire UK phone book and every cellphone IMEI number on a USB stick with room
to
spare never mind a fully fledged datacentre.

Let me know when you need a new spade, if that one wears out.

Ok Mr Telecoms Expert, exactly how much disk space does all the relevant
information about a single cellular phone number take up then? Obviously you
have the figures to hand so please share them.

Nah - whilst I do know the exact figure (or more to the point I could
look it up), it's getting more and more amusing to see you getting
irate when you seem to truly believe that the only cost is the disk
space - something that if it makes up 0.01% of the cost would surprise me.

[email protected] · July 21st 19, 08:32 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london

On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 19:55:40 +0100
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 20/07/2019 12:06, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 06:54:13 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:43:43 on Thu, 18 Jul
2019, remarked:
Ones where the credit rolls over and you don't have to make a regular
calls to keep them alive, aren't quite as common as you claim. The
networks hate them because they tend to get used in "glovebox" phones
were they have all the costs of maintaining the number and the billing
records, for virtually no revenue.

Oh come on, its costs them precisely Ã‚Â£0.00 to maintain a number, its
simply

data in a database.

Ah, the marginal costs fallacy rears its ugly head.

The only cost involved in an unused number is the cost to the user when the

phone company disconnects the SIM. The rest of it costs nothing because the

infrastructure would be needed regardless and linking a phone number to a
SIM id is probably a few hundred bytes or less in a DB. You could store the

entire UK phone book and every cellphone IMEI number on a USB stick with
room
to
spare never mind a fully fledged datacentre.

Let me know when you need a new spade, if that one wears out.

Ok Mr Telecoms Expert, exactly how much disk space does all the relevant
information about a single cellular phone number take up then? Obviously you
have the figures to hand so please share them.

Nah - whilst I do know the exact figure (or more to the point I could
look it up), it's getting more and more amusing to see you getting
irate when you seem to truly believe that the only cost is the disk
space - something that if it makes up 0.01% of the cost would surprise me.

If the number belongs to a real network not a virtual one, what are the
other costs then? Unless its used up its entire allocation of numbers it
won't be losing any money so tell me what I've missed. You and Perry are very
good at being supercilious, a bit less hot on supplying actual information.

Arthur Conan Doyle · July 21st 19, 09:14 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london

wrote:

If the number belongs to a real network not a virtual one, what are the
other costs then? Unless its used up its entire allocation of numbers it
won't be losing any money so tell me what I've missed.

Knowing something about accounting at large public firms, I suspect there is an
allocation of fixed costs made to each active number. Metrics used to judge
mobile companies are things like revenue per line, revenue per subscriber and
profit margin per subscriber/line.

While allocation of fixed costs may look arbintrary, there are industry
standards involved that make coming up with an alternate allocation difficult.

In other words, it's not so much the cost of each number, it's the allocation of
costs that exist regardless of the quantity of numbers.That said, it wouldn't
surprise me if there were actual costs associated numbers, regardless of account
type of use. I'm thinking things like payments to Ofcom, line leasing from
OpenReach, etc.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sim-L-Bus	Peter Wright	London Transport	1	August 3rd 14 09:30 AM
HS2 expected to run alongside a dual carriageway in the Chilterns	E27002	London Transport	3	March 23rd 10 03:50 PM
The little git tube worker fired!	Ian F.	London Transport	12	October 27th 09 07:38 AM
Big Brother	Anon	London Transport	2	February 21st 04 12:02 AM
Oyster=Big Brother ??	Tony Bryer	London Transport	16	September 30th 03 08:53 AM

Menu

About Us