Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy?

[M.L.]

My friend, on Virgin in the USA, is switching to T-mobile and his
grandchild is doing the upcoming high school year abroad near Milan.

Since I spent time there, he asked me, and I gave him my details, but one
question I don't know the answer for is how much does it cost a taxi
driver or school teacher or Italian child on an Italian mobile or landline
to call his grandchild on the iPhone or Android phone (they want
iEquipment, and I try to explain the difference with Android).

I think, for the Italian to call the American who is in Italy and using
an American SIM card, that it's an international (+1) call for the
Italian.

Is that correct?

(The only other option that I know of is to get a local SIM card.)

[Richard Owlett]

I don't know BUT:
1. ask the organization sponsoring/promoting the year abroad.
Ideally they
have already addressed the problem. If not, the question
should cause them
to investigate possible solutions.
2. since a minor is involved, ask the Italian Consulate {for
their expertise
in locality} and whatever section of U.S. State Dept. that
handles "well
being" of citizens abroad.
3. ask T-mobile as they are the family's carrier of choice.
Might they have
a plan addressing the (I presume) not unusual situation.

HTH

[Chris Blunt]

You're right, a caller in Italy dialling a US phone number would pay
the international rate for a call to the US. It doesn't make any
difference whether the called phone is located in the US itself, or
roaming overseas, it's still charged as a call to the US. The average
taxi driver or school teacher is not going to happy about doing that
every time they want to contact the child.

But it gets even worse. A phone roaming in Italy with a US SIM card
would also incur charges for accepting the call. That would be at
least the equivalent of an international call charge from the US to
Italy, and quite likely a lot more than that.

If the child is going to spend a year in Italy it would be crazy to do
anything other than get a local Italian SIM card. Surely the kid is
also going to want to use their phone online for things like Facebook
etc. The only practical way to do that would be to get a local SIM or
else they would face extortionate roaming data charges.

Chris

[M.L.]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:03:12 +0800, Chris Blunt wrote:

> But it gets even worse. A phone roaming in Italy with a US SIM card
> would also incur charges for accepting the call. That would be at least
> the equivalent of an international call charge from the US to Italy, and
> quite likely a lot more than that.

With T-mobile, it's 20 cents a minute when roaming internationally,
whether they make or receive calls, to or from the USA or Europe.

[Your Name]

In article
<b609a$55ac721f$43da7656$32...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.

I read somewhere recently that Europe (presumably the Eurozone
countries) is trying to abolish roaming charges, but I'm not sure if
that was just for data traffic or for phonecalls as well.

[Michael Eyd]

Am 20.07.2015 um 06:47 schrieb Your Name:
> In article
> <b609a$55ac721f$43da7656$32...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.
> <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:03:12 +0800, Chris Blunt wrote:
>>
>>> But it gets even worse. A phone roaming in Italy with a US SIM card
>>> would also incur charges for accepting the call. That would be at least
>>> the equivalent of an international call charge from the US to Italy, and
>>> quite likely a lot more than that.
>>
>> With T-mobile, it's 20 cents a minute when roaming internationally,
>> whether they make or receive calls, to or from the USA or Europe.
>
> I read somewhere recently that Europe (presumably the Eurozone
> countries)

Nope, it's about all EU countries (the Eurozone (= the countries having
the Euro as the common currency) is different, basically a subset).

> is trying to abolish roaming charges, but I'm not sure if
> that was just for data traffic or for phonecalls as well.

IIRC it is for both, but for data there may be pitfalls. Let's wait for
the final regulations. Anyways, it will come into full effect only
(earliest) in 2017, according to the latest plans. If not even later.

And even when it does, it will only effect (at least the corresponding
regulations are only binding) for calls between EU numbers - so US
citizens e.g. will not benefit.

Best regards,

Michael

[Michael Eyd]

Am 20.07.2015 um 05:03 schrieb Chris Blunt:
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:00:06 -0400, "M.L." <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> My friend, on Virgin in the USA, is switching to T-mobile and his
>> grandchild is doing the upcoming high school year abroad near Milan.
>>
>> Since I spent time there, he asked me, and I gave him my details, but one
>> question I don't know the answer for is how much does it cost a taxi
>> driver or school teacher or Italian child on an Italian mobile or landline
>> to call his grandchild on the iPhone or Android phone (they want
>> iEquipment, and I try to explain the difference with Android).

Whether they go for iPhone or some Android phone doesn't make the
slightest difference for the question at hand. ;-)

>> I think, for the Italian to call the American who is in Italy and using
>> an American SIM card, that it's an international (+1) call for the
>> Italian.
>>
>> Is that correct?
>>
>> (The only other option that I know of is to get a local SIM card.)
>
> You're right, a caller in Italy dialling a US phone number would pay
> the international rate for a call to the US. It doesn't make any
> difference whether the called phone is located in the US itself, or
> roaming overseas, it's still charged as a call to the US. The average
> taxi driver or school teacher is not going to happy about doing that
> every time they want to contact the child.

The exact amount for these charges depend on the (Italian) telephone
provider. But in any case (if the phone owner doesn't have a flatrate
covering calls to international mobile phones as well, which is quite
unlikely here in Europe), these call charges are usually considerably high.

> But it gets even worse. A phone roaming in Italy with a US SIM card
> would also incur charges for accepting the call. That would be at
> least the equivalent of an international call charge from the US to
> Italy, and quite likely a lot more than that.

These charges depend on the (US) telco, so in the case at hand one will
have to ask T-Mobile US about them.

> If the child is going to spend a year in Italy it would be crazy to do
> anything other than get a local Italian SIM card. Surely the kid is
> also going to want to use their phone online for things like Facebook
> etc. The only practical way to do that would be to get a local SIM or
> else they would face extortionate roaming data charges.

Full ACK. The only sensible way to go about this is to get the child an
Italian SIM card with the features needed (how many free minutes, how
data traffic, how many text messages included for free). Every other way
can easily create bills with four (or more) digits over one year - in
US-$... ;-)

Best regards,

Michael

[Zaidy036]

Note that with a local SIM one would only be charged for outgoing calls
- incoming are free.

[chris]

Correct. This does and will only affect EU citizens when they're roaming
within the EU.

Call charge capping has already been implemented and data is about to,
but several telcos are pre-empting it now.

The downside for us is that roaming costs outside of the EU are going to
sky-rocket.

[chris]

Also note that with a local SIM, phone calls by the US parent to the
child is going to cost international rates. Could get expensive for the
parent.

An alternative is to get a dual-SIM phone, that way the child can have
two numbers on the same phone - one local to the US and one local to
Italy. This way the child will always be contactable on either number.

This will rule out iPhones, but there are several Android phones which
are available (in the EU at least) with dual SIM options. The Moto G is
a good example.

[Michael Eyd]

Not quite (AFAIK): It will affect everybody with a SIM card issued from
a provider residing in an EU country. That person doesn't need to be an
EU citizen... ;-)

> Call charge capping has already been implemented and data is about to,
> but several telcos are pre-empting it now.
>
> The downside for us is that roaming costs outside of the EU are going to
> sky-rocket.

That's well possible... :-(

Best regards,

Michael

[Zaidy036]

For short trips look at http://hipsim.com/

Unlimited Israel introduces www.hipsim.com the first unlimited SIM card
for the entire Europe for just $10/day:
•Unlimited local calling
•Unlimited calling throughout Europe and US
•Unlimited Data
•Option- Your current number can ring in Europe

For extended trips get a local SIM. No charge for incoming calls.

[M.L.]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:52:13 +0100, chris wrote:

> Also note that with a local SIM, phone calls by the US parent to the
> child is going to cost international rates. Could get expensive for the
> parent.

Not on T-mobile.
On T-mobile, a US parent calling a US phone number (which is in Italy) is
simply a US-to-US phone call (+1) which is free.

The child receiving this on a US phone number in Italy will be roaming,
so, it will be 20 cents a minute for the receiving phone.

> An alternative is to get a dual-SIM phone, that way the child can have
> two numbers on the same phone - one local to the US and one local to
> Italy. This way the child will always be contactable on either number.

I have always wanted a dual-sim for myself, let alone for someone else.
Are there good ones out there yet?

> This will rule out iPhones, but there are several Android phones which
> are available (in the EU at least) with dual SIM options. The Moto G is
> a good example.

My teen has an original Google Moto g but AFAIK, it only has 1 sim card
slot.

Googling for dual-sim unlocked phones, there still aren't that many to
choose from yet.
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Adual%20sim%20cell%
20phones

[M.L.]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:45:51 -0400, Zaidy036 wrote:

> Note that with a local SIM one would only be charged for outgoing calls
> - incoming are free.

That's interesting how they work it differently in Europe than in the USA.

In general, in the USA, to RECEIVE a phone call is usually free on
landlines, but on USA cellphones, it costs minutes to RECEIVE a call just
as it costs minutes to make a phone call.

In Europe, it seems, in general, that to RECEIVE a phone call on a local
SIM card doesn't cost them anything on a cell phone.

Is that correct?

[M.L.]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:47:35 +1200, Your Name wrote:

> I read somewhere recently that Europe (presumably the Eurozone
> countries) is trying to abolish roaming charges, but I'm not sure if
> that was just for data traffic or for phonecalls as well.

For T-mobile, there are no roaming charges *other* than that 20 cents a
minute for making or receiving phone calls on that US phone in Italy.

The data and sms are using roaming for free, both being unlimited (but in
Europe the data is slower than it would be here in the USA).

[M.L.]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:25:07 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> Not quite (AFAIK): It will affect everybody with a SIM card issued from
> a provider residing in an EU country. That person doesn't need to be an
> EU citizen... ;-)

The one oddity I found when traveling in Europe is that they *required*
my passport when I bought a local SIM card (I think I was in Germany when
that happened).

Here in the USA, I have gone down to T-Mobile and told them I wanted a
burner card and they were happy to give me an arbitrary name (I think
they made it "ZZ ZZ" IIRC because they needed two characters).

If you pay cash, you only have to worry about the store cameras
identifying you! :)

Is my experience normal in that, in Europe, both the Hotels and Phone
companies required my passport (never in the USA have I been required to
have a passport).

[M.L.]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:06:54 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> The only sensible way to go about this is to get the child an
> Italian SIM card with the features needed (how many free minutes, how
> data traffic, how many text messages included for free).

In general, are the prices there in Europe similar to ours in the USA for
a local SIM card?

In the USA, you pay T-mobile about $10 for the SIM card, and you can buy
a burner phone at Walmart for about $30 to $50, and then you "feed" the
SIM card pay-as-you-go minutes by buying minute cards, at about 10 cents
a minute (in $10, $25, $50, $100, etc. increments) which last about 3
months (but can be extended).

I don't know how much the data costs in the USA though, but, that's what
a European person would pay if they came to the USA.

Is it similar on price in Europe?

[Theo Markettos]

In comp.mobile.android M.L. <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> In general, are the prices there in Europe similar to ours in the USA for
> a local SIM card?
>
> In the USA, you pay T-mobile about $10 for the SIM card, and you can buy
> a burner phone at Walmart for about $30 to $50, and then you "feed" the
> SIM card pay-as-you-go minutes by buying minute cards, at about 10 cents
> a minute (in $10, $25, $50, $100, etc. increments) which last about 3
> months (but can be extended).

It's roughly similar - possibly a little more or a little less depending on
the operator and country. Expiry (of credit or unused numbers) usually
varies a little between countries.

See, for example:
http://www.prepaidgsm.net/en/italy.php

> I don't know how much the data costs in the USA though, but, that's what
> a European person would pay if they came to the USA.
>
> Is it similar on price in Europe?

Data can vary quite dramatically based on your tariff, but you can usually
find an affordable tariff if you shop around - there are often a dozen or
more operators. The thing to do is to find out on the net which operator
and tariff to pick - don't just walk into a shop and expect to get a good
deal. Sometimes the best tariffs are obscure - eg branded and sold in the
local supermarket rather than a phone shop, or a SIM you have to order
(request one to be sent before you go - topups are usually much easier to
find on the ground).

I'd start looking in these places:

http://www.prepaidgsm.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=6261d27c986cbc350f1672e8c949ab4a&f=32
http://prepaid-data-sim-card.wikia.com/wiki/Italy

(or go up a level to find whatever country you want)

Some countries have noticeably worse prepaid offers than others,
particularly regarding data.

Theo

[nospam]

In article
<cfaad$55ae645c$43da7656$23...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.

<m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> That's interesting how they work it differently in Europe than in the USA.
>
> In general, in the USA, to RECEIVE a phone call is usually free on
> landlines, but on USA cellphones, it costs minutes to RECEIVE a call just
> as it costs minutes to make a phone call.

which is how it should be because it's using airtime.

> In Europe, it seems, in general, that to RECEIVE a phone call on a local
> SIM card doesn't cost them anything on a cell phone.

however, there's a surcharge for calling a mobile phone versus a
landline.

why should a caller have to pay extra for something outside their
control? anyone who wants to be called on a mobile device should pay
for any associated fees, not the callers.

[Rod Speed]

"M.L." <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:62467$55ae617a$43da7656$23...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...

> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:52:13 +0100, chris wrote:
>
>> Also note that with a local SIM, phone calls by the US parent to the
>> child is going to cost international rates. Could get expensive for the
>> parent.
>
> Not on T-mobile.
> On T-mobile, a US parent calling a US phone number (which is in Italy) is
> simply a US-to-US phone call (+1) which is free.
>
> The child receiving this on a US phone number in Italy will be roaming,
> so, it will be 20 cents a minute for the receiving phone.
>
>> An alternative is to get a dual-SIM phone, that way the child can have
>> two numbers on the same phone - one local to the US and one local to
>> Italy. This way the child will always be contactable on either number.
>
> I have always wanted a dual-sim for myself, let alone for someone else.
> Are there good ones out there yet?

There are quite a few. The Moto G isn't too bad if you don’t need 4g/LTE

Samsung has some dual sim phones too.

>> This will rule out iPhones, but there are several Android phones which
>> are available (in the EU at least) with dual SIM options. The Moto G is
>> a good example.
>
> My teen has an original Google Moto g but AFAIK, it only has 1 sim card
> slot.

The second generation has two.

> Googling for dual-sim unlocked phones, there still aren't that many to
> choose from yet.
> http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Adual%20sim%20cell%
> 20phones

There are quite a few more than just those available.

[Rod Speed]

"M.L." <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote in message

news:cfaad$55ae645c$43da7656$23...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...

Yes, and not just europe either, the US approach is quite uncommon world
wide.

[Rod Speed]

"M.L." <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote in message

news:99ca2$55ae64be$43da7656$23...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...

Then you should be able to call using skype and avoid the 20c/minute charge.

[Rod Speed]

"M.L." <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote in message

news:79685$55ae6569$43da7656$23...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...

Not if you don’t say that you are a foreigner
or get a local to get the SIM for you.

> (never in the USA have I been required to have a passport).

Some jurisdictions do require some ID but it
isn't that hard to circumvent that requirement.

[Rod Speed]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:210720151412334681%nos...@nospam.invalid...

> In article
> <cfaad$55ae645c$43da7656$23...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.
> <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> That's interesting how they work it differently in Europe than in the
>> USA.
>>
>> In general, in the USA, to RECEIVE a phone call is usually free on
>> landlines, but on USA cellphones, it costs minutes to RECEIVE a call just
>> as it costs minutes to make a phone call.

> which is how it should be

Nope.

> because it's using airtime.

Any call uses airtime. What we are discussing is WHO pays for that airtime.

It makes no sense at all for the receiver to pay
because they have no control over who calls them.

>> In Europe, it seems, in general, that to RECEIVE a phone call on
>> a local SIM card doesn't cost them anything on a cell phone.

> however, there's a surcharge for calling a mobile phone versus a landline.

Not always.

> why should a caller have to pay extra for something outside their control?

Because they chose to call a mobile.

> anyone who wants to be called on a mobile device
> should pay for any associated fees, not the callers.

Mindlessly silly.

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <d17n14...@mid.individual.net>, "Rod Speed"

<rod.sp...@gmail.com> said:

>
>
>"M.L." <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
>news:79685$55ae6569$43da7656$23...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:25:07 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:
>>
>>> Not quite (AFAIK): It will affect everybody with a SIM card issued from
>>> a provider residing in an EU country. That person doesn't need to be an
>>> EU citizen... ;-)
>>
>> The one oddity I found when traveling in Europe is that they *required*
>> my passport when I bought a local SIM card (I think I was in Germany when
>> that happened).
>>
>> Here in the USA, I have gone down to T-Mobile and told them I wanted a
>> burner card and they were happy to give me an arbitrary name (I think
>> they made it "ZZ ZZ" IIRC because they needed two characters).
>>
>> If you pay cash, you only have to worry about the store cameras
>> identifying you! :)
>>
>> Is my experience normal in that, in Europe, both the Hotels and Phone
>> companies required my passport
>
>Not if you don’t say that you are a foreigner
>or get a local to get the SIM for you.

Locals in Germany need to either provide ID when you make the purchase,
or link to a local German bank account to activate. You do not need to
fund it from that account, but it needs to be linked to a German
citizen, or to identification for a non-citizen.

Not all Euro countries are this strict. Some are worse.

--
Are you tired of having your hands cut off by snowblowers?

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of

<7a851$55ae663d$43da7656$23...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, "M.L."

<m...@privacy.invalid> said:

>On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:06:54 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
>> The only sensible way to go about this is to get the child an
>> Italian SIM card with the features needed (how many free minutes, how
>> data traffic, how many text messages included for free).
>
>In general, are the prices there in Europe similar to ours in the USA for
>a local SIM card?

https://www.onesimcard.com/ is another viable option... You might do
better for 7+ day monthly plans in some places, but for short trips or
if you don't want the hassle when you arrive, they seem reasonable.

No affiliation, other than that I plan on ordering at some point.

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <210720151412334681%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> said:

>why should a caller have to pay extra for something outside their
>control?

Exactly! Except I think you mean the opposite.

> anyone who wants to be called on a mobile device should pay
>for any associated fees, not the callers.

Why should someone else have to pay extra because of the type of phone I
choose? If I choose a landline, mobile, or satellite, shouldn't that be
my business?

I'd rather callers dial my number, and if I choose a more or less
expensive last mile, let me pay for that convenience.

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <mollfa$pa6$1...@dont-email.me>, Zaidy036

<Zaid...@isp.spam> said:

>For short trips look at http://hipsim.com/

This one looks cool.

--
Sign in a Laundromat AUTOMATIC WASHING MACHINES:
"PLEASE REMOVE ALL YOUR CLOTHES WHEN THE LIGHT GOES OUT"

[nospam]

In article <d17ndv...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed

<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> That's interesting how they work it differently in Europe than in the
> >> USA.
> >>
> >> In general, in the USA, to RECEIVE a phone call is usually free on
> >> landlines, but on USA cellphones, it costs minutes to RECEIVE a call just
> >> as it costs minutes to make a phone call.
>
> > which is how it should be
>
> Nope.
>
> > because it's using airtime.
>
> Any call uses airtime. What we are discussing is WHO pays for that airtime.

which should *always* be the person who owns the device using it. very
simple concept.

under no circumstances should a caller subsidize someone else's
decision to use or not use a mobile device or satellite phone or
whatever else.

> It makes no sense at all for the receiver to pay
> because they have no control over who calls them.

nonsense. of course they do. they can either turn off the phone or not
answer it if cost is an issue.

making the caller pay discriminates against mobile users because a
caller might choose to not call a given number if they know that they
will get charged more, which can put some businesses at a disadvantage
because customers will have to pay more to call.

usa tried caller pays and it was a colossal failure, and for very good
reasons. it's a *dumb* idea.

the person who owns the phone should pay for any incurred costs.

[nospam]

In article <r8jtqa5vdk4dvdtmq...@4ax.com>, DevilsPGD

<booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:

> >why should a caller have to pay extra for something outside their
> >control?
>
> Exactly! Except I think you mean the opposite.

i don't.

> > anyone who wants to be called on a mobile device should pay
> >for any associated fees, not the callers.
>
> Why should someone else have to pay extra because of the type of phone I
> choose? If I choose a landline, mobile, or satellite, shouldn't that be
> my business?

exactly, which is what i said above.

you should pay for the type of phone you use (and associated calling
plan), not the caller.

> I'd rather callers dial my number, and if I choose a more or less
> expensive last mile, let me pay for that convenience.

exactly. don't make the caller pay for what is ultimately your choice.

[Chris Blunt]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 06:05:53 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Is my experience normal in that, in Europe, both the Hotels and Phone
>> companies required my passport
>
>Not if you don’t say that you are a foreigner
>or get a local to get the SIM for you.
>
>> (never in the USA have I been required to have a passport).
>
>Some jurisdictions do require some ID but it
>isn't that hard to circumvent that requirement.

That's true, but you better be sure you trust the person you are
allowing to register a SIM card in your name. If it's later found to
have been used to carry out some illegal activity the authorities are
going to come knocking on your door.

Chris

[Chris Blunt]

Exactly, and that's the way almost every country in the world apart
from the US has chosen to do it. Even in the US the principle of
"caller pays" was followed for decades when only landlines were
available. Why should it suddenly be different just because the device
uses a wireless connection instead of a physical line?

Chris

[chris]

On 21/07/2015 16:29, M.L. wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:25:07 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
>> Not quite (AFAIK): It will affect everybody with a SIM card issued from
>> a provider residing in an EU country. That person doesn't need to be an
>> EU citizen... ;-)
>
> The one oddity I found when traveling in Europe is that they *required*
> my passport when I bought a local SIM card (I think I was in Germany when
> that happened).

It's not just Europe, many countries do this. It's to try and clamp down
on PAYG SIMs being used for criminal activity with no traceability.

> Here in the USA, I have gone down to T-Mobile and told them I wanted a
> burner card and they were happy to give me an arbitrary name (I think
> they made it "ZZ ZZ" IIRC because they needed two characters).

As is often the case, the US is the anomaly with the rest of the world
being more consistent. e.g. date format:
https://twitter.com/donohoe/status/597876118688026624

[Michael Eyd]

Am 21.07.2015 um 17:29 schrieb M.L.:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:25:07 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
>> Not quite (AFAIK): It will affect everybody with a SIM card issued from
>> a provider residing in an EU country. That person doesn't need to be an
>> EU citizen... ;-)
>
> The one oddity I found when traveling in Europe is that they *required*
> my passport when I bought a local SIM card (I think I was in Germany when
> that happened).

Basically, that's true and the law here in Germany (most probably
similar, though not always enforced with the same strictness) all over
the EU. Reason is the possibility to identify the SIM card owner in case
something illegal is found to have been pursued using this card.

> Here in the USA, I have gone down to T-Mobile and told them I wanted a
> burner card and they were happy to give me an arbitrary name (I think
> they made it "ZZ ZZ" IIRC because they needed two characters).

Will not work that easily. But if you go e.g. to your local ALDI store
(the biggest chain of cheap food discounters in Germany) and ask for a
SIM card there, they won't ask any questions at the cashier. As you'll
have to activate the card later on, they might ask for some
identification then (online or via telephone), and I'm not sure how
strict their checks are there... ;-)

> If you pay cash, you only have to worry about the store cameras
> identifying you! :)
>
> Is my experience normal in that, in Europe, both the Hotels and Phone
> companies required my passport (never in the USA have I been required to
> have a passport).

Hotels depend in their handling (AFAIK) from country to country, in
Germany e.g. I think I never needed an identity card for many years.

For SIM cards it should be standard being asked for positive
identification (and for people from the US this would mean passport as
you don't have an ID card, driver's license is usually not accepted over
here for 'serious' identification).

Best regards,

Michael

[Michael Eyd]

Am 21.07.2015 um 17:26 schrieb M.L.:

> The data and sms are using roaming for free, both being unlimited

That's quite nice, wish we had such contracts over here as well (without
prohibiting monthly charges).

> (but in
> Europe the data is slower than it would be here in the USA).

What data speeds do you get in the US? Here in Germany at least we have
almost everywhere these days at least 50MBit/s, in most city areas even
150MBit/s or above. Larger cities should even support up to 300MBit/s
(but that's currently only being ramped up). Nevertheless, please bear
in mind that there are not that many devices out there yet supporting
such speeds, and most (non-business = cheap) contracts in Germany limit
the speed to either 7.2MBit/s or 21 MBit/s.

If you want to take a look for yourself, please take a look (for
T-Mobile) at
<https://www.t-mobile.de/netzausbau/0,25250,15400-_,00.html>. The
coverage of the two other German providers is rather similar for all I know.

Best regards,

Michael

[madodel ptd News]

In Germany is there a charge for receiving International (from US) SMS text
messages? Here in the US, you are charged for all SMS messages (received
as well as sent) unless you have unlimited texting plan, which we have with
our AT&T plan. But will our daughter be charged if we text her and instead
of going through as an iMessage it goes through as SMS? She is planning on
probably getting T-Mobile SIM (using her unlocked iPhone 5S), either a 1
year contract or a pre-paid since she is going to be in Germany for a year.

Mark

[M.L.]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:55:43 -0700, DevilsPGD wrote:

> Why should someone else have to pay extra because of the type of phone I
> choose? If I choose a landline, mobile, or satellite, shouldn't that be
> my business?

As an aside on that issue, I once had AT&T as my cellular provider but I
dropped them for T-mobile when they decided to charge *more* for what
they called "smart phones" than for what they didn't call smart phones
(this was a few years ago when not everyone had them).

I remind you this was *before* data plans existed (AFAICR), so, they were
simply charging more for the fact that your phone was smart.

I dropped AT&T like a hot potato, and never looked back. I wonder if they
*still* charge more for non-data plans with a smart phone?

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:48:27 +0800, Chris Blunt wrote:

> that's the way almost every country in the world apart from the US has
> chosen to do it. Even in the US the principle of "caller pays" was
> followed for decades when only landlines were available. Why should it
> suddenly be different just because the device uses a wireless connection
> instead of a physical line?

I have to agree with Chris in that I believe it should be the *caller*
pays (except in 800-toll-free cases), just like it was forever (and still
is) in the USA for landlines.

I think I recall that we used to pay more to call a mobile phone than to
a landline (especially on Skype?), but, I think now the distinction for
the amount that the caller pays is different.

If I recall correctly, the difference *was* something like 10x (from 4
cents a minute to call a landline from USA to Europe to something like 40
cents a minute to call a mobile phone under the same circumstances).

Also they used to charge an *additional* fee on top of that, for the
first minute, and, of course, there were VAT taxes that were included in
the figures.

Does Skype still charge that 10x fee and the first-minute-higher fee?

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 06:01:06 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> There are quite a few.
> The Moto G isn't too bad if you don’t need 4g/LTE
> Samsung has some dual sim phones too.

I checked the Moto-G that I have in my household and it only has one sim
card slot on the side and nothing behind the case back other than the
battery.

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:36:56 -0400, madodel ptd News wrote:

> She is planning on probably getting T-Mobile SIM (using her unlocked
> iPhone 5S), either a 1 year contract or a pre-paid since she is going to
> be in Germany for a year.

I may be wrong, but, as far as I know, T-mobile doesn't even offer a
"contract". It's all month-to-month (at least all my T-mobile plans were
and are).

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:17:53 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> What data speeds do you get in the US? Here in Germany at least we have
> almost everywhere these days at least 50MBit/s, in most city areas even
> 150MBit/s or above.

We get the same speeds here in the USA but T-mobile told me that the
speeds will be lower in Europe due to they have no control over whom you
will be roaming on. I remember when I traveled, they were usable but not
lightning fast, but, no worse than some places in the USA that were in
the middle of nowhere.

Here, in the USA, for four phones, we pay about $100 USD a month for
about 2.5GB of high-speed (unlimited low speed) data, unlimited calls to
and from the USA, and unlimited texting to/from anywhere.

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:06:17 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> Basically, that's true and the law here in Germany (most probably
> similar, though not always enforced with the same strictness) all over
> the EU. Reason is the possibility to identify the SIM card owner in case
> something illegal is found to have been pursued using this card.

I understand that criminal-mind rationale, but, what you give up in
security you lose in freedom, and, as Ben Franklin aptly said, if you do,
you deserve neither.

what's so special about a phone that criminal activity should so
ovbiously
encroach upon your privacy in Europe?

I can buy a radio here in the USA, say, a Ubiquiti Rocket M2, and
broadcast all I want on WiFi frequencies, and I don't need to supply an
ID.

I can buy a phone, and I don't need to supply an ID. I can buy a baseball
bat, and I don't need to supply an ID. I can buy a hundred pounds of
fertilizer, and I don't need to supply an ID. I'm sure I can buy
potassium cyanide, and I won't need to supply an ID.

All these can be used for criminal activities, so, what's so special
about a phone in Europe that it *requires* an ID (whereas, in the USA, it
does not require *any* identification (except a few George Washington's).

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:06:17 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> Hotels depend in their handling (AFAIK) from country to country, in
> Germany e.g. I think I never needed an identity card for many years.

I remember, in Italy, they *took* my passport from me!
I was shocked. It was their *rule*.

Never in the USA would that happen. It was only after 911 that we lost
the freedoms that were so dear to the founding fathers, and, so, as one
of the many losses of our privacy, we now have to show ID at a hotel (of
all things).

What does a hotel have to do with terrorism? I don't know. I guess as
much as a cell phone and a baseball bat and pressure cookers have to do
with terrorism.

At least, to date anyway, we still have the freedom to buy cooking pots
and baseball bats without losing our privacy in the USA (but they'll get
there, as Ben Franklin said, we no longer deserve either our security or
our freedom, since we allow it to be compromised so easily by unwarranted
fear).

< OK OK ... I'll get off the soapbox now... >

> For SIM cards it should be standard being asked for positive
> identification (and for people from the US this would mean passport as
> you don't have an ID card, driver's license is usually not accepted over
> here for 'serious' identification).

Yeah. I remember I was shocked that, in Germany, they asked for my
passport (which was in the hotel). So I had to go back to get it. In
Italy, you'd have to *check out* of the hotel, pay the hotel bill, go to
the phone store, show the passport, then back at the hotel you'd have to
check back in.

In many ways, I'm glad I don't *live* in Europe, which is more of a
police state than here in the USA (which is getting there - we're just
way behind you folks across the pond).

[nospam]

In article <i7buqa1ksq9lgmu9j...@4ax.com>, Chris Blunt

<ma...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Exactly, and that's the way almost every country in the world apart
> from the US has chosen to do it. Even in the US the principle of
> "caller pays" was followed for decades when only landlines were
> available. Why should it suddenly be different just because the device
> uses a wireless connection instead of a physical line?

it shouldn't be different. that's the whole point.

the caller pays one rate based on *their* calling plan, whether it's
mobile or landline.

the mobile user pays for airtime for any calls, inbound or outbound.

the usa does it correctly. everyone else does not.

[nospam]

In article
<8cf85$55afa581$43da7656$26...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.

<m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> I may be wrong, but, as far as I know, T-mobile doesn't even offer a
> "contract". It's all month-to-month (at least all my T-mobile plans were
> and are).

the phone purchase is under contract (unless you bring your own). the
service is not.

[nospam]

In article
<8deb6$55af9f9e$43da7656$26...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.

<m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> I dropped AT&T like a hot potato, and never looked back. I wonder if they
> *still* charge more for non-data plans with a smart phone?

smart phones generally require a data plan, even if you don't plan to
use data, and that's not just at&t either. *very* few people are going
to get a smartphone and not use data.

[nospam]

In article
<e2ec7$55afa0eb$43da7656$26...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.

<m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> > that's the way almost every country in the world apart from the US has
> > chosen to do it. Even in the US the principle of "caller pays" was
> > followed for decades when only landlines were available. Why should it
> > suddenly be different just because the device uses a wireless connection
> > instead of a physical line?
>
> I have to agree with Chris in that I believe it should be the *caller*
> pays (except in 800-toll-free cases), just like it was forever (and still
> is) in the USA for landlines.

the caller should pay for a call based on the phone *they* use, not the
type of phone the recipient chooses to use.

under no circumstances should a caller be surcharged because the number
they're calling happens to be a mobile (or worse, satellite). that's
just stupid.

if someone wants to use a mobile phone, then *they* get to pay any
airtime or other associated costs for that choice. do not charge the
caller or anyone else for that matter.

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:18:17 -0400, M.L. wrote:

> Here, in the USA, for four phones, we pay about $100 USD a month for
> about 2.5GB of high-speed (unlimited low speed) data, unlimited calls to
> and from the USA, and unlimited texting to/from anywhere.

I should clarify that the T-mobile data isn't shared, so that's $100 per
month for 4 phones for 2.5 GB of high-speed data per phone (unlimited low
speed data) and unlimited USA phone calls and unlimited texting.

I used to pay, years ago, for my teen's texting at 200 texts per month,
but she would blow through that in a week, and then it was something like
10 cents for every additional text (which was a killer). We finally
changed the plan to the one we have now, which somehow gets us unlimited
data per phone in Europe for no additional charge.

[Michael Eyd]

You *are* all wrong on this one. T-Mobile (Germany) actually sells most
of their SIM cards (AFAIK) as contracts, and only comparable few as
pre-paid. Their pre-paid offers are not really the best on the market
(though their network is technically quite good)... ;-)

Best regards,

Michael

[Michael Eyd]

Am 22.07.2015 um 14:36 schrieb madodel ptd News:

> In Germany is there a charge for receiving International (from US) SMS
> text messages?

You mean with a German SIM card? No, receiving text messages is always
free (as long as you stay in the country of origin for the card,
otherwise roaming surcharges may apply).

> Here in the US, you are charged for all SMS messages
> (received as well as sent) unless you have unlimited texting plan, which
> we have with our AT&T plan. But will our daughter be charged if we text
> her and instead of going through as an iMessage it goes through as SMS?

No.

> She is planning on probably getting T-Mobile SIM (using her unlocked
> iPhone 5S), either a 1 year contract or a pre-paid since she is going to
> be in Germany for a year.

Why T-Mobile in particular? Not a bad provider (not at all, I'm with
them), but at the same time not exactly the cheapest... ;-) Just being
curious.

And, just for your preparation: contract in Germany are almost always
two-year contracts, other (shorter) durations are quite hard to find.
And 'leaving the country' usually is not a valid reason for an early
cancellation of such a contract. If you don't find a suitable runtime
contract, I'd rather go for a pre-paid card. If you want to compare
different options (both contract and pre-paid), you can check out e.g.
<http://www.verivox.de/handytarife-vergleich/> (unfortunately only
available in German AFAICS). There you can set the basic parameters
(flatrate for calls, for texting, data rate for which volume with which
speed, runtime for contracts (1yr in your case), ...) and see which
provider is the cheapest.

Best regards,

Michael

[Michael Eyd]

The service can be under contract (and with T-Mobile mostly is), or it
can be pre-paid (called Xtra at T-Mobile's). If you want a 'subsidized'
(in the end you usually pay more than buying the phones separately from
a cheap dealer) phone, you're basically forced to go for a contract,
though. At least with T-Mobile. Other German operators might be a bit
more flexible there...

Best regards,

Michael

[Michael Eyd]

That sounds like quite a good offer, rates in Germany are usually higher
than that. Eg. T-Mobile will charge you 45€/month (regular even 50€) for
one phone(!), with 3GB data/month (up to 100MBit/s), all calls and all
texts inside Germany/to German numbers (except some special numbers,
which charge extra). Calls/texts to other countries, calls while being
abroad, ... go extra. Other providers might be a bit cheaper, but I have
yet to see an offer comparable to your's... :-(

Best regards,

Michael

[nospam]

In article <mooa6q$6r7$1...@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de>

wrote:

> >> I may be wrong, but, as far as I know, T-mobile doesn't even offer a
> >> "contract". It's all month-to-month (at least all my T-mobile plans were
> >> and are).
> >
> > the phone purchase is under contract (unless you bring your own). the
> > service is not.
>
> The service can be under contract (and with T-Mobile mostly is),

mostly it is *not*. that's their whole shtick, no contracts.

the service is month to month, cancel at any time, but if you buy a
phone on a payment plan, *that* is a contract, entirely separate from
the service.

[Michael Eyd]

Depends definitively a lot of how you're looking at it. Actually I feel
more free here in Germany than I would envision to feel living in the
US... ;-) We do have our issues, but at least I can be pretty sure that
nobody will try to shoot me just because we got into an argument, or
because I was at the wrong time at the wrong school, or ...

Safety and security are definitively not absolute values, but they are
based on expectations from people - and those expectations vary with
experiences one has made, with values people were brought up with, yes
even with laws under which one lives... I wouldn't like to live in a
state where virtually everybody is allowed to carry concealed (or even
openly) weapons, but I can see that others see that differently. Which
state is more secure? No, I certainly won't go for that debate... ;-)

Best regards,

Michael

[Michael Eyd]

I don't know which country you're talking about, but here in Germany
(and that's the country the original question was about) T-Mobile
definitively sells much more contracts than pre-paid cards.

Best regards,

Michael

[madodel ptd News]

She will look around when she gets there, but people she has spoken with
have used T-Mobile in Germany. They do have at least one 1 year contract.
And several pre-paid including one flatrate for 9,95€/month with 250MB of
data. No idea on international SMS texting rate for any texts she sends us
though, but it appears this includes all texting within Germany. Thanks
for the link. I'll have her check it out.


Mark

[chris]

It's not standard. There are daul-sim specific models. e.g.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Motorola-5-Inch-Stock-SIM-Free-Smartphone/dp/B00NBSZ56C

[chris]

Not true. Can quite easily use a smartphone without the need for data.
Use wifi. It's just like a tablet can be bought without a data SIM.

[nospam]

In article <moog3d$rc5$1...@dont-email.me>, chris <ithi...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> >> I dropped AT&T like a hot potato, and never looked back. I wonder if they
> >> *still* charge more for non-data plans with a smart phone?
> >
> > smart phones generally require a data plan, even if you don't plan to
> > use data, and that's not just at&t either. *very* few people are going
> > to get a smartphone and not use data.
>
> Not true.

yes it is.

> Can quite easily use a smartphone without the need for data.
> Use wifi. It's just like a tablet can be bought without a data SIM.

you can, but the carrier still requires a data plan for smartphones,
whether you use it or not. it's just how it is and it's not unique to
any particular carrier. mvnos might have alternate options but many of
them require data too.

<http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB422370&cv=820>
We want you to have the best possible experience with Web surfing,
social networking, email, and more. If you activate a smartphone on
the AT&T Network, a compatible smartphone data feature is required.
If you don't have a Mobile Share(R) plan, and don't add a data
feature for the smartphone, one will be added automatically after
activation. You can read the details of our data plan policy outlined
in our Wireless Customer Agreement.

[Savageduck]

On 2015-07-22 14:27:54 +0000, "M.L." <m...@privacy.invalid> said:

> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:06:17 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
>> Hotels depend in their handling (AFAIK) from country to country, in
>> Germany e.g. I think I never needed an identity card for many years.
>
> I remember, in Italy, they *took* my passport from me!
> I was shocked. It was their *rule*.

I guess those Italian innkeepers are worried about skippers. I wouldn't
know why, as they usually take a credit card swipe at check-in.
Reservations are also usually secured and guaranteed with a credit card.

> Never in the USA would that happen. It was only after 911 that we lost
> the freedoms that were so dear to the founding fathers, and, so, as one
> of the many losses of our privacy, we now have to show ID at a hotel (of
> all things).
>
> What does a hotel have to do with terrorism? I don't know. I guess as
> much as a cell phone and a baseball bat and pressure cookers have to do
> with terrorism.
>
> At least, to date anyway, we still have the freedom to buy cooking pots
> and baseball bats without losing our privacy in the USA (but they'll get
> there, as Ben Franklin said, we no longer deserve either our security or
> our freedom, since we allow it to be compromised so easily by unwarranted
> fear).
>
> < OK OK ... I'll get off the soapbox now... >
>
>> For SIM cards it should be standard being asked for positive
>> identification (and for people from the US this would mean passport as
>> you don't have an ID card, driver's license is usually not accepted over
>> here for 'serious' identification).
>
> Yeah. I remember I was shocked that, in Germany, they asked for my
> passport (which was in the hotel). So I had to go back to get it. In
> Italy, you'd have to *check out* of the hotel, pay the hotel bill, go to
> the phone store, show the passport, then back at the hotel you'd have to
> check back in.

Silly isn't it. It doesn't make sense to surrender a passport to
anybody, least of all a hotel. I don't recall having to surrender my
passport in Switzerland, Netherlands, or UK.

> In many ways, I'm glad I don't *live* in Europe, which is more of a
> police state than here in the USA (which is getting there - we're just
> way behind you folks across the pond).

Regardless of reality there is a greater impression that "Big Brother"
has an eye on you in some European and UK cities than in the USA.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:00:33 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> Depends definitively a lot of how you're looking at it. Actually I feel
> more free here in Germany than I would envision to feel living in the
> US... ;-)

I have been to Germany only a half dozen times, so, I don't know a lot,
but, I do know your driving and drinking habits are certainly more free
than our puritanical ones are. Also, your concept of the morality of the
human body and its sexual uses are also much more free than ours, which
are locked into the mores of the medieval ages.

However, I think your rights to free speech are vastly curbed, when
compared to ours.

For example, someone told me that it's illegal in Germany to deny the
holocaust or to display a Nazi flag, so, if that is true - I would find
that curbing, of what I'd consider a first amendment right, to be
disturbing (not that I'd do either; but that's the whole point - I'm free
here in the USA to make a fool out of myself, whereas you're apparently
not allowed to do the same in Germany).

While I don't own a gun due to the fact I have kids, I firmly endorse the
right of others to own as many as they want to own. If you dig into the
reason d'etre for guns in the home, it's clear our founding fathers
wanted the people to be able to protect themselves from the tyranny of
the government, by having the *same* (essentially) personal weaponry as
did the government.

There's probably no people on earth more tuned to the harm that the
tyranny of the government can accomplish than Germans, so, I find it
surprising that they don't understand that the threat of the government
taking away our rights is the reason we have those rights spelled out in
the BOA to the Constitution in the first place.

That's freedom. And freedom never meant security nor safety.

I firmly believe in the adage that to give up freedom for security means
that you deserve neither.

> We do have our issues, but at least I can be pretty sure that
> nobody will try to shoot me just because we got into an argument, or
> because I was at the wrong time at the wrong school, or ...

More people die of sports injuries in the United States than by guns;
tens of thousands die of car accidents; another few tens of thousands die
of the flue. I think even more people are injured by *shopping carts* in
the USA every year than by guns (I'd have to check that one though).

Guns get the publicity; but gun-related deaths & injuries in the USA are
infinitesimal compared to accidental deaths & injuries overall.

Besides, if you took away guns, do you really think the number of
criminal deaths would deviate by even a hundreth of a percentage point?
There are *plenty* of ways to harm a human being. Banning guns isn't
gonna stop deaths by force any more than banning baseball bats would.

> Safety and security are definitively not absolute values, but they are
> based on expectations from people - and those expectations vary with
> experiences one has made, with values people were brought up with, yes
> even with laws under which one lives... I wouldn't like to live in a
> state where virtually everybody is allowed to carry concealed (or even
> openly) weapons, but I can see that others see that differently. Which
> state is more secure? No, I certainly won't go for that debate... ;-)

You bring up a rational view, which is that by banning guns, the deaths
by guns would go down to zero. I can't disagree.

However, would deaths go down?
More importantly, would the danger of the government go up?

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:33:33 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> I may be wrong, but, as far as I know, T-mobile doesn't even offer a
>> "contract". It's all month-to-month (at least all my T-mobile plans
>> were and are).
>
> the phone purchase is under contract (unless you bring your own). the
> service is not.

To clarify, I *have* bought phones from T-mobile, and it's only sort of
kind of like a contract, in that there are no termination fees.

If I were to switch to AT&T, T-mobile would just ask me for the rest of
the money that I owe on the phone (so, yes, that's part of their
contract, but it's a contract you can easily break with no negative
effects).

The phone I bought was a Nexus phone, which was, as I recall, about $350,
so, they made me pay the $35 sales tax on receipt of the phone, and then
they charged 1/24 * $350 for the next 24 months (interest free but not
really because the phone was only worth $300 from Google Play).

They told me if I leave their service, I simply have to pay off the
phone, which is perfectly reasonable.

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:43:38 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> The service can be under contract (and with T-Mobile mostly is), or it
> can be pre-paid (called Xtra at T-Mobile's). If you want a 'subsidized'
> (in the end you usually pay more than buying the phones separately from
> a cheap dealer) phone, you're basically forced to go for a contract,
> though. At least with T-Mobile. Other German operators might be a bit
> more flexible there...

Are you sure about that?
I've *never* bought a subsidized phone from T-mobile.
In fact, almost all of my phones I bought off of Google Play, but, the
one phone I bought from T-mobile was actually "add-sidized".

(What's the opposite of subsidized?)

By that, I mean that the phone actually cost *more* than it would cost on
the open market; but they have you pay 1/24th of the cost each month.

As I recall, the Nexus phone was about $300 on Google Play, and about
$350 from T-mobile, but, T-mobile let you have it for the $35 tax, and
then each month, you paid 1/24th of the remaining $350 until it was paid
off.

Again, no contract on the service whatsoever. If you left T-mobile, then
you simply have to pay the remainder on the phone.

I wasn't aware that T-mobile even *offered* subsidized phones anymore.
Are you sure about that?

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:53:58 -0400, nospam wrote:

> mostly it is *not*. that's their whole shtick, no contracts.
>
> the service is month to month, cancel at any time, but if you buy a
> phone on a payment plan, *that* is a contract, entirely separate from
> the service.

Yes. Exactly what he said.
I didn't think T-mobile even *did* service contracts anymore.

You simply call them up and get service, and you call them up and drop
service whenever you want.

Likewise, you simply pop their SIM card into any GSM phone you want, and
it just works. There's no need to even *tell* them what phone you're
using. I certainly don't.

Of course, I know they know (from the IMEI); but the point is they don't
care what phone you use.

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:02:49 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> I don't know which country you're talking about, but here in Germany
> (and that's the country the original question was about) T-Mobile
> definitively sells much more contracts than pre-paid cards.

Oh. Yes. This is a good point. I was talking about T-mobile in the USA
when I said there are no contracts, but, you are totally correct and on
topic when you say that T-mobile in Germany will probably require a
contract.

Thank you for pointing that out, as you are wonderfully on topic (I was
led astray).

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:39:44 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> You *are* all wrong on this one. T-Mobile (Germany) actually sells most
> of their SIM cards (AFAIK) as contracts, and only comparable few as
> pre-paid. Their pre-paid offers are not really the best on the market
> (though their network is technically quite good)... ;-)

We're all right, because you are correct for pointing out that you're
talking about Germany, and we're correct since we're talking about the
USA.

But, of course, this thread is about Europe, so, you're a bit more
correct than we were. :)

Thanks for clarifying!

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:37:22 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> Why T-Mobile in particular? Not a bad provider (not at all, I'm with
> them), but at the same time not exactly the cheapest... ;-) Just being
> curious.

They wanted GSM for the obvious reasons, and, for use in the USA and
abroad, the only companies that make sense for both are T-mobile and AT&T
(they have Virgin currently and hate them).

I pretty much talked them into T-mobile because it's cheaper (by far)
than AT&T (comparing apples to apples) here in the states, and, T-mobile
allows you to plug in *any* phone.

Last I had AT&T, they *charged* you for plugging in what they called a
"smart" phone, even if you didn't even have a data plan! (That's why I
dropped AT&T like a hot potato and switched to T-mobile, who doesn't care
what phone you plug the SIM card into.)

So, mostly they're looking at USA T-mobile because they trust my advice
(which is, in effect, coming from you guys!). :)

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:37:22 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> And, just for your preparation: contract in Germany are almost always
> two-year contracts, other (shorter) durations are quite hard to find.
> And 'leaving the country' usually is not a valid reason for an early
> cancellation of such a contract.

Wow. That's too bad.

Here in the states, with USA T-mobile, you have no contract, and if you
buy the phone from them, you just pay off what you owe on it if you leave.

If you are on another carrier, T-mobile will pay all your early
termination fees (up to about $300 or so per service line) and they will
buy your old phone from you (up to about $200 or so per phone).

Then they will give you a new phone for the tax alone, and then you just
pay off that new phone, interest free, at 1/24th the agreed cost of the
phone (which, in practice, is about $50 more at T-mobile than what you
could get it yourself from Google Play for - so - the interest is that
fifty bucks over two years which is somewhere around 5% or so, give or
take a few points).

Our "freedom" in phone contracts seems to be far greater than yours;
however, it's not *really* all that free in the USA because we
effectively only have two GSM choices (AT&T or T-mobile).

Do you guys in Europe have more effective GSM choices than we have?

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:16:02 +0100, chris wrote:

> It's not standard. There are daul-sim specific models. e.g.
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Motorola-5-Inch-Stock-SIM-Free-Smartphone/dp/
B00NBSZ56C

Thanks for clarifying, as I thought I had gotten gypped. :)

[nospam]

In article
<65feb$55afd62c$adb2d18a$44...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.

<m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> I pretty much talked them into T-mobile because it's cheaper (by far)
> than AT&T (comparing apples to apples) here in the states, and, T-mobile
> allows you to plug in *any* phone.

any gsm carrier lets you use any phone.

> Last I had AT&T, they *charged* you for plugging in what they called a
> "smart" phone, even if you didn't even have a data plan! (That's why I
> dropped AT&T like a hot potato and switched to T-mobile, who doesn't care
> what phone you plug the SIM card into.)

no they don't.

they require a data plan but that's standard.

[nospam]

In article
<c7bb8$55afd340$adb2d18a$44...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.

<m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> >> I may be wrong, but, as far as I know, T-mobile doesn't even offer a
> >> "contract". It's all month-to-month (at least all my T-mobile plans
> >> were and are).
> >
> > the phone purchase is under contract (unless you bring your own). the
> > service is not.
>
> To clarify, I *have* bought phones from T-mobile, and it's only sort of
> kind of like a contract, in that there are no termination fees.

not an explicit termination fee, but if you default, the device will be
blacklisted rendering it unusable.

> If I were to switch to AT&T, T-mobile would just ask me for the rest of
> the money that I owe on the phone (so, yes, that's part of their
> contract, but it's a contract you can easily break with no negative
> effects).

see above. if you break the contract, the device won't do you any good
on at&t or anywhere else.

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:33:33 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> I dropped AT&T like a hot potato, and never looked back. I wonder if
>> they *still* charge more for non-data plans with a smart phone?
>
> smart phones generally require a data plan, even if you don't plan to
> use data, and that's not just at&t either. *very* few people are going
> to get a smartphone and not use data.

Heh heh heh ... When I had AT&T, I didn't have a data plan at one point,
and then I bought my teen an iPhone and AT&T said I had to *pay* for a
data plan, even though I had data *blocked*!

(In those days, even a dumb Motorla Razr flipphone could "do" data; it
just wasn't worth the hassle.)

So, as I mentioned, the moment they said they'd charge me just for
plugging the SIM card into what they called (by IMEI number) a smart
phone, the first thing I told them was that I would spoof the IMEI to
that of a "dumb" phone.

Since spoofing the IMEI to a dumb phone turned out to be too hard for me
to do, I simply dropped AT&T and never looked back.

Even today, T-mobile doesn't *require* a data plan. At least the last
plan I was on was just $60 for 4 phones, with zero data and it was fine
(until my kids went to college and one went to high school).

I "think" you don't need to get a data plan (and pretty much everything
works without data anyway - you just don't get "instant" access); but I
have had data for about a year or so now, so, I don't know the current
non-data plans anymore.

[Zaidy036]

look at Consumer Cellular which uses AT&T as one choice of networks.
https://www.consumercellular.com/
It is cheaper than AT&T and one can change plans (no contracts) on the
fly so when traveling overseas and NOT using their service can
down-grade your plan.

AARP members get 5% discount.

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:25:44 +0100, chris wrote:

> Not true. Can quite easily use a smartphone without the need for data.
> Use wifi. It's just like a tablet can be bought without a data SIM.

Exactly. Even GPS traffic routing works fine without a data plan, as long
as you use the right offline map apps that can both route and locate sans
data.

The only thing you need data for is traffic, or getting email, or exit
services (like current gas prices).

I had smart phones for about 2 years sans data, and I never needed it. I
only got a data plan because the kids wanted it. Even so, I use about 100
megabytes of my 2.5 Gigabytes alloted each month (I called T-mobile to
check that out. Only the kids use the data, not the adults.)

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:45:27 -0400, nospam wrote:

> you can, but the carrier still requires a data plan for smartphones,
> whether you use it or not. it's just how it is and it's not unique to
> any particular carrier. mvnos might have alternate options but many of
> them require data too.

I went off my T-mobile data-less plan about a year (or so) ago, but, I
did perfectly fine with four phones for $60/month with no data.

You don't *need* data; it just makes maps a little easier, and it makes
getting your email a little easier, etc.

As for AT&T *still* requiring data (thanks for finding that reference),
well, all I can say is *that* is the reason I left AT&T and never looked
back. I've been happy with T-mobile ever since (and saved about $10/month
at the time of the switcheroo also).

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:45:27 -0400, nospam wrote:

> If you don't have a Mobile Share(R) plan, and don't add a data feature
> for the smartphone, one will be added automatically after activation

I always wanted to *test* that out, but, of course, I *dropped* AT&T
precisely because of that policy.

I can't see *how* they can legally do it (other than it's in the service
contract, yes, I know), but what they're doing is charging you for a
service you don't want and can't use (I had a data block on all my
phones).

Yes, I could *lift* the data block, but, it was easier to just drop AT&T
(after complaining to the FCC). The complaint process, by the way, is a
joke.

1. You call up AT&T and argue until you're blue in the face.
2. You file a complaint to the FCC.
3. The FCC sends that complaint to AT&T
4. A VP at AT&T literally calls you up.
5. You go through step 1 exactly (verbatim!) all over again & get nowhere.
6. The FCC sends you a letter saying AT&T told them the issue was
"resolved".

Yeah, I dropped AT&T. That's how I "resolved" the issue.
But the complaint process was a farce.

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:57:09 -0400, nospam wrote:

> not an explicit termination fee, but if you default, the device will be
> blacklisted rendering it unusable.
>
>> If I were to switch to AT&T, T-mobile would just ask me for the rest of
>> the money that I owe on the phone (so, yes, that's part of their
>> contract, but it's a contract you can easily break with no negative
>> effects).
>
> see above. if you break the contract, the device won't do you any good
> on at&t or anywhere else.

I wonder about this so-called "blacklist".
Does it really exist?

While I have never had a stolen phone, I did buy an iPhone on Craigslist,
and I called up both AT&T & T-mobile (it was the reason I left AT&T) who
both said there is no such thing in the United States.

So, are you *sure* there is such a thing?

Mind you, it would be really *easy* to implement (just record and
blacklist the IMEI); but both AT&T and T-mobile told me a couple of years
ago when I bought the iPhone that there was no way they would *know* if
it was stolen.

Given my one experience, I don't think the USA implements a blacklist.

[Frank Slootweg]

M.L. <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:06:17 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
> > Hotels depend in their handling (AFAIK) from country to country, in
> > Germany e.g. I think I never needed an identity card for many years.
>
> I remember, in Italy, they *took* my passport from me!
> I was shocked. It was their *rule*.

No, it wasn't, at least not officially (i.e. documented) and it was
illegal. You could report them. Oh wait, it was in *Italy*, wasn't it!?
Never mind, ignore my response. :-)

Anyway, next time you could prevent this by having a shave and a wash
first! :-)

[...]

[M.L.]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:57:08 -0400, nospam wrote:

> any gsm carrier lets you use any phone.

That's not true when you look into the *details* of what I said.

Sure, if you take my words *completely* out of context, your statement is
correct; but in context, that's simply not the case. Period.

AT&T said they would *detect* which phone you put the SIM card into, and,
if that phone was a smart phone, they'd put me on a data plan. Not just
any data plan, mind you, but their *expensive* data plan (not their cheap
one).

T-mobile said I could plug in my SIM card into *any* phone (smart or
otherwise), and they wouldn't penalize me like AT&T said that they would.

In fact, my kid used that iPhone for *years* all through high school, and
T-mobile never once was told by me that the SIM card was in an iPhone.
When the iPhone broke, I simply bought a Moto-G from Google Play and
plugged the card into that. I never told T-mobile anything and still
never had to *pay* for a smart phone plan (since I had data blocked
anyway).

So, in *effect*, AT&T does *not* allow you to put the SIM card into a
smart phone, without forcing you to pay for something you don't even want.

Big difference.

> they require a data plan but that's standard.

Again, it is *not* standard in the USA for a GSM carrier to require a daa
plan, and I would know. I dropped AT&T *because* they required a data
plan for my kid's iPhone that I bought off of Craigslist.

I went immediately to T-mobile, who, for the next two or three years did
NOT ever even *ask* what phone I was using, let alone require a data
plan.

In fact, I had data *blocked* (which any carrier will do for you).

So, it's patently untrue that you *must* have a data plan if you have a
smart phone. It's only true for AT&T. But not for T-mobile. At least it
wasn't true the entire time I had T-mobile without a data plan (I have a
data plan now because the kids wanted it - and it was cheaper to just get
the family plan).

[Frank Slootweg]

M.L. <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:45:51 -0400, Zaidy036 wrote:
>
> > Note that with a local SIM one would only be charged for outgoing calls
> > - incoming are free.
>
> That's interesting how they work it differently in Europe than in the USA.
>
> In general, in the USA, to RECEIVE a phone call is usually free on
> landlines, but on USA cellphones, it costs minutes to RECEIVE a call just
> as it costs minutes to make a phone call.
>
> In Europe, it seems, in general, that to RECEIVE a phone call on a local
> SIM card doesn't cost them anything on a cell phone.
>
> Is that correct?

I think you can safely replace "Europe" by "the rest of the
(civilized) world", i.e., once more, you guys are the odd one out.

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <d1abda...@mid.individual.net>, Frank

Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> said:

>M.L. <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:06:17 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:
>>
>> > Hotels depend in their handling (AFAIK) from country to country, in
>> > Germany e.g. I think I never needed an identity card for many years.
>>
>> I remember, in Italy, they *took* my passport from me!
>> I was shocked. It was their *rule*.
>
> No, it wasn't, at least not officially (i.e. documented) and it was
>illegal. You could report them. Oh wait, it was in *Italy*, wasn't it!?

Personally, I never travel in a foreign country without my passport on
my person (pocket usually, sometimes in my bag), and I absolutely will
not surrender it to a hotel for any purpose. I would also have no
problem calling the police if anyone other than a border officer or
police officer is withholding my passport for any reason.

--
Ask Cialis if your doctor is right for you.

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <i7buqa1ksq9lgmu9j...@4ax.com>, Chris Blunt
> <ma...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Exactly, and that's the way almost every country in the world apart
> > from the US has chosen to do it. Even in the US the principle of
> > "caller pays" was followed for decades when only landlines were
> > available. Why should it suddenly be different just because the device
> > uses a wireless connection instead of a physical line?
>
> it shouldn't be different. that's the whole point.
>
> the caller pays one rate based on *their* calling plan, whether it's
> mobile or landline.
>
> the mobile user pays for airtime for any calls, inbound or outbound.
>
> the usa does it correctly. everyone else does not.

Your assumptions are wrong (different pricing for the caller), hence
your conclusions are also wrong.

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article

> <8deb6$55af9f9e$43da7656$26...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.
> <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>

> > I dropped AT&T like a hot potato, and never looked back. I wonder if they
> > *still* charge more for non-data plans with a smart phone?
>
> smart phones generally require a data plan, even if you don't plan to
> use data, and that's not just at&t either. *very* few people are going
> to get a smartphone and not use data.

It that another US-only idiocy?

No such requirement in most (all?) of the rest of the (civilized)
world! But I'm sure you'll turn that into another "the usa does it
correctly. everyone else does not.".

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article

> <cfaad$55ae645c$43da7656$23...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.

> <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
> > That's interesting how they work it differently in Europe than in the USA.
> >
> > In general, in the USA, to RECEIVE a phone call is usually free on
> > landlines, but on USA cellphones, it costs minutes to RECEIVE a call just
> > as it costs minutes to make a phone call.
>

> which is how it should be because it's using airtime.

True, but that doesn't make it right for the receiver to pay, just
because the caller wants to call hir.

> > In Europe, it seems, in general, that to RECEIVE a phone call on a local
> > SIM card doesn't cost them anything on a cell phone.
>

> however, there's a surcharge for calling a mobile phone versus a
> landline.

It's not a surcharge, but different pricing. Anyway, for most
providers - at least in our country (NL) -, that's now no longer true.
I.e. same price landline to landline and landline to mobile.

> why should a caller have to pay extra for something outside their
> control? anyone who wants to be called on a mobile device should pay
> for any associated fees, not the callers.

See above. Mostly they don't, and *if* they have to, the caller knows
and can make up hir own mind.

[Frank Slootweg]

chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 22/07/2015 15:33, nospam wrote:
> > In article
> > <8deb6$55af9f9e$43da7656$26...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.
> > <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> I dropped AT&T like a hot potato, and never looked back. I wonder if they
> >> *still* charge more for non-data plans with a smart phone?
> >
> > smart phones generally require a data plan, even if you don't plan to
> > use data, and that's not just at&t either. *very* few people are going
> > to get a smartphone and not use data.
>

> Not true. Can quite easily use a smartphone without the need for data.
> Use wifi. It's just like a tablet can be bought without a data SIM.

Exactly! I don't even use my smart-phone as a (regular) phone. Except
of course for *receiving* calls and SMS, *free of charge* for us lucky
devils in the (really) civilized world! :-)
>

[Frank Slootweg]

> the US approach is quite uncommon world wide.

To the audience:

You may want to save the above quoted text. It will come in handy in
many (most? all?) other discussions! :-)

[Alek]

Don't you have to live where there are many hotspots available?? I live
between Philly and NYC, an area you'd think would be rich in WiFi
hotspots. Not so. There are lots of places -- even near my home --
where there are none.

[Rod Speed]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>> That's interesting how they work it
>>>> differently in Europe than in the USA.

>>>> In general, in the USA, to RECEIVE a phone call is usually free on
>>>> landlines, but on USA cellphones, it costs minutes to RECEIVE a
>>>> call just as it costs minutes to make a phone call.

>>> which is how it should be

>> Nope.

>>> because it's using airtime.

>> Any call uses airtime. What we are discussing is WHO pays for that
>> airtime.

> which should *always* be the person who owns the device using it.

Nope, by the one who initiates the call, because the receiver
of the call has no control over the call being made and may
not even want to receive that call at all.

> very simple concept.

A mindlessly superficial claim in fact.

> under no circumstances should a caller subsidize
> someone else's decision to use or not use a mobile
> device or satellite phone or whatever else.

There isn't necessarily any subsidy involved at all.

It is significantly cheaper here to have just a mobile
phone service than a landline phone service and
that includes the cost of the calls made.

And when you need to have a mobile phone for
when you aren't at home it makes a lot of sense
to not bother to have the landline at all and save
even more in the total cost of all your calls.

>> It makes no sense at all for the receiver to pay
>> because they have no control over who calls them.

> nonsense. of course they do.

What a stunning line in rational argument you have there.

> they can either turn off the phone

Pity about the calls they do want to receive.

> or not answer it if cost is an issue.

No always possible to know who is calling and
so when the call should be answered. And why
should I have to pay a cent when someone rings
me to ask me about something anyway ?

> making the caller pay discriminates against mobile users

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> because a caller might choose to not call a given
> number if they know that they will get charged more,

And its perfectly reasonable to encourage people to
use the service that has the lowest marginal cost to use.

> which can put some businesses at a disadvantage
> because customers will have to pay more to call.

They are free to have a landline which diverts to their
mobile with the business paying the cost of the diversion.

> usa tried caller pays and it was a colossal failure,

How odd that it works fine in the rest of the world.

> and for very good reasons. it's a *dumb* idea.

How odd that it works fine in the rest of the world.

> the person who owns the phone
> should pay for any incurred costs.

The person who makes the call should
pay the cost of the call being made.

[Rod Speed]

Chris Blunt <ma...@nospam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> Is my experience normal in that, in Europe, both the
>>> Hotels and Phone companies required my passport

>> Not if you don't say that you are a foreigner
>> or get a local to get the SIM for you.

>>> (never in the USA have I been required to have a passport).

>> Some jurisdictions do require some ID but it
>> isn't that hard to circumvent that requirement.

> That's true, but you better be sure you trust the person
> you are allowing to register a SIM card in your name.

I wasn't talking about getting someone else to register
the SIM in your name.

> If it's later found to have been used to carry out some illegal activity
> the authorities are going to come knocking on your door.

They can't if you circumvent the ID requirement yourself
and there is no way to trace that SIM to you.

[Rod Speed]

"Chris Blunt" <ma...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:i7buqa1ksq9lgmu9j...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 06:12:44 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:210720151412334681%nos...@nospam.invalid...

>>> In article
>>> <cfaad$55ae645c$43da7656$23...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.

>>> <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's interesting how they work it differently in Europe than in the
>>>> USA.
>>>>
>>>> In general, in the USA, to RECEIVE a phone call is usually free on
>>>> landlines, but on USA cellphones, it costs minutes to RECEIVE a call
>>>> just
>>>> as it costs minutes to make a phone call.
>>
>>> which is how it should be
>>
>>Nope.
>>
>>> because it's using airtime.
>>
>>Any call uses airtime. What we are discussing is WHO pays for that
>>airtime.
>>

>>It makes no sense at all for the receiver to pay
>>because they have no control over who calls them.
>>

>>>> In Europe, it seems, in general, that to RECEIVE a phone call on
>>>> a local SIM card doesn't cost them anything on a cell phone.
>>
>>> however, there's a surcharge for calling a mobile phone versus a
>>> landline.
>>

>>Not always.

>>
>>> why should a caller have to pay extra for something outside their
>>> control?
>>

>>Because they chose to call a mobile.

>>
>>> anyone who wants to be called on a mobile device
>>> should pay for any associated fees, not the callers.
>>

>>Mindlessly silly.

>
> Exactly, and that's the way almost every country in the world apart
> from the US has chosen to do it. Even in the US the principle of
> "caller pays" was followed for decades when only landlines were
> available. Why should it suddenly be different just because the device
> uses a wireless connection instead of a physical line?

Yeah, it was done like that in the US because they don't have a
unique prefix range for mobile phone numbers, so you can't
work out whether you are calling a mobile or landline from
the number and so can get a surprise with the cost of the
call when it is actually a mobile you call. Compounded by
the other problem close to unique to the US that local
calls with landline were often free, something you also
didn't see in much of the rest of the world at the time
that mobiles started to be seen.

[Rod Speed]

"Michael Eyd" <inv...@eyd.de> wrote in message
news:monitq$eeg$1...@news.sap-ag.de...
> Am 21.07.2015 um 17:29 schrieb M.L.:
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:25:07 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:
>>
>>> Not quite (AFAIK): It will affect everybody with a SIM card issued from
>>> a provider residing in an EU country. That person doesn't need to be an
>>> EU citizen... ;-)
>>
>> The one oddity I found when traveling in Europe is that they *required*
>> my passport when I bought a local SIM card (I think I was in Germany when
>> that happened).
>
> Basically, that's true and the law here in Germany (most probably similar,
> though not always enforced with the same strictness) all over the EU.
> Reason is the possibility to identify the SIM card owner in case something
> illegal is found to have been pursued using this card.
>
>> Here in the USA, I have gone down to T-Mobile and told them I wanted a
>> burner card and they were happy to give me an arbitrary name (I think
>> they made it "ZZ ZZ" IIRC because they needed two characters).
>
> Will not work that easily. But if you go e.g. to your local ALDI store
> (the biggest chain of cheap food discounters in Germany) and ask for a SIM
> card there, they won't ask any questions at the cashier. As you'll have to
> activate the card later on, they might ask for some identification then
> (online or via telephone), and I'm not sure how strict their checks are
> there... ;-)

They are hopeless here in Australia. They do ask for a driver's license
number, but they have no access to the driver's license database for
privacy reasons, so all you have to do is invent the name and the
driver's license number and there is no way that they can check if
they are valid details.

And you don’t have to have a drivers license anyway because
obviously kids don’t have one and they have no ID to check.

And given how easy it is for criminals to get false
ID, the whole thing is a complete farce anyway.

>> If you pay cash, you only have to worry about the store cameras
>> identifying you! :)

>>
>> Is my experience normal in that, in Europe, both the Hotels and Phone

>> companies required my passport (never in the USA have I been required to
>> have a passport).
>

> Hotels depend in their handling (AFAIK) from country to country, in
> Germany e.g. I think I never needed an identity card for many years.
>

> For SIM cards it should be standard being asked for positive
> identification (and for people from the US this would mean passport as you
> don't have an ID card, driver's license is usually not accepted over here
> for 'serious' identification).

[Rod Speed]

"Michael Eyd" <inv...@eyd.de> wrote in message

news:monjji$f2a$1...@news.sap-ag.de...
> Am 21.07.2015 um 17:26 schrieb M.L.:
>
>> The data and sms are using roaming for free, both being unlimited
>
> That's quite nice, wish we had such contracts over here as well (without
> prohibiting monthly charges).

You do, Vodafone has that and has had for quite a while now.

>> (but in Europe the data is slower than it would be here in the USA).

> What data speeds do you get in the US? Here in Germany at least we have
> almost everywhere these days at least 50MBit/s, in most city areas even
> 150MBit/s or above. Larger cities should even support up to 300MBit/s (but
> that's currently only being ramped up). Nevertheless, please bear in mind
> that there are not that many devices out there yet supporting such speeds,
> and most (non-business = cheap) contracts in Germany limit the speed to
> either 7.2MBit/s or 21 MBit/s.

> If you want to take a look for yourself, please take a look (for T-Mobile)
> at <https://www.t-mobile.de/netzausbau/0,25250,15400-_,00.html>. The
> coverage of the two other German providers is rather similar for all I
> know.

[Rod Speed]

"M.L." <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:92c14$55afa536$43da7656$26...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 06:01:06 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> There are quite a few.
>> The Moto G isn't too bad if you don’t need 4g/LTE
>> Samsung has some dual sim phones too.

> I checked the Moto-G that I have in my household
> and it only has one sim card slot on the side and
> nothing behind the case back other than the battery.

Yeah, but that is because it’s a first generation Moto G.

The second generation Moto G is the one
that does dual sims and a card slot too.

[nospam]

In article <d1acc9...@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > Exactly, and that's the way almost every country in the world apart
> > > from the US has chosen to do it. Even in the US the principle of
> > > "caller pays" was followed for decades when only landlines were
> > > available. Why should it suddenly be different just because the device
> > > uses a wireless connection instead of a physical line?
> >
> > it shouldn't be different. that's the whole point.
> >
> > the caller pays one rate based on *their* calling plan, whether it's
> > mobile or landline.
> >
> > the mobile user pays for airtime for any calls, inbound or outbound.
> >
> > the usa does it correctly. everyone else does not.
>
> Your assumptions are wrong (different pricing for the caller), hence
> your conclusions are also wrong.

nope.

[nospam]

In article <d1acca...@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > I dropped AT&T like a hot potato, and never looked back. I wonder if they
> > > *still* charge more for non-data plans with a smart phone?
> >
> > smart phones generally require a data plan, even if you don't plan to
> > use data, and that's not just at&t either. *very* few people are going
> > to get a smartphone and not use data.
>
> It that another US-only idiocy?
>
> No such requirement in most (all?) of the rest of the (civilized)
> world! But I'm sure you'll turn that into another "the usa does it
> correctly. everyone else does not.".

carriers are free to offer whatever plans they think will be profitable
and consumers are free to sign up or not sign up for them. if few
people sign up, then they'll change their offerings.

carriers require data because that's where the money is. nearly
everyone has a smartphone and a smartphone without data is rather
limited.

it's a business decision.

[nospam]

In article <d1acca...@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > That's interesting how they work it differently in Europe than in the USA.
> > >
> > > In general, in the USA, to RECEIVE a phone call is usually free on
> > > landlines, but on USA cellphones, it costs minutes to RECEIVE a call just
> > > as it costs minutes to make a phone call.
> >
> > which is how it should be because it's using airtime.
>
> True, but that doesn't make it right for the receiver to pay, just
> because the caller wants to call hir.

sure it does, because the receiver chose to use his/her cellphone.

> > > In Europe, it seems, in general, that to RECEIVE a phone call on a local
> > > SIM card doesn't cost them anything on a cell phone.
> >
> > however, there's a surcharge for calling a mobile phone versus a
> > landline.
>
> It's not a surcharge, but different pricing.

word games.

it's a surcharge:
<https://www.fcc.gov/guides/surcharges-international-calls-wireless-phon
es>
Consumers should be aware that placing an international long distance
call from your wireline telephone here in the United States to a
wireless phone in another country may result in a łsurcharge˛ on your
bill in addition to your usual charges.

> Anyway, for most
> providers - at least in our country (NL) -, that's now no longer true.
> I.e. same price landline to landline and landline to mobile.

that's how it should be.

> > why should a caller have to pay extra for something outside their
> > control? anyone who wants to be called on a mobile device should pay
> > for any associated fees, not the callers.
>
> See above. Mostly they don't, and *if* they have to, the caller knows
> and can make up hir own mind.

there is no reason to burden the caller to find out what type of phone
the recipient is using.

if the recipient uses a phone that incurs additional charges they
should be the one to pay them.

[nospam]

In article
<5842f$55afefc4$adb2d18a$44...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.

<m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> > If you don't have a Mobile Share(R) plan, and don't add a data feature
> > for the smartphone, one will be added automatically after activation
>
> I always wanted to *test* that out, but, of course, I *dropped* AT&T
> precisely because of that policy.

it's not any much different anywhere else unless you go to mvnos.

here's what verizon says:
<https://community.verizonwireless.com/thread/114057>
...However, when I start into the on-line upgrade checkout process, I
am required to select one of two PDA/Smartphone Email plans, at an
added monthly cost of at least $30. So, my question is - is there any
way that I can get this phone without the extra monthly cost of
adding a data plan on top of the voice plan that I already have?

...

There are many good reasons that VZW requires a data plan for all
Smartphones, PDAs, and Blackberry devices, which correlate to
financial reasons, but mostly we require it so that the customer can
use their advanced device as it should be used and benefit from
EVERYTHING the device can do, which you just cannot do if you don¹t
have a plan. 
 
Before this requirement, we were seeing an inordinate amount of
customers using data and being charged a good amount on the for Pay
As You Go data rateŠ  Also, Wi-Fi is a relatively new addition to our
offering at VZW and while Wi-Fi spots are located in a lot of places,
we pride ourselves on having the Nation¹s Best and Largest 3G
Network, hence we want it to work everywhere you need it to work and
not have you to have to rely on finding Wi-Fi hot spots.  
 
I suppose it comes down to, ³It is what it is² as it is a requirement
and not only by VZW, but by every other major wireless carrier.

> I can't see *how* they can legally do it (other than it's in the service
> contract, yes, I know), but what they're doing is charging you for a
> service you don't want and can't use (I had a data block on all my
> phones).

what they're doing is charging for a service you signed up for.

if you don't want data you need to find a plan that does not offer
data, not try to get out of paying for something to which you signed up
for.

those do exist but they're a lot harder to find (usually mvnos) and may
have other issues, such as limited roaming or the company suddenly
shutting down (rare, but it's been known to happen).

> Yes, I could *lift* the data block, but, it was easier to just drop AT&T
> (after complaining to the FCC). The complaint process, by the way, is a
> joke.

it's only a joke because your complaint is a joke. they're not doing
anything wrong.

[nospam]

In article
<35ee4$55afef01$adb2d18a$44...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.

they require a lot of things.

try to find a data-only plan. it's next to impossible and usually not
particularly cheap.

the money is in data, not voice, and with the ubiquity of smartphones,
they are *not* going to let that go.

[nospam]

In article
<e883d$55afee00$adb2d18a$44...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.
<m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> So, as I mentioned, the moment they said they'd charge me just for
> plugging the SIM card into what they called (by IMEI number) a smart
> phone, the first thing I told them was that I would spoof the IMEI to
> that of a "dumb" phone.

that's fraud.

do you change vins on your cars to get cheaper insurance rates too?

> Since spoofing the IMEI to a dumb phone turned out to be too hard for me
> to do, I simply dropped AT&T and never looked back.

it's hard to change for many reasons.

> Even today, T-mobile doesn't *require* a data plan. At least the last
> plan I was on was just $60 for 4 phones, with zero data and it was fine
> (until my kids went to college and one went to high school).

which plan is that?

the plans on their site include data:
<http://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans/individual.html>
<http://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans/family.html>

[nospam]

In article
<9ea3a$55aff5ef$adb2d18a$44...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L.

<m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> > not an explicit termination fee, but if you default, the device will be
> > blacklisted rendering it unusable.
> >
> >> If I were to switch to AT&T, T-mobile would just ask me for the rest of
> >> the money that I owe on the phone (so, yes, that's part of their
> >> contract, but it's a contract you can easily break with no negative
> >> effects).
> >
> > see above. if you break the contract, the device won't do you any good
> > on at&t or anywhere else.
>
> I wonder about this so-called "blacklist".
> Does it really exist?

absolutely.

> While I have never had a stolen phone, I did buy an iPhone on Craigslist,
> and I called up both AT&T & T-mobile (it was the reason I left AT&T) who
> both said there is no such thing in the United States.

they lied.

> So, are you *sure* there is such a thing?

absolutely.

> Mind you, it would be really *easy* to implement (just record and
> blacklist the IMEI); but both AT&T and T-mobile told me a couple of years
> ago when I bought the iPhone that there was no way they would *know* if
> it was stolen.

they lied.

until recently, the blacklists were per-carrier, so a blacklisted at&t
phone could work on t-mobile and vice versa, but now the carriers share
the list so if one blacklists it the rest know about it.

it may be possible to take a blacklisted phone overseas, however.

> Given my one experience, I don't think the USA implements a blacklist.

they definitely do.