Curious how mobile plans around the world compare with mine in the USA

[Robin Goodfellow]

Curious how mobile plans around the world compare with mine in the USA.

While I've had all three major carriers in Silicon Valley, I've found them
to be rather similar in all but in price - where I'm currently on T-Mobile.
<https://i.postimg.cc/L6dFGXVd/tmopromo03.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg>

*Cost first:*
I pay about $25/line per month (plus taxes) for a family plan.
That covers unlimited everything (USA calls, text/mms & data).
Plus I got a handful of _free_ Android Samsung Galaxy A325G phones.
Plus a few iPads have the free 200MB/month SIM for life.
And I recently bought also a 128GB iPhone 12 mini (at about half price).

*Coverage second:*
I live in the boonies and my coverage everywhere I go is just fine.
In the past T-Mobile gave me a free cellular tower inside my house.
T-Mobile also gave me a free cellular repeater because I asked nicely.
I still have them but I don't need them but they are nice to have.
When I travel in the USA, my coverage has been just fine AFAICT.
I have the phone set to free roaming but I don't know when it's used.
When I travel to Europe, the free roaming covers me just fine.
(In Europe everything is unlimited except calls are 20 cents/minute.)

*Reliability third:*
There is no contract and no penalties.
There isn't even a penalty if you run over data (which you can't).
The free phones do have a 2-year lien (but that's not a big deal).
My signal never disappears.
I call them and I get what they call "my own team of experts."
I never am stuck with conversing with a machine.
I've switched phones a lot and they let me buy from anywhere any phone.
I've never had to pay for a SIM card (they send them FedEx for free).

How does your plan compare with that cost, coverage, & reliability.
How does anyone's plan compare with T-Mobile as shown above?

Am I getting a good deal compared to the only three carrier choices?
AT&T, T-Mobile & Verizon

I'm curious how your mobile plan compares with the one that I have?
(If you use an MVNO, please state the underlying tower carrier.)
--
I've had all three carriers, sequentially, over time, and their reliability
is about the same, as was their coverage - but T-Mobile cost was the lowest.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Robin Goodfellow <Ancient...@Heaven.Net> asked

> I'm curious how your mobile plan compares with the one that I have?

Am I getting a good deal or a terrible deal or the same deal as you get?

To help you further explain how your cellular plan compares to mine...
here is real time ad hoc technical data on signal strength at home (dBm).
<https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>

Roughly, when I turn off the internal towers inside my house,
I get in the mid to high negative nineties on cellular signal strength.

Here is real time technical data on signal speed at home on my phone (Mbps).
<https://i.postimg.cc/C5vgmtRd/speedtest15.jpg>
Roughly, when I'm on 5G, I get around 100Mbps to about 300Mbps speeds.

When I'm on LTE, it seems to be about half the 5G speeds (they fluctuate).
<https://i.postimg.cc/pdXF4Mtz/speedtest03.jpg>

The data is "unlimited" and it never stops, but T-Mobile says that they can
throttle if I go over 50GB/month on any one "congested tower", but that's
not going to happen anytime soon (I use about 1GB to 3GB a month lately).

Bear in mind I'm so far in the boonies we don't even have cable on our poles
(it's all LOS WISP or Satellite), nor do we have water, gas, or sewage. It's
rural for sure in that you can't even put more than one house on 79 acres
[32 hectares, 3.441x10^6 sq feet] as the minimum per building codes is 40
acres per home [16.2 hectares, 1.742e+6 sq feet] and no building within 100
feet of the roadway (they want everything out of sight).

I'm so far in the boonies we don't even have cable on our poles (Internet
is all LOS WISP or Satellite), nor do we have piped in water, gas, or piped
out sewage. It's rural for sure. The only services we have are power and
electrical (and phone but nobody has a landline anymore) where it all must
be underground from the last pole to the house.

The key point is that I'm miles from any carriers' cell tower (maybe ten by
road but maybe only four or so by LOS) so my signal should be as bad as
anyone's signal would be for a residential (but rural) area.

Luckily the phone can roam for free as long as it can see any compatible
tower, whether I'm in the USA or traveling in Europe (I didn't check Canada
or Mexico).

I forgot to mention the free tethering/hotspotting (they call it the same
thing even as they're quite different to me) is only 5GB/month in the USA
and 0GB/month in Europe.

Overall, I think that explains my plan where my goal in this thread is to
compare my random plan with whatever your plan provides you by way of facts.

How does your mobile plan compare with mine?
Am I getting a good deal or a terrible deal or the same deal as you get?

[Alan Baker]

On 2021-10-05 12:12 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> Curious how mobile plans around the world compare with mine in the USA.
>
> While I've had all three major carriers in Silicon Valley, I've found them
> to be rather similar in all but in price - where I'm currently on T-Mobile.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/L6dFGXVd/tmopromo03.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg>
>
> *Cost first:*
> I pay about $25/line per month (plus taxes) for a family plan.
> That covers unlimited everything (USA calls, text/mms & data).
> Plus I got a handful of _free_ Android Samsung Galaxy A325G phones.
> Plus a few iPads have the free 200MB/month SIM for life.
> And I recently bought also a 128GB iPhone 12 mini (at about half price).
>
> *Coverage second:*

And it's idiotic to consider cost before coverage.

It doesn't matter if the cost is zero, if the phone doesn't work.

Tell you what, I'll promise you cell phone service for $5/month with
unlimited data. Only one catch, your phone will only work in my condo.

:-)

> I live in the boonies and my coverage everywhere I go is just fine.
> In the past T-Mobile gave me a free cellular tower inside my house.
> T-Mobile also gave me a free cellular repeater because I asked nicely.
> I still have them but I don't need them but they are nice to have.
> When I travel in the USA, my coverage has been just fine AFAICT.
> I have the phone set to free roaming but I don't know when it's used.
> When I travel to Europe, the free roaming covers me just fine.
> (In Europe everything is unlimited except calls are 20 cents/minute.)
>
> *Reliability third:*
> There is no contract and no penalties.

Which has nothing to do with reliability.

> There isn't even a penalty if you run over data (which you can't).

Which has nothing to do with reliability.

> The free phones do have a 2-year lien (but that's not a big deal).

Which has nothing to do with reliability.

> My signal never disappears.
> I call them and I get what they call "my own team of experts."

Which has nothing to do with reliability.

And wouldn't be necessary if they weren't at times unreliable.

A car is not made any more reliable by the fact that the manufacturers
service is excellent.

> I never am stuck with conversing with a machine.

And still nothing to do with reliability.

> I've switched phones a lot and they let me buy from anywhere any phone.

And still nothing to do with reliability.

> I've never had to pay for a SIM card (they send them FedEx for free).

And still nothing to do with reliability.

[Bob Eager]

On Tue, 05 Oct 2021 19:44:47 +0000, Robin Goodfellow wrote:

> How does your mobile plan compare with mine?

Do you pay anything when someone calls you?

[sms]

On 10/5/2021 12:12 PM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:

<snip>

> I'm curious how your mobile plan compares with the one that I have?
> (If you use an MVNO, please state the underlying tower carrier.)

Over the years I've had cellular service from many different carriers:
GTE Mobilnet, Cellular One, AT&T (old), Pac Bell Wireless, Cingular,
AT&T (new), T-Mobile, Verizon, and several MVNOs or carrier-owned
prepaid services: Page Plus (Verizon), Consumer Cellular (AT&T), Cricket
(AT&T), and Total Wireless (Verizon).

Pac Bell Wireless was by far the worst. It was the first GSM network in
my area, and operated at 1900 MHz so in-building coverage was worse than
networks using 850 MHz bands. They offered very attractive pricing when
they launched, but were over-subscribed and unable to provide sufficient
capacity. Pac Bell Wireless was acquired by Cingular when SBC acquired
Pacific Bell, then sold to T-Mobile when Cingular bought AT&T.

T-Mobile was not good because of coverage issues in the western U.S.,
and the maps and the Rootmetrics report confirm that these coverage
issues still exist outside of urban areas.

Consumer Cellular and Cricket, both on AT&T worked fine but Consumer
Cellular, at the time, had no data plans with a sufficient amount of
data for family plans. Now Consumer Cellular is very expensive for plans
with sufficient quantities of data, plus they now limit the number of
lines on an account to only three.

Cricket worked fine but at the time did not offer hotspot, and also they
throttled data to 8Mb/s. Cricket now offers unlimited, unthrottled,
data, and includes 15GB of hotspot data per line, but the price has gone
up to $33 per line on a four line plan (they originally offered 5 lines
for $100, ($20 per line)).

I’m currently using Total Wireless with 100GB of shared data per month
on four lines, with 10GB of hotspot data per line, for a little under
$100 per month including taxes and fees. Downsides of Total Wireless are
a) no international roaming, not even to Canada and Mexico, b) no eSIM
support (most MVNOs lack eSIM support), and c) no Apple Watch support
(which requires eSIM support). Verizon is in the process of trying to
buy all the América Móvil brands in the U.S., including Total Wireless
<https://www.lightreading.com/ossbsscx/verizon-to-broaden-out-prepaid-offerings/d/d-id/772053>.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> asked

>> How does your mobile plan compare with mine?
>
> Do you pay anything when someone calls you?

Good question, which I forgot to cover in the details.
I apologize for my factual omission.

I get where you're coming from as I've had cellular since the analog days
and book-sized carrying cases, where they did charge in the USA for incoming
as well as outgoing calls in those early analog days (and they even had
pricing based on "friends and family" and the same carrier's connections.

All that complexity was done away with so long ago that I can't remember
when, so the simple answer is that I haven't seen any plan in the USA in
probably almost two decades that charges for incoming calls. (AFAIK)

However, I thank you for bringing up that point which I had forgotten about!
With that in mind...

I'm curious about plans around the world (and so we learn from each other).
Mine is $25/line (plus tax === ~116/month) for USA unlimited everything
(except the free hotspotting/tethering, which is limited to 5GB/month).

Even in Europe, it's unlimited for everything except phone calls, which,
both made and received are 20 cents per minute (free roaming though) and
there is no tethering/hotspotting (they call it the same thing even though
to me they are different things).

You can pay $10/GB if you need the tethering/hotspotting in Europe though.

In my case, I lump the phones with the plan because most of my phones are
free (there is no contract, but they put a 2-year lien on the phone itself).
<https://i.postimg.cc/Xq5SpS4D/tmopromo02.jpg>

Although I did have to pay about half price for the new 128GB iPhone 12 mini
(with tradein of an old 32 GByte iPhone 7) which also has a 2 year lien.
<https://i.postimg.cc/YC1B906F/tmopromo01.jpg>

Given the cost, the coverage, the service, and the speeds as shown above...
I'm curious: *How does your mobile plan compare with mine?*

[Bob Eager]

On Tue, 05 Oct 2021 20:14:06 +0000, Robin Goodfellow wrote:

> I'm curious about plans around the world (and so we learn from each
> other). Mine is $25/line (plus tax === ~116/month) for USA unlimited
> everything (except the free hotspotting/tethering, which is limited to
> 5GB/month).

I pay 10 pounds (about $13.50 currently) monthly. That's for 9GB,
unlimited calls and texts. That's for a single SIM/line. The 9GB can be
tethered.

That's within the UK; it used to be the same for calls to/from the EU
before Brexit.

[Andy Burns]

Bob Eager wrote:

> That's within the UK; it used to be the same for calls to/from the EU
> before Brexit.

It probably still is (and still will be) until you change/renew your contract.

[Robin Goodfellow]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked

> I'm currently using Total Wireless with 100GB of shared data per month
> on four lines, with 10GB of hotspot data per line, for a little under
> $100 per month including taxes and fees.

Thank you very much for that side-by-side comparison of local plans.
Steve is also in the Silicon Valley, up a few miles further north of me.

His plan seems essentially the same as my plan, at least in "big things",
although certainly some details differed in what he kindly explained.

One more detail I noticed in Steve's post was that his data is "shared",
between his four lines, whereas T-Mobile doesn't do data sharing (AFAIK).

When it's more than you need, the fact it's shared or not shared doesn't
matter in the least, but I like to be technically accurate so I apologize
for not stating that all the figures I quoted were "per line" and not
shared.

To T-Mobile, nothing is shared (AFAIK) so when I say it's unlimited data,
that means unlimited data _per line_ where any one line "can" be throttled
on "congested towers" if that data goes over 50GB/month _per that line_ and
where the data is never actually fully turned off but is only throttled
(probably to uselessly slow speeds though such that it's essentially off).

I don't know how to circumvent that data throttling after 50GB/month, but
certainly all you need to do, if that happens, is change towers, if you can.
But if you're at home, I suspect you might be able to turn off roaming,
which may change your tower (but how would you know?).

Probably more reliable than turning roaming on and off, if you're using up
over 50GB/month of data is perhaps turning on or off your in-home cellular
repeater or moving your cellular repeater (which everyone in the mountains
has in an upstairs window) to a different window on a different side of teh
house.

I don't know how they charge for the in-house femtocell, which is hooked to
your router, where it is, by law, a "cellular tower" (I believe), so it may
also be limited to the 50GB/month/line (but why would they limit it since it
uses your own Internet connection?).

Given everyone technically competent (on any carrier, whether it be AT&T,
T-Mobile, or Verizon) already has either a free cellular repeater or a free
cellular tower inside their house in the boonies, do you know if these FCC
regulated devices can be used to overcome the 50GB/month/line data limit?

[Robin Goodfellow]

Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> asked

>> That's within the UK; it used to be the same for calls to/from the EU
>> before Brexit.
>
> It probably still is (and still will be) until you change/renew your contract.

That's interesting that Brexit plays a role, where hopefully it will _lower_
your costs (as costs, in general, tend to go down over time just as the
device performance & cellular service tends to get better and better over
time with all things in the consumer electronic arena, don't they?).

For example, my last few phones were better, faster, and cheaper in turn:
$350 Nexus 5 (from T-Mobile)
$200 Moto G (from Google)
$130 LG Stylo 3 Plus (from Costco)
$100 Motorola Moto G7 (from Google)
$0 Samsung Galaxy A325G (from T-Mobile)

It's not only phones but almost all non-highly-marketed electronics get
_much_ faster, _much_ better, and _much_ cheaper over time, don't they?

Even my cellular plans seem to get better, faster, and cheaper over time in
that on April 28th of this year, T-Mobile upgraded me from 4GB
data/month/line to unlimited data/month/line - for absolutely no change in
price on my plan (they upgraded, for free, everyone in the USA, to unlimited
data, who was on a postpaid plan that had _any_ data).

BTW, while we're talking technical details to compare plans side by side...

I was thinking of what else I forgot to mention, which is Wi-Fi calling.
*Do you Europeans use Wi-Fi calling?*
*Do you get unlimited two-way Wi-Fi calling for free?*

For me, on my T-Mobile USA plan, in the USA I get free wifi calling (which I
don't really understand as I don't know what happens to the call signal when
it gets past my router onto the Internet - but somehow that "counts" against
calling minutes on plans that charge for calling minutes - but not on mine).

What's better though, is when I travel to Europe (where I have friends and
family in Munchen and London), the Wi-Fi calls are not counted as the 20
cents per minute calls (20 cents per minute is about 0.17 Euros).

That means if you can make all your sent and received calls in Europe over
Wi-Fi, then you're _not_ charged the 20 US cents (0.17 Euro) per minute.

[Rod Speed]

Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote

> Robin Goodfellow wrote

>> I'm curious about plans around the world (and so we learn
>> from each other). Mine is $25/line (plus tax === ~116/month)
>> for USA unlimited everything (except the free hotspotting/
>> tethering, which is limited to 5GB/month).

> I pay 10 pounds (about $13.50 currently) monthly.
> That's for 9GB, unlimited calls and texts. That's for
> a single SIM/line. The 9GB can be tethered.

I pay A$10, equivalent to US$7 for unlimited calls, texts,
MMS to any landline or mobile in Oz and 6GB of data.
Incoming calls cost nothing. Can be tethered.

That’s an MNVO on the Optus network.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> asked

> I pay A$10, equivalent to US$7 for unlimited calls, texts,
> MMS to any landline or mobile in Oz and 6GB of data.
> Incoming calls cost nothing. Can be tethered.

He bring up a good point about the tethering limits per phone per month.

Mine has a 5GB/month/line limitation on hotspotting/tethering when used in
the USA (there is zero allowed hotspot/tether data in Europe but it can be
purchased at $10/GB/month I'm told).

It's a use-it-or-lose-it rule, where you don't get to roll it over month to
month (I think AT&T had those data rollover plans in the past, as I recall).

If you exceed your limit in any one month, then the tethering data never
stops, it just can get "throttled" (how low, I don't know) if you're on a
congested tower.

But the first day of the next billing cycle, you get your
tethering/hotspotting limits back, so that's 5GB/month/line each month (with
no rollover privileges).

BTW, to me, tethering is when you hook your phone to one computer via USB
cable to share the phone's Internet connection whereas to me, hotspotting is
when you hook your phone to up to I think it's five (or is it ten?)
computers using your phone as a wireless access point for the Internet.

But T-Mobile gives them both the same (combined?) limit of 5GB/month/line
(after that, it can be throttled but it will never turn off completely).

[Chris]

Robin Goodfellow <Ancient...@Heaven.Net> wrote:
> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> asked
>>> That's within the UK; it used to be the same for calls to/from the EU
>>> before Brexit.
>>
>> It probably still is (and still will be) until you change/renew your contract.
>
> That's interesting that Brexit plays a role, where hopefully it will _lower_
> your costs (as costs, in general, tend to go down over time just as the
> device performance & cellular service tends to get better and better over
> time with all things in the consumer electronic arena, don't they?).

Ha!

Brexit has been a shitstorm. Prices are going UP all over the place and
we're having shortages of fuel and food.

Hardly a surprise as we cut ourselves off from the world's largest free
market and forced many of the people doing low paid jobs to move away.

> For example, my last few phones were better, faster, and cheaper in turn:
> $350 Nexus 5 (from T-Mobile)
> $200 Moto G (from Google)
> $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus (from Costco)
> $100 Motorola Moto G7 (from Google)
> $0 Samsung Galaxy A325G (from T-Mobile)
>
> It's not only phones but almost all non-highly-marketed electronics get
> _much_ faster, _much_ better, and _much_ cheaper over time, don't they?
>
> Even my cellular plans seem to get better, faster, and cheaper over time in
> that on April 28th of this year, T-Mobile upgraded me from 4GB
> data/month/line to unlimited data/month/line - for absolutely no change in
> price on my plan (they upgraded, for free, everyone in the USA, to unlimited
> data, who was on a postpaid plan that had _any_ data).
>
> BTW, while we're talking technical details to compare plans side by side...
>
> I was thinking of what else I forgot to mention, which is Wi-Fi calling.
> *Do you Europeans use Wi-Fi calling?*

Remember Europe is the geographic continent made up of many different
countries, including the free market area, the EU, which has 27 member
states. Each country will have quite different setups.

In the UK, we do have wifi calling.

> *Do you get unlimited two-way Wi-Fi calling for free?*

No. It counts against your call credit.

FTR I pay £6 pm (incl. tax) for 4GB, 250 minutes and unlimited texts.
There's no contract and can change plan every month.

The kids are on £8 pm for 12 GB and unlimited everything else. Also no
contact.

In the UK it's cheaper to buy the phone outright and get a SIM-only deal.
There's no huge discounts like in the US, but as you see our monthly costs
are typically lower.

[Rod Speed]

Robin Goodfellow <Ancient...@Heaven.Net> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> asked

Nope, wrote.

>> I pay A$10, equivalent to US$7 for unlimited calls,
>> texts, MMS to any landline or mobile in Oz and 6GB
>> of data. Incoming calls cost nothing. Can be tethered.

> He bring up a good point about the tethering limits per phone per month.

> Mine has a 5GB/month/line limitation on hotspotting/
> tethering when used in the USA

We don’t have any specific limits on tethering, its just part of the data.

> (there is zero allowed hotspot/tether data in Europe
> but it can be purchased at $10/GB/month I'm told).

> It's a use-it-or-lose-it rule, where you don't get to roll it over month
> to
> month (I think AT&T had those data rollover plans in the past, as I
> recall).

> If you exceed your limit in any one month, then the tethering
> data never stops, it just can get "throttled" (how low, I don't
> know) if you're on a congested tower.

> But the first day of the next billing cycle, you get your
> tethering/hotspotting limits back, so that's 5GB/month/
> line each month (with no rollover privileges).

> BTW, to me, tethering is when you hook your phone to one computer via USB
> cable to share the phone's Internet connection whereas to me, hotspotting
> is
> when you hook your phone to up to I think it's five (or is it ten?)
> computers using your phone as a wireless access point for the Internet.

I wasn’t making that distinction. I was talking about any use of the cell
service
by other devices, usually PCs or laptops but can be tablets etc too.

[Rod Speed]

Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
> Robin Goodfellow <Ancient...@Heaven.Net> wrote
>> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote

>>>> That's within the UK; it used to be the same for calls to/from the EU
>>>> before Brexit.
>>>
>>> It probably still is (and still will be) until you change/renew your
>>> contract.
>>
>> That's interesting that Brexit plays a role, where hopefully it will
>> _lower_
>> your costs (as costs, in general, tend to go down over time just as the
>> device performance & cellular service tends to get better and better over
>> time with all things in the consumer electronic arena, don't they?).
>
> Ha!

> Brexit has been a shitstorm. Prices are going UP all over
> the place and we're having shortages of fuel and food.

Its very far from clear how much of that is due
to brexit and how much of that is due to covid.

> Hardly a surprise as we cut ourselves
> off from the world's largest free market

That hasn’t been cut off.

[sms]

Brexit really sucks when it comes to mobile phone service. In 2019,
Vodafone had a good prepaid plan for visitors to the UK, and by
extension to Europe. That was eliminated by Vodafone.

[sms]

On 10/5/2021 1:59 PM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> asked
>>> That's within the UK; it used to be the same for calls to/from the EU
>>> before Brexit.
>>
>> It probably still is (and still will be) until you change/renew your contract.
>
> That's interesting that Brexit plays a role, where hopefully it will _lower_
> your costs (as costs, in general, tend to go down over time just as the
> device performance & cellular service tends to get better and better over
> time with all things in the consumer electronic arena, don't they?).

Well I know that Vodafone UK wrecked the prepaid plan that they had for
visitors that charged up to £1 per day for up to 500MB of data. Voice,
text, and data throughout the EU (and EEA). Vodafone, EE, and 3, have
all ended EU roaming since Brexit, see
<https://www.mobileworldlive.com/featured-content/top-three/3-uk-ditches-free-roaming-in-the-eu>.

Of course Brexit has had other negative impacts on the UK as well.

[sms]

On 10/5/2021 3:15 PM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> Ha!
>
> Brexit has been a shitstorm. Prices are going UP all over the place and
> we're having shortages of fuel and food.
>
> Hardly a surprise as we cut ourselves off from the world's largest free
> market and forced many of the people doing low paid jobs to move away.

Well those that voted for Brexit probably understood full well that it
would have negative economic consequences, especially for sectors of the
economy like farming, fishing, energy, pharmaceuticals, meat packing,
finance, airlines, and manufacturing, but they felt that stopping
immigration from eastern Europe was worth it. Guest worker programs,
even if they adopt them, are not going to fix the problem.

[Chris]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Robin Goodfellow <Ancient...@Heaven.Net> wrote
>>> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote
>
>>>>> That's within the UK; it used to be the same for calls to/from the EU
>>>>> before Brexit.
>>>>
>>>> It probably still is (and still will be) until you change/renew your
>>>> contract.
>>>
>>> That's interesting that Brexit plays a role, where hopefully it will
>>> _lower_
>>> your costs (as costs, in general, tend to go down over time just as the
>>> device performance & cellular service tends to get better and better over
>>> time with all things in the consumer electronic arena, don't they?).
>>
>> Ha!
>
>> Brexit has been a shitstorm. Prices are going UP all over
>> the place and we're having shortages of fuel and food.
>
> Its very far from clear how much of that is due
> to brexit and how much of that is due to covid.

Brexit has caused us to have very little resilience all over the economy.
Not being in the EU has happened our recovery and will continue cause
problems that weren't there previously for years to come.

>> Hardly a surprise as we cut ourselves
>> off from the world's largest free market
>
> That hasn’t been cut off.

It's easy for you to say from the other side of the world. The view is very
different here. Why do you think we're planning an FTA with you guys?

[Chris]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/2021 3:15 PM, Chris wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Ha!
>>
>> Brexit has been a shitstorm. Prices are going UP all over the place and
>> we're having shortages of fuel and food.
>>
>> Hardly a surprise as we cut ourselves off from the world's largest free
>> market and forced many of the people doing low paid jobs to move away.
>
> Well those that voted for Brexit probably understood full well that it
> would have negative economic consequences,

Ha! They were sold a lie and swallowed it hook, line and sinker. It's all
over the news currently with the pandora papers that wealthy investors who
support the conservative party - who called the referendum - are guilty of
embezzlement and tax evasion on a massive scale. Off shoring regulation was
due to come in in the EU which was a reason why they wanted brexit.

The scandal will disappear, again, and they'll just continue as always. The
government will pretend to do something about it.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> asked
>> Admittedly the signal suffers inside my own house since it???s brick but when
>> I had Verizon several years ago it was the same story. I had to buy a mini
>> cell tower to receive phone calls. When I switched to T-Mobile they gave me
>> one for free but I stopped using it since WiFi calling is enabled.
>
> Which mini cell tower did you get for Verizon Wireless? For me, even
> outside get "No Service" in my iPhone 12 mini. :(

Hi Ant,
If you get a repeater from Verizon, you need "some" signal to amplify; but
if you get a cell tower, the tower connects to your router so you should
never get "no service" when you're inside your own home no matter how large
your home happens to be.

To Ant and badgolferman, neither of whom are apologists, given we can get to
the level of a normal conversation with nuance of detail, IMHO, also you
should never have to _pay_ for those cell towers for inside your own home.

My point of view to the carriers is...
1. You pay for service in your home
2. You should _get_ that service in your home
3. It's not your fault if their tower is miles away from your home
4. And they _know_ that
5. So it's up to _them_ to make your signal fantastic in your home

Normally, you can "improve" the signal in your own home 3 ways
a. Wi-Fi calling (this is de rigueur as I don't know of any downsides)
b. Cellular towers (these connect to your router and are the most common)
c. Cellular amplifiers (these have two units - a receiver & a repeater)

You know I speak facts when I tell you I have all three in my home (which is
small for the neighborhood where many homes are over 10,000 square feet).

If you have a large home you need more cellular towers inside the house.
But even a small home may need at least one cell tower inside the home.

Just as I have a lot of experience setting up WISP to obtain our Wi-Fi from
miles away due to the peculiar geography of living in mountains far away
from civilization, I've often helped neighbors on all three carriers (AT&T,
T-Mobile, & Verizon) with that five-point argument above, where they
_always_ give them to you for free if you are persistent with them.

It's getting harder to get them for free though...

For example, I told neighbors they could get them for free and one neighbor
asked me to help her so we called T-Mobile together from her phone for her
rather large house (hers is about 12,000 sq feet with a lot of chimneys).

T-Mobile told me during that joint call they no longer give out the cellular
repeaters but now they only give people the mini cellular towers (which
connect to the router).

I'm sure it's hard for you to believe I'm persistent (LOL), but T-Mobile
told her she couldn't have the cell tower for free, and I got on the phone
asking to speak to a supervisor - in the end - after speaking to the
supervisor - they agreed to give her the tower for a $25 deposit on her
credit card where she would get an instant $25 credit on her bill, which was
the best deal I could get for her.

Another neighbor, about 3 months or so ago, on Verizon, had to argue with
them not to charge shipping, but again, they did it for free. I haven't done
AT&T for a while but I suspect they're similar - you just have to be
persistent that it's their fault if you don't have perfect signal, not
yours.

As you know, on an iPhone it's not easy to tell whether you're using the
repeater or the cellular tower inside your home (or if you're using a
cellular tower outside your home), but on Android I can easily tell exactly
which tower is being used (as each has a unique ID), where most of the time
I'm using the femtocell (the phone will use the repeater when the Internet
is down and when I'm in the basement where the repeater unit is located).

[Martin Brown]

On 05/10/2021 20:12, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> Curious how mobile plans around the world compare with mine in the USA.
>
> While I've had all three major carriers in Silicon Valley, I've found them
> to be rather similar in all but in price - where I'm currently on T-Mobile.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/L6dFGXVd/tmopromo03.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg>
>
> *Cost first:*
> I pay about $25/line per month (plus taxes) for a family plan.
> That covers unlimited everything (USA calls, text/mms & data).
> Plus I got a handful of _free_ Android Samsung Galaxy A325G phones.
> Plus a few iPads have the free 200MB/month SIM for life.
> And I recently bought also a 128GB iPhone 12 mini (at about half price).

OK I have Three in the UK (with free phone home and data in most of ROW)
£11/pcm for 8GB, unlimited, infinite txts (I use about 10) + tethering
Three also do free 200MB/pcm SIM for life (they hope you use more).

Your unlimited data deal for a Three SIM only would have a cost that
depends on the length of the contract 1, 12 or 24 months as follows:

1 £26
12 £20
24 £17.50 (as £10 for first six months)

http://www.three.co.uk/Store/SIM/Plans_for_phones

There are penalties if you break out of a contract early. That isn't too
far off the mark since UK £1 == $1 US for most high tech goodies.

Their coverage is OK. O2 has nothing near me. I live in a notspot.
Vodafone possibly have the best UK coverage but I fell out with them.
I only need to walk a few hundred yards into a valley to get nothing.

I also have EE in the UK (better coverage) £6/pcm for 6GB, 600min, inf
The two networks chosen to provide near complete coverage. Strictly one
of them is my wife's phone which often gets used for navigating too.
They are usually more expensive their unlimited data is £40.

<https://shop.ee.co.uk/sim-only/pay-monthly-phones?search=%3A%3AsimoPlanData%3AUnlimited%20Data&CTTag=CT_Sal_ShopHP_P1_SIMO_Q4_2020_1&expandFilter=true>

Be a miracle if that link actually works so here is the root link:

https://shop.ee.co.uk/sim-only/pay-monthly-phones

14GB total data is usually enough these days. Since lockdown it has been
a bit excessive but the contracts I have are cheaper than anything now
on offer. The trend is towards much higher data allowance and 5G now
(for a price). If you don't talk to customer retention at least every
couple of years here you tend to get ripped off.

There are too many people paying through the nose for phones that they
have long since paid off (ie they are out of contract and could have a
new one/better deal). Most tech savvy people are on SIM only deals.

> *Coverage second:*
> I live in the boonies and my coverage everywhere I go is just fine.
> In the past T-Mobile gave me a free cellular tower inside my house.
> T-Mobile also gave me a free cellular repeater because I asked nicely.
> I still have them but I don't need them but they are nice to have.
> When I travel in the USA, my coverage has been just fine AFAICT.
> I have the phone set to free roaming but I don't know when it's used.
> When I travel to Europe, the free roaming covers me just fine.
> (In Europe everything is unlimited except calls are 20 cents/minute.)

In the US EE(UK) is extortionate for everything. Three(UK) is free for
calls home to UK but calls within the USA are relatively expensive.

> *Reliability third:*
> There is no contract and no penalties.
> There isn't even a penalty if you run over data (which you can't).

The way my contracts work is that you pay a rather expensive 1p/MB for
any overrun on data and something similar 2p on voice. I figure that if
you don't occasionally run into charges you are paying too much.

Since Covid started they haven't had a penny extra out of me!

> The free phones do have a 2-year lien (but that's not a big deal).
> My signal never disappears.

Not even in wilderness canyons? They do need something close to line of
sight particularly at the higher frequencies.

> I call them and I get what they call "my own team of experts."
> I never am stuck with conversing with a machine.
> I've switched phones a lot and they let me buy from anywhere any phone.
> I've never had to pay for a SIM card (they send them FedEx for free).

I've bought the odd one for either £1 (nominal) or £10 but they come
with credit on equivalent to what you have paid. You can buy then at the
Supermarket checkout or in Poundshops(clue is in the name). I was a bit
puzzled in the US quite how fiddly it is to buy a network SIM.

When I was travelling a lot in places before Wifi was common I also
bought preloaded Three 3GB & 12GB data SIMs as consumables when they
were on discounted introductory offer.

>
> How does your plan compare with that cost, coverage, & reliability.
> How does anyone's plan compare with T-Mobile as shown above?

Reliability is fine apart from in areas where local topography prevents
the signal from reaching the phone.

> Am I getting a good deal compared to the only three carrier choices?
> AT&T, T-Mobile & Verizon
>
> I'm curious how your mobile plan compares with the one that I have?
> (If you use an MVNO, please state the underlying tower carrier.)

GiffGaff in the UK has quite a following in the tech community.

https://www.giffgaff.com/sim-only-deals

ISTR unlimited data is about £35 there.


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Robin Goodfellow]

Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> asked
> Your iPhone uses 4G as fallback. And what you wrote here suggests that
> is fairly often the case.

I find it kind of amazing that Joerg is repeatedly arguing _against_ speed.

While you may not _need_ 100Mbps to 600Mbps speeds, to get those speeds for
free (all my Android 5G phones were free, for example), is not a bad thing.

My only "complaint" is all the cellular towers inside my house are 4G so I
actually "can" get better speeds now outside my house (with 5G) than inside.

Up until 5G, it used to be the other way around.
--
In my experience, all three carriers give you a home cell tower for free.

[Rod Speed]

Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Robin Goodfellow <Ancient...@Heaven.Net> wrote
>>>> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote
>>
>>>>>> That's within the UK; it used to be the same for calls to/from the EU
>>>>>> before Brexit.
>>>>>
>>>>> It probably still is (and still will be) until you change/renew your
>>>>> contract.
>>>>
>>>> That's interesting that Brexit plays a role, where hopefully it will
>>>> _lower_
>>>> your costs (as costs, in general, tend to go down over time just as the
>>>> device performance & cellular service tends to get better and better
>>>> over
>>>> time with all things in the consumer electronic arena, don't they?).
>>>
>>> Ha!
>>
>>> Brexit has been a shitstorm. Prices are going UP all over
>>> the place and we're having shortages of fuel and food.
>>
>> Its very far from clear how much of that is due
>> to brexit and how much of that is due to covid.

> Brexit has caused us to have very little resilience all over the economy.

That isn't the reason for the problem with HGV drivers.

> Not being in the EU has happened our recovery

Corse the virus has nothing to do with that eh ?

> and will continue cause problems that weren't
> there previously for years to come.

But will fix the problem with the UK being stuck
with any EU citizen that decides that their prospects
in the UK are better than where they are coming from.

>>> Hardly a surprise as we cut ourselves
>>> off from the world's largest free market

>> That hasn’t been cut off.

> It's easy for you to say from the other side of the world.

Easy for anyone in the entire world with access to the data
to realise that the UK has not been cut off from the EU.

> The view is very different here.

Bullshit it is on that particular claim.

> Why do you think we're planning an FTA with you guys?

Because that is now possible and wasn’t before, stupid.

[Rod Speed]

Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote
>> Chris wrote

>>> Ha!

>>> Brexit has been a shitstorm. Prices are going UP all over
>>> the place and we're having shortages of fuel and food.

>>> Hardly a surprise as we cut ourselves off from the world's largest free
>>> market and forced many of the people doing low paid jobs to move away.

>> Well those that voted for Brexit probably understood full
>> well that it would have negative economic consequences,

And real upsides too.

> Ha! They were sold a lie and swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

In reality they got what most of them decided that they wanted,
the UK being free to decide what it wanted to do about a whole
raft of issues and be able to give those who decided how things
should be done the bums rush at the ballot box if they decided
that they had fucked up spectacularly. Not possible with the
unelected shiny bums deciding policy in the EU.

> It's all over the news currently with the pandora papers that wealthy
> investors who support the conservative party - who called the referendum
> - are guilty of embezzlement and tax evasion on a massive scale.

Corse nothing like that happened with Blair etc eh ?

> Off shoring regulation was due to come in in the
> EU which was a reason why they wanted brexit.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that’s saying something.

> The scandal will disappear, again, and they'll just continue as always.

Yep, Starmer is doing it right now.

> The government will pretend to do something about it.

Blair didn’t even do that, just got his snout in the trough.

[Chris]

Yes it is. There are 16,000 fewer EU HGV drivers in the UK this year
than last year (i.e. pre/post Brexit). That's a 36% YoY drop (Brexit +
COVID). That's compared to a 5% YoY drop of UK drivers (COVID).

We're also at the lowest level of EU drivers since 2016 both in absolute
numbers (28k from a high of 44k) as well as a percentage of the total
(10.1% from a high of 14.4%).
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/adhocs/13636hgvdriversbyageandnationality

>> Not being in the EU has happened our recovery
>
> Corse the virus has nothing to do with that eh ?

Our recovery from the pandemic. How can we rapidly recover if we aren't
able to trade efficiently with our biggest trading partner.

Our GDP has dropped more than other equivalent EU states over the same
period and hasn't recovered as well.

>
>> and will continue cause problems that weren't
>> there previously for years to come.
>
> But will fix the problem with the UK being stuck
> with any EU citizen that decides that their prospects
> in the UK are better than where they are coming from.

As Brexiteers are now finding out, they were a *benefit* to our economy.
Not the scroungeing wasters they were vilified as.

It also cuts both ways. Now it's much harder for Brits to get jobs in
the EU. So there go all the summer jobs in the med, ERASMUS placement
schemes, and no retirement plans in the EU.

We're also getting all the old cronies back from Spain. Great...

>>>> Hardly a surprise as we cut ourselves
>>>> off from the world's largest free market
>
>>> That hasn’t been cut off.
>
>> It's easy for you to say from the other side of the world.
>
> Easy for anyone in the entire world with access to the data
> to realise that the UK has not been cut off from the EU.

Try telling that to the shellfish industry.

Overall sales to food industry is still down 50% and:
"Shellfish exporters saw the greatest disruption, with live bivalve
mollusc producers in class B and C waters unable to sell into EU markets. "
https://www.seafish.org/about-us/news-blogs/latest-uk-seafood-sector-review-shows-brexit-and-covid-19-impacts-but-fish-and-chip-sector-recovers-strongly/

We don't eat much shellfish here so the loss of an export market is
devastating for them.

>> The view is very different here.
>
> Bullshit it is on that particular claim.

Are you really claiming, as someone who lives in Australia, that what I
see every day as a resident in the UK is bullshit? Get a grip.

>> Why do you think we're planning an FTA with you guys?
>
> Because that is now possible and wasn’t before, stupid.

It wasn't necessary before, either. We now need more FTAs to fill the
hole left by not being in the EU.

[Mayayana]

"sms" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote

| Well those that voted for Brexit probably understood full well that it
| would have negative economic consequences

Very doubtful. Do you think the working class who voted
for Trump understood that he'd screw them? No. They still
don't. It's an emotional, nationalistic appeal.

[Chris in Makati]

On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 09:42:35 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Robin Goodfellow <Ancient...@Heaven.Net> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> asked
>
>Nope, wrote.
>
>>> I pay A$10, equivalent to US$7 for unlimited calls,
>>> texts, MMS to any landline or mobile in Oz and 6GB
>>> of data. Incoming calls cost nothing. Can be tethered.
>
>> He bring up a good point about the tethering limits per phone per month.
>
>> Mine has a 5GB/month/line limitation on hotspotting/
>> tethering when used in the USA
>
>We don’t have any specific limits on tethering, its just part of the data.

Which is how it should be.

A Gigabyte is a Gigabyte, whether you consume it on your mobile or a
laptop, or whatever. If you're paying your carrier for data then it
shouldn't matter how you use is.

Chris

[Tweed]

Not so. It’s much harder to use data on your phone than on a tethered PC
etc so on the average they know most people aren’t going to use all of
their data allowance. Their pricing and capacity calculations are based on
this under use.

[Chris]

On 06/10/2021 09:49, Rod Speed wrote:
> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote
>>> Chris wrote
>
>>>> Ha!
>
>>>> Brexit has been a shitstorm. Prices are going UP all over
>>>> the place and we're having shortages of fuel and food.
>
>>>> Hardly a surprise as we cut ourselves off from the world's largest free
>>>> market and forced many of the people doing low paid jobs to move away.
>
>>> Well those that voted for Brexit probably understood full
>>> well that it would have negative economic consequences,
>
> And real upsides too.

Such as? Concrete things that actually make a difference not pointless
slogans like "Sovereignty" or things that we already had like "control
of our borders".

If you say fucking blue passports, I'll throw this computer out the
fucking window.

The only single benefit I can come up with is the vaccine roll-out. We
were able to make our own deals, separate from the EU. Although, that
was also technically possible within the EU, politcally it would have
been a lot harder.

>> Ha! They were sold a lie and swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
>
> In reality they got what most of them decided that they wanted,
> the UK being free to decide what it wanted to do about a whole
> raft of issues and be able to give those who decided how things
> should be done the bums rush at the ballot box if they decided
> that they had fucked up spectacularly. Not possible with the
> unelected shiny bums deciding policy in the EU.

You really have no clue. Why do you pretend you do? You're simply
regurgitating anti-EU tropes verbatim. Are you Nigel Farage?

Even he admitted that the promises made during the referendum would not
be implemented.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html

>> It's all over the news currently with the pandora papers that wealthy
>> investors who support the conservative party - who called the referendum
>> - are guilty of embezzlement and tax evasion on a massive scale.
>
> Corse nothing like that happened with Blair etc eh ?

He's "one of them" now. Not a tory, but definitely not a "common man".

>> Off shoring regulation was due to come in in the
>> EU which was a reason why they wanted brexit.
>
> Even sillier than you usually manage and that’s saying something.

Hmm, MLR 2019 came into effect in Jan 2020. The same time as the end of
the Brexit transition period. What a coincidence!
https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/financial-crime/money-laundering-regulations

>> The scandal will disappear, again, and they'll just continue as always.
>
> Yep, Starmer is doing it right now.
>
>> The government will pretend to do something about it.
>
> Blair didn’t even do that, just got his snout in the trough.

False. Lots of anti-money laundering legislation came in under his and
Brown's leadership.

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (updated in 2007)
Money Laundering Regulations 2003
Money Laundering Regulations 2007

Since then it's been relatively quiet with EU directives being
implemented into UK law:
MLR 2017
MLR 2019

I expect these to be watered down in the next couple of years.

[Chris]

It *never* made sense. Even in the days before unlimited was common. It
would have allowed the telcos to make more money.

> Chris
>

[Chris]

On 06/10/2021 14:22, Tweed wrote:
> Chris in Makati <ma...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 09:42:35 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Robin Goodfellow <Ancient...@Heaven.Net> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> asked
>>>
>>> Nope, wrote.
>>>
>>>>> I pay A$10, equivalent to US$7 for unlimited calls,
>>>>> texts, MMS to any landline or mobile in Oz and 6GB
>>>>> of data. Incoming calls cost nothing. Can be tethered.
>>>
>>>> He bring up a good point about the tethering limits per phone per month.
>>>
>>>> Mine has a 5GB/month/line limitation on hotspotting/
>>>> tethering when used in the USA
>>>
>>> We don’t have any specific limits on tethering, its just part of the data.
>>
>> Which is how it should be.
>>
>> A Gigabyte is a Gigabyte, whether you consume it on your mobile or a
>> laptop, or whatever. If you're paying your carrier for data then it
>> shouldn't matter how you use is.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
> Not so. It’s much harder to use data on your phone than on a tethered PC

You don't have teenagers to do you?

[sms]

On 10/6/2021 6:09 AM, Chris in Makati wrote:

<snip>

> A Gigabyte is a Gigabyte, whether you consume it on your mobile or a
> laptop, or whatever. If you're paying your carrier for data then it
> shouldn't matter how you use is.

The way the carriers look at it is they don't want people using the
cellular data network in place of broadband to the home (at least not
until they deploy mmWave 5G and can charge separately for a mmWave 5G
modem. Verizon has been running around my city putting up mmWave 5G
cells on streetlight poles (much to the chagrin of many residents that
are concerned about RF radiation).

If you're paying for unlimited data, or even just 25GB of data, the
carriers know that the reality is that the average monthly mobile data
usage in the U.S. is around 7GB. But if people dropped their broadband
service and began using hotspot data instead, the mobile networks would
be overwhelmed, and offering unlimited data would no longer be viable.
The carriers also forbid subscribers from sticking their SIM card into a
portable hotspot device since unlimited data users would get around the
phone hotspot data limit that way. It actually does work just fine when
you put your SIM card into a portable hotspot, or into a tablet or
computer with a SIM slot, but if the carrier reads the MEID of the
device, and figures out that it's not a phone, then they'll cut off your
service, often without any warning, unless you change the MEID to that
of a phone.

I recall someone complaining that their plan has x GB of data included
but they are only using ⅔x GB so they are somehow losing money and that
the carrier should refund some money if they don't use all their data.
But that's not the way it works. They are free to sign up for a plan
where they pay per MB but these tend to be enormously expensive, even at
2¢ per MB (the lowest I've seen for pay-as-you-go data) that's $20/GB.

At least in the U.S., the majority of cellular subscribers are paying
for way more data than they ever use and could cut their monthly costs
significantly by moving to plans where they get around 10GB of data per
line, but, fortunately for the carriers, they don't bother to do that.
Also, because most people have unlimited, or huge amounts of data, they
no longer ever bother to connect their phones via Wi-Fi except when
there is no cellular coverage. Back in the days when data was expensive,
Wi-Fi usage was much higher.

[Steve]

ithi...@gmail.com wrote:
> If you say fucking blue passports, I'll throw this computer out the
> fucking window.
>

Fucking blue passports.
Bye.

[sms]

Yes, that's probably true. The sad thing is that many of the people that
voted for Trump also did so a second time!

I wonder what the results would be now of a Brexit vote, given the
shortages caused by the loss of truck drivers, and the loss of the EU as
a market for so many things produced in the UK. Maybe a majority of UK
residents are okay with the negative economic consequences of Brexit.

In the U.S., there are several industries that were hurt by Trump's
anti-immigrant stance. Even Republicans voted in favor of a bill to
modernize the H-2A visa program. It was funny-sad, during the height of
the pandemic, that "undocumented workers" in the agriculture and
meat-packing industries were classified as "essential workers." At least
it was an admission that these workers were desperately needed.

[Rod Speed]

Mayayana <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote

> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote

>> Well those that voted for Brexit probably understood full
>> well that it would have negative economic consequences

> Very doubtful. Do you think the working class who
> voted for Trump understood that he'd screw them?

He didn’t. They no longer have to compete with vast numbers
of EU citizens happy to work for wages that are far below what
the working class gets paid because they cant get work in the
EU country they are coming from.

> No. They still don't. It's an emotional, nationalistic appeal.

Irrelevant, the majority who bothered to vote voted
to leave and you get to like that or lump it.

[Rod Speed]

Tweed <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote

> Chris in Makati <ma...@nospam.com> wrote

>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Robin Goodfellow <Ancient...@Heaven.Net> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> asked
>>>
>>> Nope, wrote.
>>>
>>>>> I pay A$10, equivalent to US$7 for unlimited calls,
>>>>> texts, MMS to any landline or mobile in Oz and 6GB
>>>>> of data. Incoming calls cost nothing. Can be tethered.
>>>
>>>> He bring up a good point about the tethering limits per phone per
>>>> month.
>>>
>>>> Mine has a 5GB/month/line limitation on hotspotting/
>>>> tethering when used in the USA
>>>
>>> We don’t have any specific limits on tethering, its just part of the
>>> data.
>>
>> Which is how it should be.
>>
>> A Gigabyte is a Gigabyte, whether you consume it on your mobile or a
>> laptop, or whatever. If you're paying your carrier for data then it
>> shouldn't matter how you use is.

> Not so. It’s much harder to use data on your phone than on a tethered PC
> etc

That’s bullshit with streaming which is what most data is used for.

> so on the average they know most people
> aren’t going to use all of their data allowance.

Just as true of non tethered/non hotspot data.

> Their pricing and capacity calculations are based on this under use.

Just as true of non tethered/non hotspot data.

[Tweed]

I don’t know about you, but I don’t stream a movie huddled round my phone.

[Rod Speed]

Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote
>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote
>>>> Chris wrote
>>
>>>>> Ha!
>>
>>>>> Brexit has been a shitstorm. Prices are going UP all over
>>>>> the place and we're having shortages of fuel and food.
>>
>>>>> Hardly a surprise as we cut ourselves off from the world's largest
>>>>> free
>>>>> market and forced many of the people doing low paid jobs to move away.
>>
>>>> Well those that voted for Brexit probably understood full
>>>> well that it would have negative economic consequences,
>>
>> And real upsides too.
>
> Such as?

Such as not having to compete with EUians who are prepared
to work for much lower wages because they cant get work in
the EU countrys they are coming from or have much lower
wages there.

> Concrete things that actually make a difference not pointless slogans like
> "Sovereignty"

Nothing pointless about the UK govt getting to decide
policy and the voters being able to give them the bums
rush at the ballot box when they fuck up badly enough
like Blair and Brown did.

> or things that we already had like "control of our borders".

Bullshit you did with EU citizens who were a massive
problem for the lowest paid workers in the UK.

> If you say fucking blue passports, I'll throw this computer out the
> fucking window.

Blue Passports.

> The only single benefit I can come up with is the vaccine roll-out.

Yep, you actually are that stupid/flagrantly dishonest/one eyed.

> We were able to make our own deals, separate from the EU.

And decide for yourselves which vaccines are acceptable,
what to do about other stuff like PPE and ventilators, what
to do about lockdowns etc etc etc.

> Although, that was also technically possible within the EU, politcally it
> would have been a lot harder.

>>> Ha! They were sold a lie and swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
>>
>> In reality they got what most of them decided that they wanted,
>> the UK being free to decide what it wanted to do about a whole
>> raft of issues and be able to give those who decided how things
>> should be done the bums rush at the ballot box if they decided
>> that they had fucked up spectacularly. Not possible with the
>> unelected shiny bums deciding policy in the EU.

> You really have no clue. Why do you pretend you do?

Keep this shit up and your shit and lies will be flushed where it belongs.

> You're simply regurgitating anti-EU tropes verbatim.

Rubbing your nose in the facts, actually.

> Are you Nigel Farage?

You are pathetic.

> Even he admitted that the promises made during the referendum would not be
> implemented.

No one was ever able to promise anything.

> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html

Just because some fool journo claims something...

That wasn’t the only thing that Farage said would be better if the UK left
the EU.

>>> It's all over the news currently with the pandora papers that wealthy
>>> investors who support the conservative party - who called the referendum
>>> - are guilty of embezzlement and tax evasion on a massive scale.

>> Corse nothing like that happened with Blair etc eh ?

> He's "one of them" now.

More mindless bullshit.

> Not a tory, but definitely not a "common man".

Neither is Starmer and Attlee, Wilson, Callaghan,
Foot, Milliband, Corbyn etc etc etc.

>>> Off shoring regulation was due to come in in the
>>> EU which was a reason why they wanted brexit.

>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that’s saying something.

> Hmm, MLR 2019 came into effect in Jan 2020. The same time as the end of
> the Brexit transition period. What a coincidence!
> https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/financial-crime/money-laundering-regulations

That wasn’t THE REASON THEY WANTED BREXIT.

>>> The scandal will disappear, again, and they'll just continue as always.
>>
>> Yep, Starmer is doing it right now.
>>
>>> The government will pretend to do something about it.
>>
>> Blair didn’t even do that, just got his snout in the trough.
>
> False.

Fact.

> Lots of anti-money laundering legislation came in under his and Brown's
> leadership.

He got his snout in the trough anyway.

Chose to not include what he exploited himself.

> Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (updated in 2007)
> Money Laundering Regulations 2003
> Money Laundering Regulations 2007

Irrelevant to the trough he got his snout in.

And he never pulled the plug on the real UK tax havens.

> Since then it's been relatively quiet with EU directives being implemented
> into UK law:
> MLR 2017
> MLR 2019

> I expect these to be watered down in the next couple of years.

You are completely irrelevant. Always have been, always will be.

[Rod Speed]

Tweed <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote

But hordes of kids do and you are free to have a decent
sized screen and stream to that via your phone too.

You clearly don’t have any kids.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Mayayana <maya...@invalid.nospam> asked

>| Well those that voted for Brexit probably understood full well that it
>| would have negative economic consequences
>
> Very doubtful. Do you think the working class who voted
> for Trump understood that he'd screw them? No. They still
> don't. It's an emotional, nationalistic appeal.

People are stupid.

They believed the hype about Brexit which was a political ploy.
They believe the hype about Trump which was also pure politics.
They believe the hype from Apple which is exactly the same stuff.

Stupid people don't own independent thought processes.

[Robin Goodfellow]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked

> I wonder what the results would be now of a Brexit vote, given the
> shortages caused by the loss of truck drivers, and the loss of the EU as
> a market for so many things produced in the UK. Maybe a majority of UK
> residents are okay with the negative economic consequences of Brexit.

Keep in mind Brexit was just "barely" a majority vote, and, even then, the
clumps of voters went wildly in each direction (e.g., London vs Edinburgh).

Seems to me a vote of that magnitude in importance with wide reaching
implications to a variety of cultures should have been a super majority.

Alas, it was a planned scheming political ploy that worked all too well...

[Robin Goodfellow]

Chris in Makati <ma...@nospam.com> asked

> A Gigabyte is a Gigabyte, whether you consume it on your mobile or a
> laptop, or whatever. If you're paying your carrier for data then it
> shouldn't matter how you use is.

On April 28th, 2021...

T-Mobile gave every USA postpaid line with _any_ data, completely gratis,
unlimited data, but the hotspot/tether limits remained at 5GB/line/month.

How do you suggest the carriers work that gigabyte when they give everyone
free unlimited data, but when they wish to limit the hotspot/tethering data?

[Robin Goodfellow]

Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> asked

> It *never* made sense. Even in the days before unlimited was common. It
> would have allowed the telcos to make more money.

How do you suggest carriers set tethering limits when everyone has
free unlimited data but carriers still wish to limit hotspot/tethering data?

[Robin Goodfellow]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked

> Back in the days when data was expensive,
> Wi-Fi usage was much higher.

To that point, until April 28th of this year, I was using about 0.200
GB/month on my line (the kids used the full maximum of 4GB/month/line).

After April 28th, my T-Mobile data has sky rocketed to almost what the kids
were using, while the kids are only slightly above their normal use limits.

All I did differently was turn on the cellular data button on my phone
(which normally would have been set to off) since I now have unlimited data.

As an added bonus, the cellular data is 5GB at home in the Santa Cruz
Mountains, which is a lot faster than the LTE in my recent tests outside.
<https://i.postimg.cc/pdXF4Mtz/speedtest03.jpg>
--
Note that the cellular repeater & femtocell were turned off for those tests.

[Bob Eager]

On Wed, 06 Oct 2021 15:15:50 +0100, Chris wrote:

> The only single benefit I can come up with is the vaccine roll-out. We
> were able to make our own deals, separate from the EU. Although, that
> was also technically possible within the EU, politcally it would have
> been a lot harder.

And if you look at the current percentage rollout, Portugal is #1 and we
are #11 in Europe.

[Martin Brown]

On 05/10/2021 21:59, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> asked

>>> That's within the UK; it used to be the same for calls to/from the EU
>>> before Brexit.
>>
>> It probably still is (and still will be) until you change/renew your contract.
>
> That's interesting that Brexit plays a role, where hopefully it will _lower_
> your costs (as costs, in general, tend to go down over time just as the
> device performance & cellular service tends to get better and better over
> time with all things in the consumer electronic arena, don't they?).

Brexit provided the perfect opportunity for all the British mobile
networks to completely rip off Brits. Surprise, surprise! They said they
wouldn't but one by one they are reimposing EU roaming charges.

Same applies to right hand drive cars. They can rip us off for that too.

> What's better though, is when I travel to Europe (where I have friends and
> family in Munchen and London), the Wi-Fi calls are not counted as the 20
> cents per minute calls (20 cents per minute is about 0.17 Euros).
>
> That means if you can make all your sent and received calls in Europe over
> Wi-Fi, then you're _not_ charged the 20 US cents (0.17 Euro) per minute.

Wifi calling generally doesn't count except against data allowance
(which is miniscule for a voice call but can mount up for eg Zoom).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Chris]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote
>>>>> Chris wrote
>>>
>>>>>> Ha!
>>>
>>>>>> Brexit has been a shitstorm. Prices are going UP all over
>>>>>> the place and we're having shortages of fuel and food.
>>>
>>>>>> Hardly a surprise as we cut ourselves off from the world's largest
>>>>>> free
>>>>>> market and forced many of the people doing low paid jobs to move away.
>>>
>>>>> Well those that voted for Brexit probably understood full
>>>>> well that it would have negative economic consequences,
>>>
>>> And real upsides too.
>>
>> Such as?
>
> Such as not having to compete with EUians who are prepared
> to work for much lower wages because they cant get work in
> the EU countrys they are coming from or have much lower
> wages there.

How's that an upside? No-one is doing the jobs we need. Now we have huge
gaps in our economy.

A high wage britain as Boris wants simply increased inflation.

>> Concrete things that actually make a difference not pointless slogans like
>> "Sovereignty"
>
> Nothing pointless about the UK govt getting to decide
> policy and the voters being able to give them the bums
> rush at the ballot box when they fuck up badly enough
> like Blair and Brown did.
>
>> or things that we already had like "control of our borders".
>
> Bullshit you did with EU citizens who were a massive
> problem for the lowest paid workers in the UK.
>
>> If you say fucking blue passports, I'll throw this computer out the
>> fucking window.
>
> Blue Passports.

Yeah, well done.

>> The only single benefit I can come up with is the vaccine roll-out.
>
> Yep, you actually are that stupid/flagrantly dishonest/one eyed.
>
>> We were able to make our own deals, separate from the EU.
>
> And decide for yourselves which vaccines are acceptable,
> what to do about other stuff like PPE and ventilators, what
> to do about lockdowns etc etc etc.

Yeah that went well didn't it? Highest numbers of cases in Europe and
second highest number of deaths. We totally aced it!

>> Although, that was also technically possible within the EU, politcally it
>> would have been a lot harder.
>
>>>> Ha! They were sold a lie and swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
>>>
>>> In reality they got what most of them decided that they wanted,
>>> the UK being free to decide what it wanted to do about a whole
>>> raft of issues and be able to give those who decided how things
>>> should be done the bums rush at the ballot box if they decided
>>> that they had fucked up spectacularly. Not possible with the
>>> unelected shiny bums deciding policy in the EU.
>
>> You really have no clue. Why do you pretend you do?
>
> Keep this shit up and your shit and lies will be flushed where it belongs.

That's the best you can do...?

>> You're simply regurgitating anti-EU tropes verbatim.
>
> Rubbing your nose in the facts, actually.

Let me know when you find one.

>> Are you Nigel Farage?
>
> You are pathetic.
>
>> Even he admitted that the promises made during the referendum would not be
>> implemented.
>
> No one was ever able to promise anything.
>
>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html
>
> Just because some fool journo claims something...
>
> That wasn’t the only thing that Farage said would be better if the UK left
> the EU.

Remember. He didn't even say that.

Examples of what would be better?

>>>> It's all over the news currently with the pandora papers that wealthy
>>>> investors who support the conservative party - who called the referendum
>>>> - are guilty of embezzlement and tax evasion on a massive scale.
>
>>> Corse nothing like that happened with Blair etc eh ?
>
>> He's "one of them" now.
>
> More mindless bullshit.
>
>> Not a tory, but definitely not a "common man".
>
> Neither is Starmer and Attlee, Wilson, Callaghan,
> Foot, Milliband, Corbyn etc etc etc.
>
>>>> Off shoring regulation was due to come in in the
>>>> EU which was a reason why they wanted brexit.
>
>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that’s saying something.
>
>> Hmm, MLR 2019 came into effect in Jan 2020. The same time as the end of
>> the Brexit transition period. What a coincidence!
>> https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/financial-crime/money-laundering-regulations
>
> That wasn’t THE REASON THEY WANTED BREXIT.

Read again what I wrote. *A* reason not *the* reason.

[sms]

I think that he might have wanted to say that you could make all your
calls using VOIP on the low-speed included foreign data.

The problem I have seen with T-Mobile USA's included foreign roaming
data is that it is throttled to 128 Kb/s or with the Magenta® MAX you
get 256Mb/s. You can pay extra for faster data, $5 a day for 512MB, 5GB
for 10 days for $35, or 15GB for 30 days for $50. You're better off
buying a prepaid SIM card, either eSIM or physical SIM, it's much less
expensive. Last time I was in Europe and Asia, traveling with others, I
was letting those with T-Mobile hotspot into my phone and iPad because
their data was not usable for what they were doing.

[Rod Speed]

Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Chris wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> Ha!
>>>>
>>>>>>> Brexit has been a shitstorm. Prices are going UP all over
>>>>>>> the place and we're having shortages of fuel and food.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Hardly a surprise as we cut ourselves off from the world's largest
>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>> market and forced many of the people doing low paid jobs to move
>>>>>>> away.
>>>>
>>>>>> Well those that voted for Brexit probably understood full
>>>>>> well that it would have negative economic consequences,
>>>>
>>>> And real upsides too.
>>>
>>> Such as?

>> Such as not having to compete with EUians who are
>> prepared to work for much lower wages because they
>> cant get work in the EU countrys they are coming
>> from or have much lower wages there.

> How's that an upside?

It clearly is an upside for those UK citizens doing that work.

> No-one is doing the jobs we need.

That’s another silly lie. Plenty do the jobs you need.

> Now we have huge gaps in our economy.

That’s another silly lie. Most of the gaps are due to covid
and they aren't anything even remotely like huge either.

> A high wage britain as Boris wants simply increased inflation.

That’s another silly lie. It provides a much better lifestyle
for those getting better than the minimum wage and
allows them to buy a house and stuff like that, which
the likes of you are already able to do.

Plenty will never be able to do high skilled work.

>>> Concrete things that actually make a difference
>>> not pointless slogans like "Sovereignty"
>>
>> Nothing pointless about the UK govt getting to decide
>> policy and the voters being able to give them the bums
>> rush at the ballot box when they fuck up badly enough
>> like Blair and Brown did.
>>
>>> or things that we already had like "control of our borders".
>>
>> Bullshit you did with EU citizens who were a massive
>> problem for the lowest paid workers in the UK.
>>
>>> If you say fucking blue passports, I'll throw this computer out the
>>> fucking window.
>>
>> Blue Passports.
>
> Yeah, well done.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that your word can't be
trusted.

>>> The only single benefit I can come up with is the vaccine roll-out.
>>
>> Yep, you actually are that stupid/flagrantly dishonest/one eyed.
>>
>>> We were able to make our own deals, separate from the EU.
>>
>> And decide for yourselves which vaccines are acceptable,
>> what to do about other stuff like PPE and ventilators, what
>> to do about lockdowns etc etc etc.

> Yeah that went well didn't it?

As well as can be expected given that it’s a once in a hundred years
pandemic.

The EU didn’t do any better.

> Highest numbers of cases in Europe

For a different reason, Boris was too stupid close
the borders and stop infected individuals arriving.

He wouldn’t have been able to do that if the UK
had remained in the EU.

> and second highest number of deaths. We totally aced it!

Nothing to do with Brexit.

And if enough of the voters decide that he did a lot worse
than that fool Starmer would have done, they are free to give
him the bums at the next general election. Not even possible
with the unelected bureaucrats who decide policy in the EU.

Yep, that was what was on the side of a bus.

> Examples of what would be better?

Being free to decide which EU citizens would be useful in the UK.

Being free to have FTAs with any country that the UK chose to.

Being free to do anything the UK chose to policy wise.

>>>>> It's all over the news currently with the pandora papers that wealthy
>>>>> investors who support the conservative party - who called the
>>>>> referendum
>>>>> - are guilty of embezzlement and tax evasion on a massive scale.
>>
>>>> Corse nothing like that happened with Blair etc eh ?
>>
>>> He's "one of them" now.
>>
>> More mindless bullshit.
>>
>>> Not a tory, but definitely not a "common man".
>>
>> Neither is Starmer and Attlee, Wilson, Callaghan,
>> Foot, Milliband, Corbyn etc etc etc.
>>
>>>>> Off shoring regulation was due to come in in the
>>>>> EU which was a reason why they wanted brexit.
>>
>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that’s saying something.
>>
>>> Hmm, MLR 2019 came into effect in Jan 2020. The same time as the end of
>>> the Brexit transition period. What a coincidence!
>>> https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/financial-crime/money-laundering-regulations
>>
>> That wasn’t THE REASON THEY WANTED BREXIT.
>
> Read again what I wrote. *A* reason not *the* reason.

That wasn’t A REASON THEY WANTED BREXIT.

[Calum]

On 06/10/2021 09:40, Rod Speed wrote:

> But will fix the problem with the UK being stuck
> with any EU citizen that decides that their prospects
> in the UK are better than where they are coming from.

That was entirely up to the UK government. All EU countries can require
citizens of other EU countries to leave if they have been "economically
inactive" for more than 3 months, and others such as Germany enforce
that. The UK just chose not to.

<https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/residence-rights/inactive-citizens/index_en.htm>

[Rod Speed]

Calum <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> But will fix the problem with the UK being stuck
>> with any EU citizen that decides that their prospects
>> in the UK are better than where they are coming from.

> That was entirely up to the UK government.

Nope.

> All EU countries can require citizens of other EU countries to leave if
> they have been "economically inactive" for more than 3 months,

But get no say on those from the dregs of the EU showing up and
who are "economically active" in the country they choose to move
to. The UK can now decide who they want in the UK.

> and others such as Germany enforce that. The UK just chose not to.

Separate issue entirely to those who are "economically active" and
who depress the wages of UK citizens when they have no choice but
to accept low and even illegal wages given that they have no access
to UK welfare.

> <https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/residence-rights/inactive-citizens/index_en.htm>

[tim...]

"Robin Goodfellow" <Ancient...@Heaven.Net> wrote in message
news:sjibm5$5b0$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
> Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> asked
>>> How does your mobile plan compare with mine?
>>
>> Do you pay anything when someone calls you?
>
> Good question, which I forgot to cover in the details.
> I apologize for my factual omission.
>
> I get where you're coming from as I've had cellular since the analog days
> and book-sized carrying cases, where they did charge in the USA for
> incoming
> as well as outgoing calls in those early analog days (and they even had
> pricing based on "friends and family" and the same carrier's connections.
>
> All that complexity was done away with so long ago that I can't remember
> when, so the simple answer is that I haven't seen any plan in the USA in
> probably almost two decades that charges for incoming calls. (AFAIK)
>
> However, I thank you for bringing up that point which I had forgotten
> about!
> With that in mind...
>
> I'm curious about plans around the world (and so we learn from each
> other).
> Mine is $25/line (plus tax === ~116/month) for USA unlimited everything
> (except the free hotspotting/tethering, which is limited to 5GB/month).
>
> Even in Europe, it's unlimited for everything except phone calls, which,
> both made and received are 20 cents per minute (free roaming though) and
> there is no tethering/hotspotting (they call it the same thing even though
> to me they are different things).


I find this surprising

I've just returned from a holiday and on the tour were 2 Americans. They
both had roaming turned off, because, just like me, keeping it turned on
left them open to having to pay gazillions of dollars for "foreign" data

[Chris]

Incorrect. There aren't enough people doing farm labouring or hospitality
or road haulage or health/social care.

>> Now we have huge gaps in our economy.
>
> That’s another silly lie. Most of the gaps are due to covid
> and they aren't anything even remotely like huge either.

False.

>> A high wage britain as Boris wants simply increased inflation.
>
> That’s another silly lie.

Boris is "economically illiterate"

https://sydneynewstoday.com/economically-illiterate-prime-ministers-tory-speech-receives-a-frosty-welcome-work/374679/

> It provides a much better lifestyle
> for those getting better than the minimum wage and
> allows them to buy a house and stuff like that, which
> the likes of you are already able to do.

It's no use having a higher minimum wage when house prices are growing
faster as well as everything else. Economics aren't your strength are they?
Not sure what your strength is, to be honest.

> Plenty will never be able to do high skilled work.
>
>>>> Concrete things that actually make a difference
>>>> not pointless slogans like "Sovereignty"
>>>
>>> Nothing pointless about the UK govt getting to decide
>>> policy and the voters being able to give them the bums
>>> rush at the ballot box when they fuck up badly enough
>>> like Blair and Brown did.
>>>
>>>> or things that we already had like "control of our borders".
>>>
>>> Bullshit you did with EU citizens who were a massive
>>> problem for the lowest paid workers in the UK.
>>>
>>>> If you say fucking blue passports, I'll throw this computer out the
>>>> fucking window.
>>>
>>> Blue Passports.
>>
>> Yeah, well done.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that your word can't be
> trusted.

Just like the Boris... ;)

>>>> The only single benefit I can come up with is the vaccine roll-out.
>>>
>>> Yep, you actually are that stupid/flagrantly dishonest/one eyed.
>>>
>>>> We were able to make our own deals, separate from the EU.
>>>
>>> And decide for yourselves which vaccines are acceptable,
>>> what to do about other stuff like PPE and ventilators, what
>>> to do about lockdowns etc etc etc.
>
>> Yeah that went well didn't it?
>
> As well as can be expected given that it’s a once in a hundred years
> pandemic.
>
> The EU didn’t do any better.
>
>> Highest numbers of cases in Europe
>
> For a different reason, Boris was too stupid close
> the borders and stop infected individuals arriving.

Literally just contradicted yourself.

> He wouldn’t have been able to do that if the UK
> had remained in the EU.

False. Pretty much all EU countries closed their borders at some point
during the pandemic.

>> and second highest number of deaths. We totally aced it!
>
> Nothing to do with Brexit.

It proves that brexit didn't give us the ability to make better choices
than the EU.

> And if enough of the voters decide that he did a lot worse
> than that fool Starmer would have done, they are free to give
> him the bums at the next general election.

We're still stuck with the fuckwit for 5 years. The parliament act was a
stupid idea.

> Not even possible
> with the unelected bureaucrats who decide policy in the EU.

The EU is more democratic than the UK. All MEPs are voted in with a
proportional system. And is more trustworthy than our corrupt system.

How can a party have an absolute majority with <40% of the electorate?
Idiotic.

Unfortunately they've chosen exactly the wrong ones. The economy is
suffering for it.

> Being free to have FTAs with any country that the UK chose to.

We're desperate for deals which others can see so take advantage by
weakening our own food standards, for example. Lovely stuff.

[Tweed]

Likewise. When I was in Iceland about 3 years ago, half the tourists were
European, the other half N. American. The latter were forever seeking out
free Wi-Fi, the Europeans were all using the very good mobile
infrastructure.

[Mayayana]

"sms" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote

|
| Yes, that's probably true. The sad thing is that many of the people that
| voted for Trump also did so a second time!
|

Yes. They were hoping the Democrats would finally get out
of the way and Trump would be able to save the world. :) I
guess that says something about the power of a person who
speaks with authority.

| In the U.S., there are several industries that were hurt by Trump's
| anti-immigrant stance. Even Republicans voted in favor of a bill to
| modernize the H-2A visa program. It was funny-sad, during the height of
| the pandemic, that "undocumented workers" in the agriculture and
| meat-packing industries were classified as "essential workers." At least
| it was an admission that these workers were desperately needed.

Personally I'm not really against banning illegals. Why should people
have a right to be here illegally? We don't have that right in other
countries. But the real issue is hypocrisy on both sides. As you
said, they're essential. And no one admits that. Without illegal
immigrants there's no California produce,
no Midwest meat packers, few yard workers or housecleaners
or nannies, or even construction workers. We depend on them living
with a shadow status: Able to live and work here but not able to
work legally. So they can be exploited. Occasionally ICE will pull a
raid and ship a few illegals out, then call the press to have a news
report printed about it. It could all be stopped tomorrow but no
one really wants that. Keeping them illegal allows us to deny them
human dignity and see them as grubby subhumans who don't deserve
rights... Let's fight for the real minorities, who deserve our respect.
Like that poor multimillionaire Ellen Pao who lost her dubious case
against Kleiner Perkins and is now a feminist hero. Stop Asian
Yuppie Hate!

[AJL]

On 10/7/2021 5:46 AM, Mayayana wrote:

> Without illegal
> immigrants there's no California produce,

I see more and more large machines doing the the harvest in my area
(US). But then I suppose they would be useless without those immigrant
Chinese electronic parts...

[sms]

On 10/7/2021 5:46 AM, Mayayana wrote:

<snip>

> Personally I'm not really against banning illegals. Why should people
> have a right to be here illegally? We don't have that right in other
> countries. But the real issue is hypocrisy on both sides. As you
> said, they're essential. And no one admits that. Without illegal
> immigrants there's no California produce,
> no Midwest meat packers, few yard workers or housecleaners
> or nannies, or even construction workers.

True. If they ever really stopped illegal immigration we would have to
import more food from other countries since even if wages went up
significantly there aren't people willing to do harvesting or
meat-packing. Prices would go up of course, and people would complain,
and it would be the same people complaining about illegal immigrants.

OTOH, illegal immigration has really hurt construction workers that are
here legally, driving down wages as contractors and developers move to
using laborers that they can pay lower wages to.

What we need is another guest worker program.

<snip>

> Like that poor multimillionaire Ellen Pao who lost her dubious case
> against Kleiner Perkins and is now a feminist hero. Stop Asian
> Yuppie Hate!

It will be interesting to see how the Ashley Gjøvik case plays out
<https://www.engadget.com/apple-fires-ashley-gjovik-025858158.html>.
Will Apple reach a confidential settlement with her or will they look at
the Ellen Pao case and be willing to take their chances with a jury?
Usually these cases are settled quietly and confidentially because the
cost and uncertainty of a trial are too great, but settling has risks as
well.

[Chris]

Yup. That's because we decided to do the 18+, 16+ and now the 12-15
later than other countries.

[Chris]

On 07/10/2021 00:09, Rod Speed wrote:
> Calum <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>> But will fix the problem with the UK being stuck
>>> with any EU citizen that decides that their prospects
>>> in the UK are better than where they are coming from.
>
>> That was entirely up to the UK government.
>
> Nope.

Yup. Given that the UK was not in Schengen the Government could have
chosen to identify all EU citizens entering the country and checking
their economic activity.

Instead they chose to do nothing as it served their political motives
more, plus it would have confirmed the fact the EU migration was a net
positive to the UK economy. Which was on top of the positive benefits of
freedom of movement for UK citizens in the EU.

>> All EU countries can require citizens of other EU countries to leave
>> if they have been "economically inactive" for more than 3 months,
>
> But get no say on those from the dregs of the EU showing up and
> who are "economically active" in the country they choose to move
> to.

They could have.

> The UK can now decide who they want in the UK.
>
>> and others such as Germany enforce that. The UK just chose not to.
>
> Separate issue entirely to those who are "economically active" and
> who depress the wages of UK citizens when they have no choice but
> to accept low and even illegal wages given that they have no access
> to UK welfare.

Illegal wages are an issue for victims of human trafficking/modern
slavery which has nothing to do with the EU.

[Rod Speed]

That’s nothing like your stupid NO-ONE lie.

>>> Now we have huge gaps in our economy.

>> That’s another silly lie. Most of the gaps are due to covid
>> and they aren't anything even remotely like huge either.

> False.

Have fun pointing to even a single example of huge that
isn't due to the virus.

>>> A high wage britain as Boris wants simply increased inflation.

>> That’s another silly lie.

> Boris is "economically illiterate"

Irrelevant to that stupid lie.

> https://sydneynewstoday.com/economically-illiterate-prime-ministers-tory-speech-receives-a-frosty-welcome-work/374679/

Different matter entirely to that stupid lie.

>> It provides a much better lifestyle for those
>> getting better than the minimum wage and
>> allows them to buy a house and stuff like that,
>> which the likes of you are already able to do.

> It's no use having a higher minimum wage

We aren't discussing a higher minimum wage, fuckwit.

> when house prices are growing faster as well as everything else.

<reams of your shit flushed where it belongs>

>> Plenty will never be able to do high skilled work.

>>>>> Concrete things that actually make a difference
>>>>> not pointless slogans like "Sovereignty"
>>>>
>>>> Nothing pointless about the UK govt getting to decide
>>>> policy and the voters being able to give them the bums
>>>> rush at the ballot box when they fuck up badly enough
>>>> like Blair and Brown did.
>>>>
>>>>> or things that we already had like "control of our borders".
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit you did with EU citizens who were a massive
>>>> problem for the lowest paid workers in the UK.
>>>>
>>>>> If you say fucking blue passports, I'll throw this computer out the
>>>>> fucking window.
>>>>
>>>> Blue Passports.
>>>
>>> Yeah, well done.
>>
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous
>> proof that your word can't be trusted.

<reams of your shit flushed where it belongs>

>>>>> The only single benefit I can come up with is the vaccine roll-out.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, you actually are that stupid/flagrantly dishonest/one eyed.
>>>>
>>>>> We were able to make our own deals, separate from the EU.
>>>>
>>>> And decide for yourselves which vaccines are acceptable,
>>>> what to do about other stuff like PPE and ventilators, what
>>>> to do about lockdowns etc etc etc.
>>
>>> Yeah that went well didn't it?
>>
>> As well as can be expected given that it’s a once in a hundred years
>> pandemic.
>>
>> The EU didn’t do any better.
>>
>>> Highest numbers of cases in Europe
>>
>> For a different reason, Boris was too stupid close
>> the borders and stop infected individuals arriving.

> Literally just contradicted yourself.

Bullshit I did. I said that the voters can flush those
who fuck up policy wise when outside the EU.

>> He wouldn’t have been able to do that if the UK
>> had remained in the EU.

> False. Pretty much all EU countries closed their
> borders at some point during the pandemic.

Bullshit they did with no movement across the border at all.

>>> and second highest number of deaths. We totally aced it!
>>
>> Nothing to do with Brexit.

> It proves that brexit didn't give us the ability
> to make better choices than the EU.

Bullshit with border closures and vaccine detail.

>> And if enough of the voters decide that he did a lot worse
>> than that fool Starmer would have done, they are free to give
>> him the bums at the next general election.

> We're still stuck with the fuckwit for 5 years.

Better than with the EU where you are stuck with
the self appointing unelected fuckwits forever.

Yes, it took a while for the UK to wake up to how
useless Blair and Brown were, but that did happen.

Not even possible with the unelected EU bureaucrats
with their stupid ever closer integration and interfering
in the budget policy of member countrys.

> The parliament act was a stupid idea.

And the voter get to flush the govt that
did that if they agree with you about that.

>> Not even possible with the unelected
>> bureaucrats who decide policy in the EU.

> The EU is more democratic than the UK.

More of your utterly mindless bullshit.

> All MEPs are voted in with a proportional system.
> And is more trustworthy than our corrupt system.

Pity they don’t get to even write legislation, or amend current law in the
EU.

ALL they get to do is rubber stamp what unelected
bureaucrats put in front of them or reject it.

> How can a party have an absolute majority with <40% of the electorate?
> Idiotic.

The voters decided that they didn’t want your stupid alternative.

You get to like that or lump it, just like with brexit.

More of your mindless bullshit with health care professionals etc.

> The economy is suffering for it.

Its suffering FAR more from the virus.

>> Being free to have FTAs with any country that the UK chose to.

> We're desperate for deals which others can see so take advantage
> by weakening our own food standards, for example.

More mindless bullshit and lies with the FTA with Oz.

[Rod Speed]

Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote
>> Calum <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>> But will fix the problem with the UK being stuck
>>>> with any EU citizen that decides that their prospects
>>>> in the UK are better than where they are coming from.

>>> That was entirely up to the UK government.

>> Nope.

> Yup.

Nope, any EU citizen that decided that their employment
prospects were better in the UK than where they were
coming from were free to move to the UK.

> Given that the UK was not in Schengen the Government could have chosen to
> identify all EU citizens entering the country and checking their economic
> activity.

But could do nothing about those who were economically
active in the UK.

> Instead they chose to do nothing as it served their political motives
> more, plus it would have confirmed the fact the EU migration was a net
> positive to the UK economy.

Irrelevant to the point that that wasn’t up to the UK
govt, it was required to be allowed by EU policy.

> Which was on top of the positive benefits of freedom of movement for UK
> citizens in the EU.

>>> All EU countries can require citizens of other EU countries to leave if
>>> they have been "economically inactive" for more than 3 months,

>> But get no say on those from the dregs of the EU showing up and who are
>> "economically active" in the country they choose to move to.

> They could have.

Bullshit when they were economically active.

>> The UK can now decide who they want in the UK.

>>> and others such as Germany enforce that. The UK just chose not to.

>> Separate issue entirely to those who are "economically active" and
>> who depress the wages of UK citizens when they have no choice but
>> to accept low and even illegal wages given that they have no access
>> to UK welfare.

> Illegal wages are an issue for victims of human trafficking/
> modern slavery which has nothing to do with the EU.

Never said it did have anything to do with the EU except in
the sense that since the EU requires freedom of movement,
that allows those who don’t qualify for welfare in the UK
to accept illegal wages when they are better than where
they are coming from in the EU.

And its flagrantly dishonest to call that human trafficking/
modern slavery when the individuals involved move to the
UK voluntarily.

[Lewis]

In message <sjmv65$m86$1...@gioia.aioe.org> AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote:

> I see more and more large machines doing the the harvest in my area

There are many crops which must be harvested by hand.

--
"Thank you for sending me a copy of your book; I'll waste no time
reading it." - Moses Hadas

[Chris]

It's a turn of phrase, numbnuts.

>>>> Now we have huge gaps in our economy.
>
>>> That’s another silly lie. Most of the gaps are due to covid
>>> and they aren't anything even remotely like huge either.
>
>> False.
>
> Have fun pointing to even a single example of huge that
> isn't due to the virus.

I already did. See my post regarding HGV drivers. TL;DR 31% drop in EU
drivers due to Brexit.

<snip mindlessness>

[Chris]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Calum <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>>> But will fix the problem with the UK being stuck
>>>>> with any EU citizen that decides that their prospects
>>>>> in the UK are better than where they are coming from.
>
>>>> That was entirely up to the UK government.
>
>>> Nope.
>
>> Yup.
>
> Nope, any EU citizen that decided that their employment
> prospects were better in the UK than where they were
> coming from were free to move to the UK.
>
>> Given that the UK was not in Schengen the Government could have chosen to
>> identify all EU citizens entering the country and checking their economic
>> activity.
>
> But could do nothing about those who were economically
> active in the UK.

Why would they? There's no problem.

>> Instead they chose to do nothing as it served their political motives
>> more, plus it would have confirmed the fact the EU migration was a net
>> positive to the UK economy.
>
> Irrelevant to the point that that wasn’t up to the UK
> govt, it was required to be allowed by EU policy.

You forget that all member nations are responsible for developing all EU
policies. The UK helped develop and implement the policy because freedom of
movement benefits all nations.

>> Which was on top of the positive benefits of freedom of movement for UK
>> citizens in the EU.
>
>>>> All EU countries can require citizens of other EU countries to leave if
>>>> they have been "economically inactive" for more than 3 months,
>
>>> But get no say on those from the dregs of the EU showing up and who are
>>> "economically active" in the country they choose to move to.
>
>> They could have.
>
> Bullshit when they were economically active.
>
>>> The UK can now decide who they want in the UK.
>
>>>> and others such as Germany enforce that. The UK just chose not to.
>
>>> Separate issue entirely to those who are "economically active" and
>>> who depress the wages of UK citizens when they have no choice but
>>> to accept low and even illegal wages given that they have no access
>>> to UK welfare.
>
>> Illegal wages are an issue for victims of human trafficking/
>> modern slavery which has nothing to do with the EU.
>
> Never said it did have anything to do with the EU except in
> the sense that since the EU requires freedom of movement,
> that allows those who don’t qualify for welfare in the UK
> to accept illegal wages when they are better than where
> they are coming from in the EU.
>
> And its flagrantly dishonest to call that human trafficking/
> modern slavery when the individuals involved move to the
> UK voluntarily.

There aren't illegal wages in that case.

[Rod Speed]

Lewis <g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote

> AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote

>> I see more and more large machines doing the the harvest in my area

> There are many crops which must be harvested by hand.

Not very many at all anymore.

Most that are still done by hand are done by hand because its cheaper with
illegals doing it.

[Rod Speed]

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

>>>>> Now we have huge gaps in our economy.
>>
>>>> That’s another silly lie. Most of the gaps are due to covid
>>>> and they aren't anything even remotely like huge either.
>>
>>> False.
>>
>> Have fun pointing to even a single example of huge that
>> isn't due to the virus.
>
> I already did.

Bullshit you did.

> See my post regarding HGV drivers.

The drop in that area is mostly due to the virus, not brexit, you pathetic
excuse for a bullshit artist.

> TL;DR 31% drop in EU drivers due to Brexit.

Mostly because of the virus, fuckwit.

> <snip mindlessness>

You never could bullshit and lie your way out of a wet paper bag.

[Rod Speed]

Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Calum <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>
>>>>>> But will fix the problem with the UK being stuck
>>>>>> with any EU citizen that decides that their prospects
>>>>>> in the UK are better than where they are coming from.
>>
>>>>> That was entirely up to the UK government.
>>
>>>> Nope.
>>
>>> Yup.
>>
>> Nope, any EU citizen that decided that their employment
>> prospects were better in the UK than where they were
>> coming from were free to move to the UK.
>>
>>> Given that the UK was not in Schengen the Government could have chosen
>>> to
>>> identify all EU citizens entering the country and checking their
>>> economic
>>> activity.
>>
>> But could do nothing about those who were economically
>> active in the UK.

> Why would they? There's no problem.

More mindless bullshit given that they drive down
the wages of the unskilled low paid UK citizens.

>>> Instead they chose to do nothing as it served their political motives
>>> more, plus it would have confirmed the fact the EU migration was a net
>>> positive to the UK economy.
>>
>> Irrelevant to the point that that wasn’t up to the UK
>> govt, it was required to be allowed by EU policy.
>
> You forget that all member nations are responsible
> for developing all EU policies.

Bullshit they are with the most stupid stuff like ever
closer integration, the ban on state subsidys, stupid
stuff like the limit to vacuum cleaner power, the
interference in country budgets, who has to take
their share of illegals, forcing the euro on new
members, shutting down coal fired power
generation etc etc etc.

> The UK helped develop and implement the policy
> because freedom of movement benefits all nations.

Bullshit it does with the most successful economys.

The UK wasn’t even stupid enough to go for Schengen for a reason.

More or your mindless pig ignorant bullshit and lies.

[Chris]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>> Now we have huge gaps in our economy.
>>>
>>>>> That’s another silly lie. Most of the gaps are due to covid
>>>>> and they aren't anything even remotely like huge either.
>>>
>>>> False.
>>>
>>> Have fun pointing to even a single example of huge that
>>> isn't due to the virus.
>>
>> I already did.
>
> Bullshit you did.
>
>> See my post regarding HGV drivers.
>
> The drop in that area is mostly due to the virus, not brexit, you pathetic
> excuse for a bullshit artist.
>
>> TL;DR 31% drop in EU drivers due to Brexit.
>
> Mostly because of the virus, fuckwit.

Your wilful ignorance is showing. You chose to it ignore the data last
time. Let's see what you'll do this time? Copied verbatim below:

There are 16,000 fewer EU HGV drivers in the UK this year than last year
(i.e. pre/post Brexit). That's a 36% YoY drop (Brexit + COVID). That's
compared to a 5% YoY drop of UK drivers (COVID).

We're also at the lowest level of EU drivers since 2016 both in absolute
numbers (28k from a high of 44k) as well as a percentage of the total
(10.1% from a high of 14.4%).
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/adhocs/13636hgvdriversbyageandnationality

[tim...]

"Chris" <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sjn8rp$7uk$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 07/10/2021 00:09, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Calum <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>
>>>> But will fix the problem with the UK being stuck
>>>> with any EU citizen that decides that their prospects
>>>> in the UK are better than where they are coming from.
>>
>>> That was entirely up to the UK government.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Yup. Given that the UK was not in Schengen the Government could have
> chosen to identify all EU citizens entering the country and checking their
> economic activity.

The number of EU citizens who were economically inactive in the UK and who
could have been sent home was tiny

the problem was the numbers who came, brought their family with them, whist
engaged in low paid employment that did not support that family

There is nothing in EU rules that allowed us to send those people home. On
the contrary we were forced to pay them benefits to make up for their low
income. Benefits that they wouldn't have been entitled to if they had
remained in their home country. Hell we were even forced to pay Child
allowance for children who they had left behind in their home country.

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 5 October 2021 at 21:37:15 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:

> Bob Eager wrote:
>
> > That's within the UK; it used to be the same for calls to/from the EU
> > before Brexit.
> It probably still is (and still will be) until you change/renew your contract.

Dream on...

That's what Brextremists promised before Brexit, but guess what - almost as soon as Brexit meant they could they could most MNOs brought back gouging roaming charges.

Most people are ceasing to be so niaive about this...

Q What's two miles long and goes at 1mph? A post Brexit Brits queueing for petrol.

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 5 October 2021 at 20:12:28 UTC+1, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> Curious how mobile plans around the world compare with mine in the USA.
>
> While I've had all three major carriers in Silicon Valley, I've found them
> to be rather similar in all but in price - where I'm currently on T-Mobile.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/L6dFGXVd/tmopromo03.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg>
>
> *Cost first:*
SNIP - see OP

UK deals differ widely, but SIM free is IMO the way to go. This means you have to buy your phone(s).

Fully unlimited data is cheapest from 3, but they now gouge on roaming.

For unlimited calls and texts plus enough data for casual use the MNO's are as follows [per month]: -

3 £6
Voda £6 (no 5G)
BT £8 (includes BT Wi-Fi)
O2 £8 for 12GB (I got 4GB for £6)
EE £10 for 10GB (really BT or vice-cersa and was itself the result of a merger between T-Mobile (ex 121) and Orange)

there is no charge for incoming calls in the UK, although there used to be in the USA (mobile numbers had geographic codes)

Some MVNO's may offer better prices, but offers often omit things - like 5G.

More details here https://www.uswitch.com/mobiles/compare/sim_only_deals/

When cellular started in the UK it was £25p pcm and 25p per minute ~= $100 and $1pm now so ~92% real price reduction over 36 years.

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 6 October 2021 at 09:49:35 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
> > sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote
> >> Chris wrote
> >>> Ha!
>
> >>> Brexit has been a shitstorm. Prices are going UP all over
> >>> the place and we're having shortages of fuel and food.
>
> >>> Hardly a surprise as we cut ourselves off from the world's largest free
> >>> market and forced many of the people doing low paid jobs to move away.
>
> >> Well those that voted for Brexit probably understood full
> >> well that it would have negative economic consequences,
> And real upsides too.

My list below - perhaps you could add to it?

[sms]

On 10/8/2021 5:38 AM, tim... wrote:

<snip>

> the problem was the numbers who came, brought their family with them,
> whist engaged in low paid employment that did not support that family
>
> There is nothing in EU rules that allowed us to send those people home.
> On the contrary we were forced to pay them benefits to make up for their
> low income.  Benefits that they wouldn't have been entitled to if they
> had remained in their home country.  Hell we were even forced to pay
> Child allowance for children who they had left behind in their home
> country.

Yes, those are the consequences of the benefits brought by low-wage
workers. In the U.S., legal low-wage workers often qualify for public
benefits, so we all subsidize the corporations that profit from paying
low wages. Those working here illegally don't get those benefits, nor
can they ever collect Social Security even though they pay into the
system
<https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/illegal-immigrants-are-bolstering-social-security-with-billions.html>.

The minimum wage in the U.S. has remained at $7.25 per hour since 2009,
though it's rare that any employer is paying that low of a wage, except
perhaps in very poor southern states. 30 states have minimum wage laws
that are higher than the federal amount, and many cities also have
minimum wage laws.

Ironically, the cities with lower minimum wages sometimes lose low-wage
businesses to adjoining cities because some franchise companies forbid
their franchisees from paying more than minimum wage, so with the labor
shortage, workers take jobs in cities with higher minimum wages. We've
lost several franchised fast food restaurants in my area because of
that. A difference of even just 85¢ per hour (Sunnyvale versus San Jose)
is enough for workers to want to work in Sunnyvale.

[Andy Burns]

notya...@gmail.com wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>
>>> That's within the UK; it used to be the same for calls to/from the EU
>>> before Brexit.
>
>> It probably still is (and still will be) until you change/renew your contract.
>
> Dream on...

But it's true, I don't think any networks are bringing in overseas charges until
2022, and only then when people change contract, and even then it's not a per
minute roaming charge like it used to be that allowed people to ring up £000s of
charges without realising, it'll be a daily/weekly roaming "facility fee".

Why should I (who rarely goes abroad) subsidise roaming by those who do?

> That's what Brextremists promised before Brexit, but guess what - almost as soon as Brexit meant they could they could most MNOs brought back gouging roaming charges.
>
> Most people are ceasing to be so niaive about this...
>
> Q What's two miles long and goes at 1mph? A post Brexit Brits queueing for petrol.

queueing ended 9 days ago here.

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 7 October 2021 at 18:41:07 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote

SNIP

>>> Now we have huge gaps in our economy.

> Have fun pointing to even a single example of huge that
> isn't due to the virus.

Fuel tanker drivers?

SNIP

> Not even possible with the unelected EU bureaucrats
> with their stupid ever closer integration and interfering
> in the budget policy of member countrys.

Do you mean elected Members of the European Parliament or an unelected aristocrat like Lord Foster?

SNIP more trolling...

[notya...@gmail.com]

For some reason and AFAIK uniquely the Brown government chose to pay benefits to [EU] immigrant workers without any qualification period of contributions. Bizarre when you consider that one cannot claim unemployment benefit without around a year of contributions.

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 8 October 2021 at 16:17:55 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
> notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Andy Burns wrote:
> >
> >> Bob Eager wrote:
> >>
> >>> That's within the UK; it used to be the same for calls to/from the EU
> >>> before Brexit.
> >
> >> It probably still is (and still will be) until you change/renew your contract.
> >
> > Dream on...
> But it's true, I don't think any networks are bringing in overseas charges until
> 2022,

already happened

> and only then when people change

or renew

> contract, and even then it's not a per
> minute roaming charge like it used to be that allowed people to ring up £000s of
> charges without realising, it'll be a daily/weekly roaming "facility fee".

Depends on the network actually, and it's not the calls so much as the data usage - plenty of bill shock on the way back - thanks to Brexit.

NB I recommend O2 for now

>
> Why should I (who rarely goes abroad) subsidise roaming by those who do?

What subsidy? - Voda, Telephonica have pan-european networks so the marginal cost to them is zero. The cost of non mobile (VOIP) calls to / from EU (USA, OZ, NZ ...) is 2p/minute, very slightly more than within the UK. Maybe we should all pay roaming charges in Yorkshire unless we are with Plusnet - get real!

> > That's what Brextremists promised before Brexit, but guess what - almost as soon as Brexit meant they could they could most MNOs brought back gouging roaming charges.
> >
> > Most people are ceasing to be so niaive about this...
> >
> > Q What's two miles long and goes at 1mph? A post Brexit Brits queueing for petrol.
> queueing ended 9 days ago here.

There were frequently pumps off due to low supply well before the panic. There are still loads of petrol stations with no or limited supply This problem is real and here to stay.

The government is in the bottom of its own hole on this and still digging - visas required for visiting drivers since last week (many EU drivers don't have a passport), no or only one back load [limited cabotage] and from January full import checks on everything - all part of sweeping away EU bureaucracy...

[Rob]

It is very difficult to make formal regulations that allow bringing
family, and not getting abused.

At the moment, we are in a situation where people who worked for forces
sent to Afghanistan (they are always mentioned to have been interpreters,
but I think in reality they were more like informants) are now given
the opportunity to come here as refugees as they are being threatened by
the Taliban. These people are allowed to bring their family. They each
submit lists of tens, up to 60 people as family that is being endangered
and have to be brought here as well...

[Chris]

On 08/10/2021 13:38, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "Chris" <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sjn8rp$7uk$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 07/10/2021 00:09, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Calum <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>
>>>>> But will fix the problem with the UK being stuck
>>>>> with any EU citizen that decides that their prospects
>>>>> in the UK are better than where they are coming from.
>>>
>>>> That was entirely up to the UK government.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> Yup. Given that the UK was not in Schengen the Government could have
>> chosen to identify all EU citizens entering the country and checking
>> their economic activity.
>
> The number of EU citizens who were economically inactive in the UK and
> who could have been sent home was tiny
>
> the problem was the numbers who came, brought their family with them,
> whist engaged in low paid employment that did not support that family

"the numbers" - care to back that up? Sounds like a hypothetical
scenario or so small an issue to not warrant attention.

Whereas the facts are that immigration of EU residents was a net
positive to the economy, which everyone could see except those blinded
by slogans painted on buses.
https://www.ft.com/content/797f7b42-bb44-11e8-94b2-17176fbf93f5
https://theconversation.com/yes-eu-immigrants-do-have-a-positive-impact-on-public-finances-33815
https://fullfact.org/europe/immigration-and-eu-referendum/

Under pretty much any metric EU migrants contributed more to the economy
than Brits.

What's also clear from the above links is that non-EEA migrants are
definitely less beneficial to the UK economy. This is what we're left
with now.

> There is nothing in EU rules that allowed us to send those people home.
> On the contrary we were forced to pay them benefits to make up for their
> low income.

We were "forced to", were we? It is a function of our benefits system.
It's not racist and open to legal residents, which is as it should be.

If you think that's a problem maybe you should have a look at the
Pandora papers - as well as the Panama papers before them - to see who
exactly is syphoning money away from the country. Hint it isn't or
wasn't the Romanians.

> Benefits that they wouldn't have been entitled to if they
> had remained in their home country.  Hell we were even forced to pay
> Child allowance for children who they had left behind in their home
> country.

God forbid that we put food in mouths of needy children. I mean what's
the world come to if we can't let children starve. Bring back the poor
law and workhouses. Poverty is too good for them!!

Of course this all needs to balanced with the huge number of UK retirees
in Spain, France and other countries which have a significant impact on
the healthcare systems where they live.

There is an issue where we didn't get as much money from the EU to cover
healthcare costs as we gave out, but that's purely because we didn't
have a system for doing it within the NHS. It was our own fault.
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-immigration-and-pressure-nhs/

[Chris]

On 08/10/2021 16:17, Andy Burns wrote:
> notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's within the UK; it used to be the same for calls to/from the EU
>>>> before Brexit.
>>
>>> It probably still is (and still will be) until you change/renew your
>>> contract.
>>
>> Dream on...
>
> But it's true, I don't think any networks are bringing in overseas
> charges until 2022, and only then when people change contract, and even
> then it's not a per minute roaming charge like it used to be that
> allowed people to ring up £000s of charges without realising, it'll be a
> daily/weekly roaming "facility fee".
>
> Why should I (who rarely goes abroad) subsidise roaming by those who do?

You don't. If it was a subsidy you'd get a discount, now. It is instead
an opportunity for the telcos to charge extra for the simple fact that
they can.

[Chris]

Wrong as per usual. Fruit pickers here earn above minimum wage. Soft fruit
can't be picked by machine.

[sms]

On 10/8/2021 10:48 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> Wrong as per usual. Fruit pickers here earn above minimum wage. Soft fruit
> can't be picked by machine.

Correct. Especially if it's being sold as whole fruit. Even citrus fruit
is difficult to harvest by machine. At least in California, fruit
pickers earn above minimum wage, and it's difficult work, especially for
things like strawberries.

[Rod Speed]

Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>>> Now we have huge gaps in our economy.
>>>>
>>>>>> That’s another silly lie. Most of the gaps are due to covid
>>>>>> and they aren't anything even remotely like huge either.
>>>>
>>>>> False.
>>>>
>>>> Have fun pointing to even a single example of huge that
>>>> isn't due to the virus.
>>>
>>> I already did.
>>
>> Bullshit you did.
>>
>>> See my post regarding HGV drivers.
>>
>> The drop in that area is mostly due to the virus, not brexit, you
>> pathetic
>> excuse for a bullshit artist.
>>
>>> TL;DR 31% drop in EU drivers due to Brexit.
>>
>> Mostly because of the virus, fuckwit.
>
> Your wilful ignorance is showing.

[David Higton]

In message <sjprit$2ca$1...@dont-email.me>

Exactly.

David

[Rod Speed]

Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote

> tim... wrote
>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Calum <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>>> But will fix the problem with the UK being stuck
>>>>>> with any EU citizen that decides that their prospects
>>>>>> in the UK are better than where they are coming from.
>>>>
>>>>> That was entirely up to the UK government.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Yup. Given that the UK was not in Schengen the Government could have
>>> chosen to identify all EU citizens entering the country and checking
>>> their economic activity.
>>
>> The number of EU citizens who were economically inactive in the UK and
>> who could have been sent home was tiny
>>
>> the problem was the numbers who came, brought their family with them,
>> whist engaged in low paid employment that did not support that family
>
> "the numbers" - care to back that up? Sounds like a hypothetical scenario
> or so small an issue to not warrant attention.

> Whereas the facts are that immigration of EU residents was a net positive
> to the economy, which everyone could see except those blinded by slogans
> painted on buses.

Irrelevant to what the majority who bothered to vote voted for.

You get to like that or lump it.

> https://www.ft.com/content/797f7b42-bb44-11e8-94b2-17176fbf93f5
> https://theconversation.com/yes-eu-immigrants-do-have-a-positive-impact-on-public-finances-33815
> https://fullfact.org/europe/immigration-and-eu-referendum/

> Under pretty much any metric EU migrants contributed more to the economy
> than Brits.

More of your mindless bullshit given the relative numbers.

> What's also clear from the above links is that non-EEA migrants are
> definitely less beneficial to the UK economy. This is what we're left with
> now.

Irrelevant to what the majority who bothered to vote voted for.

You get to like that or lump it.

>> There is nothing in EU rules that allowed us to send those people home.
>> On the contrary we were forced to pay them benefits to make up for their
>> low income.

> We were "forced to", were we? It is a function of our benefits system.
> It's not racist and open to legal residents, which is as it should be.

<reams of your irrelevant shit flushed where it belongs>

>> Benefits that they wouldn't have been entitled to if they had remained in
>> their home country. Hell we were even forced to pay Child allowance for
>> children who they had left behind in their home country.

> God forbid that we put food in mouths of needy children.

You haven't established that they are needy.

<reams of your irrelevant shit flushed where it belongs>

> Of course this all needs to balanced with the huge number of UK retirees
> in Spain, France and other countries which have a significant impact on
> the healthcare systems where they live.

The country they choose to live in get to decide
if they will allow them to live there or not now.

> There is an issue where we didn't get as much money from the EU to cover
> healthcare costs as we gave out, but that's purely because we didn't have
> a system for doing it within the NHS.

Because the cost of doing that wasn’t warranted
given the amount able to be collected from those.

> It was our own fault.
> https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-immigration-and-pressure-nhs/

Not a fault, a choice, stupid.

And regardless, the majority who bothered to vote voted
to leave and you remoaners get to like that or lump it.

[Rod Speed]

Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Lewis <g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote
>>> AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote

>>>> I see more and more large machines doing the the harvest in my area
>>
>>> There are many crops which must be harvested by hand.
>>
>> Not very many at all anymore.
>>
>> Most that are still done by hand are done by
>> hand because its cheaper with illegals doing it.

> Wrong as per usual.

Yes you are, as always.

> Fruit pickers here earn above minimum wage.

Bullshit the ILLEGALS do.

> Soft fruit can't be picked by machine.

More mindless pig ignorant bullshit, your trademark.

[Chris]

Ha ha ha ha!!

Wow you *REALLY* don't like inconvenient facts, do you? Instead you snip
them out and replace them with a limp attack.

[Chris]

An inability to make a coherent argument is yours.

[Rod Speed]

You haven't presented a single relevant one that substantiates
your stupid pig ignorant claim that all labor shortages are due
to Brexit.

[Rod Speed]

Says the clown that fails to do that repeatedly.

[Chris]

Sure. You can stick your fingers in your ears all you like.

[tim...]

"Chris" <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:sjpr9l$g8$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 08/10/2021 13:38, tim... wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Chris" <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:sjn8rp$7uk$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 07/10/2021 00:09, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> Calum <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> But will fix the problem with the UK being stuck
>>>>>> with any EU citizen that decides that their prospects
>>>>>> in the UK are better than where they are coming from.
>>>>
>>>>> That was entirely up to the UK government.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Yup. Given that the UK was not in Schengen the Government could have
>>> chosen to identify all EU citizens entering the country and checking
>>> their economic activity.
>>
>> The number of EU citizens who were economically inactive in the UK and
>> who could have been sent home was tiny
>>
>> the problem was the numbers who came, brought their family with them,
>> whist engaged in low paid employment that did not support that family
>
> "the numbers" - care to back that up? Sounds like a hypothetical scenario
> or so small an issue to not warrant attention.

It's the majority who came here with their families

> Whereas the facts are that immigration of EU residents was a net positive
> to the economy,

based upon a bogus simplistic statistic, that assumed that the economic make
up of those who came was identical to the previous working population.

> which everyone could see except those blinded by slogans painted on buses.
> https://www.ft.com/content/797f7b42-bb44-11e8-94b2-17176fbf93f5
> https://theconversation.com/yes-eu-immigrants-do-have-a-positive-impact-on-public-finances-33815
> https://fullfact.org/europe/immigration-and-eu-referendum/
>
> Under pretty much any metric EU migrants contributed more to the economy
> than Brits.
>
> What's also clear from the above links is that non-EEA migrants are
> definitely less beneficial to the UK economy.

Not true

it was virtually impossible to come here as an non-EEA - migrant unless you
were a highly skilled migrant.

> This is what we're left with now.
>
>> There is nothing in EU rules that allowed us to send those people home.
>> On the contrary we were forced to pay them benefits to make up for their
>> low income.
>
> We were "forced to", were we? It is a function of our benefits system.
> It's not racist and open to legal residents, which is as it should be.

but it could and should be based upon a qualifying residency criteria.
which we aren't allowed to do.

> If you think that's a problem maybe you should have a look at the Pandora
> papers - as well as the Panama papers before them - to see who exactly is
> syphoning money away from the country. Hint it isn't or wasn't the
> Romanians.

moving your money offshore to invest is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

[Lewis]

In message <isbget...@mid.individual.net> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Lewis <g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote
>>>> AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote
>
>>>>> I see more and more large machines doing the the harvest in my area
>>>
>>>> There are many crops which must be harvested by hand.
>>>
>>> Not very many at all anymore.
>>>
>>> Most that are still done by hand are done by
>>> hand because its cheaper with illegals doing it.
>
>> Wrong as per usual.

> Yes you are, as always.

You have no fucking clue, as always.

>> Fruit pickers here earn above minimum wage.

> Bullshit the ILLEGALS do.

You have no fucking clue, as always.

>> Soft fruit can't be picked by machine.

> More mindless pig ignorant bullshit, your trademark.

Feel free to cite any machines that can pick whole tomatoes,
strawberries, peaches, and other fruit without a rind.

In short, put up or shut your pathetic shit-spewing racist mouth.


--
"In order to avoid being called a flirt, she always yielded easily."
Charles, Count Talleyrand

[Rod Speed]

You are the fool doing that.

[Rod Speed]

Lewis <g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Lewis <g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote
>>>>> AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote
>>
>>>>>> I see more and more large machines doing the the harvest in my area
>>>>
>>>>> There are many crops which must be harvested by hand.
>>>>
>>>> Not very many at all anymore.
>>>>
>>>> Most that are still done by hand are done by
>>>> hand because its cheaper with illegals doing it.
>>
>>> Wrong as per usual.
>
>> Yes you are, as always.

> You have no fucking clue, as always.

We'll see...

>>> Fruit pickers here earn above minimum wage.
>
>> Bullshit the ILLEGALS do.
>
> You have no fucking clue, as always.

We'll see...

>>> Soft fruit can't be picked by machine.
>
>> More mindless pig ignorant bullshit, your trademark.
>
> Feel free to cite any machines that can pick whole tomatoes,

Virtually the entire tomato crop in Australia is harvested that way.

[Chris]

tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Chris" <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sjpr9l$g8$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 08/10/2021 13:38, tim... wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Chris" <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:sjn8rp$7uk$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 07/10/2021 00:09, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> Calum <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>> But will fix the problem with the UK being stuck
>>>>>>> with any EU citizen that decides that their prospects
>>>>>>> in the UK are better than where they are coming from.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That was entirely up to the UK government.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> Yup. Given that the UK was not in Schengen the Government could have
>>>> chosen to identify all EU citizens entering the country and checking
>>>> their economic activity.
>>>
>>> The number of EU citizens who were economically inactive in the UK and
>>> who could have been sent home was tiny
>>>
>>> the problem was the numbers who came, brought their family with them,
>>> whist engaged in low paid employment that did not support that family
>>
>> "the numbers" - care to back that up? Sounds like a hypothetical scenario
>> or so small an issue to not warrant attention.
>
> It's the majority who came here with their families

Utter rubbish. The majority were the young who are less likely to be
married or have kids.

>> Whereas the facts are that immigration of EU residents was a net positive
>> to the economy,
>
> based upon a bogus simplistic statistic, that assumed that the economic make
> up of those who came was identical to the previous working population.

You know better than scores of economists do you? If you read the studies
you'd know they aren't based on that.

>> which everyone could see except those blinded by slogans painted on buses.
>> https://www.ft.com/content/797f7b42-bb44-11e8-94b2-17176fbf93f5
>> https://theconversation.com/yes-eu-immigrants-do-have-a-positive-impact-on-public-finances-33815
>> https://fullfact.org/europe/immigration-and-eu-referendum/
>>
>> Under pretty much any metric EU migrants contributed more to the economy
>> than Brits.
>>
>> What's also clear from the above links is that non-EEA migrants are
>> definitely less beneficial to the UK economy.
>
> Not true
>
> it was virtually impossible to come here as an non-EEA - migrant unless you
> were a highly skilled migrant.

And yet they were still an overall drain on the economy.

>> This is what we're left with now.
>>
>>> There is nothing in EU rules that allowed us to send those people home.
>>> On the contrary we were forced to pay them benefits to make up for their
>>> low income.
>>
>> We were "forced to", were we? It is a function of our benefits system.
>> It's not racist and open to legal residents, which is as it should be.
>
> but it could and should be based upon a qualifying residency criteria.
> which we aren't allowed to do.

They were required to be resident. Of course, it's moot, though, as they
required far less state support than brits.

>> If you think that's a problem maybe you should have a look at the Pandora
>> papers - as well as the Panama papers before them - to see who exactly is
>> syphoning money away from the country. Hint it isn't or wasn't the
>> Romanians.
>
> moving your money offshore to invest is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

Sure. This isn't what's happening though. It's being funnelled into
schemes to avoid tax and/or scrutiny. That is not reasonable. It's also
far, far worse than a few immigrants getting benefits. The super wealthy
only benefit themselves and their friends.

[Rod Speed]

Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote

> tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> tim... wrote
>>>> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Calum <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But will fix the problem with the UK being stuck
>>>>>>>> with any EU citizen that decides that their prospects
>>>>>>>> in the UK are better than where they are coming from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That was entirely up to the UK government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup. Given that the UK was not in Schengen the Government could have
>>>>> chosen to identify all EU citizens entering the country and checking
>>>>> their economic activity.
>>>>
>>>> The number of EU citizens who were economically inactive in the UK and
>>>> who could have been sent home was tiny
>>>>
>>>> the problem was the numbers who came, brought their family with them,
>>>> whist engaged in low paid employment that did not support that family
>>>
>>> "the numbers" - care to back that up? Sounds like a hypothetical
>>> scenario
>>> or so small an issue to not warrant attention.
>>
>> It's the majority who came here with their families
>
> Utter rubbish. The majority were the young who are less likely to be
> married or have kids.

He isn't saying that the majority from the EU bring their kids,
he is saying that the majority who bring their kids engaged
in low paid employment that did not support that family.

Pointing out that your claim that its a hypothetical scenario
or so small an issue to not warrant attention is just plain wrong.

>>> Whereas the facts are that immigration of EU residents was a net
>>> positive
>>> to the economy,
>>
>> based upon a bogus simplistic statistic, that assumed that the economic
>> make
>> up of those who came was identical to the previous working population.
>
> You know better than scores of economists do you?

There are always scores of economists claiming every possible scenario,
stupid.

> If you read the studies you'd know they aren't based on that.

More of your lies.

>>> which everyone could see except those blinded by slogans painted on
>>> buses.
>>> https://www.ft.com/content/797f7b42-bb44-11e8-94b2-17176fbf93f5
>>> https://theconversation.com/yes-eu-immigrants-do-have-a-positive-impact-on-public-finances-33815
>>> https://fullfact.org/europe/immigration-and-eu-referendum/
>>>
>>> Under pretty much any metric EU migrants contributed more to the economy
>>> than Brits.
>>>
>>> What's also clear from the above links is that non-EEA migrants are
>>> definitely less beneficial to the UK economy.
>>
>> Not true
>>
>> it was virtually impossible to come here as an non-EEA -
>> migrant unless you were a highly skilled migrant.

> And yet they were still an overall drain on the economy.

Bullshit.

>>> This is what we're left with now.
>>>
>>>> There is nothing in EU rules that allowed us to send those people home.
>>>> On the contrary we were forced to pay them benefits to make up for
>>>> their
>>>> low income.
>>>
>>> We were "forced to", were we? It is a function of our benefits system.
>>> It's not racist and open to legal residents, which is as it should be.
>>
>> but it could and should be based upon a qualifying residency criteria.
>> which we aren't allowed to do.

> They were required to be resident.

Again, you aren't comprehending what he is saying.

He is saying that it SHOULD BE based upon a qualifying
residency criteria but the EU doesn’t allow that.

> Of course, it's moot, though, as they
> required far less state support than brits.

That’s bullshit too given that they are far less employable
due to english not being their first language.

>>> If you think that's a problem maybe you should have a look at the
>>> Pandora
>>> papers - as well as the Panama papers before them - to see who exactly
>>> is
>>> syphoning money away from the country. Hint it isn't or wasn't the
>>> Romanians.
>>
>> moving your money offshore to invest is a perfectly reasonable thing to
>> do.
>
> Sure. This isn't what's happening though. It's being funnelled into
> schemes to avoid tax and/or scrutiny. That is not reasonable. It's
> also far, far worse than a few immigrants getting benefits.

Bullshit it is with stuff like child payments.

> The super wealthy only benefit themselves and their friends.

More mindless bullshit when they spend what they didn’t have to pay in tax.

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 9 October 2021 at 19:04:48 UTC+1, Chris wrote:
> tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
SNIP

> >>
> >>> There is nothing in EU rules that allowed us to send those people home.
> >>> On the contrary we were forced to pay them benefits to make up for their
> >>> low income.
> >>
> >> We were "forced to", were we? It is a function of our benefits system.
> >> It's not racist and open to legal residents, which is as it should be.
> >
> > but it could and should be based upon a qualifying residency criteria.
> > which we aren't allowed to do.

Not on residency (if they were EU), but our governments did choose not to have an qualifying contribution record before these could be claimed.

SNIP

> > moving your money offshore to invest is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
> Sure. This isn't what's happening though. It's being funnelled into
> schemes to avoid tax and/or scrutiny. That is not reasonable. It's also
> far, far worse than a few immigrants getting benefits. The super wealthy
> only benefit themselves and their friends.

Yes but the important difference is that it is their money not ours.

It is quite legal to avoid tax - for instance I have never paid UK tobacco duty...

OTOH strange how this thread about mobile plans has developed into a pathetic attempt at justifying Brexit and denying its increasingly serious and obvious deleterious effects.