3 ms·
I'm in Australia, and here, mobile charges for calls and SMS fall solely on the caller/sender. The US convention, where the person who is charged for an action
by andrewf 18y ago
I'm in Australia, and here, mobile charges for calls and SMS fall solely on the caller/sender. The US convention, where the person who is charged for an action is not the person who decided to take the action, has always seemed slightly insane.
I've heard that the rationale for receiver pays in the US is: the receiver is the person who decided to carry a mobile rather than use a landline, and therefore should bear the cost. This makes some sense. But I prefer the Australian system, where the caller can distinguish mobile numbers from landline numbers, just like calling long distance.
- bbgm 18y agoAnd how does that logic work in a situation where land lines are becoming somewhat obsolete or atleast not a mandatory option? Plus, I carry a mobile, but does that mean I should only receive calls when I am home or near a land line? Sounds archaic at best and telecom company plan to get the most money they can at worst. The US system has never made sense to me.
- jonknee 18y agoIt's even better than that, both the sender and receiver pay. So if two iPhone users send a message to each other they either both get billed $.20 or both get 1 message deducted from their bucket for the payment period (unless there is an unlimited messaging plan). Up to $.40 to shuffle 160 characters around your own network is quite a haul.