Searching \ for '[OT] Kiwi textaholics lead the world' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=kiwi+textaholics
Search entire site for: 'Kiwi textaholics lead the world'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Kiwi textaholics lead the world'
2008\11\22@171453 by Jinx

face picon face
www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10544598

Sociologist Roslyn Kerr, who lectures at the University of Canterbury, said
texting was particularly popular, and prominent because of its "low social
weight. We like it when things don't interrupt our everyday conversations."

Well, Roslyn, what about people like me who get seriously pissed off when
you're trying to talk to someone who won't leave their bloody phone alone ?

2008\11\22@175401 by Mongol Herdsman

picon face
Paul Brislen, of Vodafone NZ :
"As a nation, we had a particular affection for texting, he said. New
Zealanders send at least 600 million a month, statistics showed."

With their outrageous prices for mobile internet New Zealanders have
to have a particular affection for texting.

If I am not mistaken, the guy said in another article that $250 /
month (2 year plan) for IPhone is normal. And this is not even
unlimited internet, just sort of a couple of GBytes per month.



On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Jinx <spam_OUTjoecolquittTakeThisOuTspamclear.net.nz> wrote:
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10544598
>
> Sociologist Roslyn Kerr, who lectures at the University of Canterbury, said
> texting was particularly popular, and prominent because of its "low social
> weight. We like it when things don't interrupt our everyday conversations."

2008\11\22@192134 by Jinx

face picon face
> With their outrageous prices for mobile internet New Zealanders
> have to have a particular affection for texting.
>
> If I am not mistaken, the guy said in another article that $250 /
> month (2 year plan) for IPhone is normal. And this is not even
> unlimited internet, just sort of a couple of GBytes per month.

It's expensive in NZ, no doubt about that. iPhone definitely. At the time
it was launched here, much tapping of heads was done when those geeks
and must-haves who waited in line for it at midnight coyly admitted how
much it was going to cost

Interested groups regularly make their views known about network charges

TXT plans are something like $10 per 1000 per month. I'm not really up
with it as I don't have a cellphone.


2008\11\22@193214 by Jinx

face picon face
> TXT plans are something like $10 per 1000 per month

Just thinking about that -

You'll see TV polls etc that you can send a TXT to. And they say
that'll cost you 99c. But wait, I've already paid for my TXTs. How
does that work ? Or do I have that wrong ?

It's the same as the recipient of a letter with a 50c stamp on (my
contract with the Post Office), sending me a bill for another $5

2008\11\23@010457 by Carlos Marcano
picon face
Sort of. They charge your regular rate plus the 99c. If you are on
prepaid or dont have enough money on your account, text wont be
succesfull.

Regards,

*Carlos Marcano*
-Guri, Venezuela-

2008/11/22 Jinx <.....joecolquittKILLspamspam@spam@clear.net.nz>:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\11\23@020504 by Jinx

face picon face
> Sort of. They charge your regular rate plus the 99c

What a gyp !!

I never call those TV polls. They want my opinion, they can ring me

2008\11\23@180116 by Carlos Marcano

picon face
Once again, you have proven to be a wise man!

Regards,

*Carlos Marcano*
-Guri, Venezuela-


2008/11/23 Jinx <joecolquittspamKILLspamclear.net.nz>:
>> Sort of. They charge your regular rate plus the 99c
>
> What a gyp !!
>
> I never call those TV polls. They want my opinion, they can ring me
>
> -

2008\11\23@185552 by Jinx

face picon face
> you have proven to be a wise man!

And you're very perceptive ;-)

2008\11\24@040503 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
> If I am not mistaken, the guy said in another article that $250 /
> month (2 year plan) for IPhone is normal. And this is not even
> unlimited internet, just sort of a couple of GBytes per month.

Don't forget that is NZ$, which are worth roughly half US$ ...

But the price is still expensive ...

2008\11\24@040757 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>You'll see TV polls etc that you can send a TXT to. And they
>say that'll cost you 99c. But wait, I've already paid for my
>TXTs. How does that work ? Or do I have that wrong ?

>It's the same as the recipient of a letter with a 50c stamp on
>(my contract with the Post Office), sending me a bill for
>another $5

Yeah, you are texting to the text equivalent of an 0900 number ...

I don't mind texting my TV station for a competition, but I do object when
they then send me another text in reply, to apply for another competition -
and it costs me another 99p to receive it, which also gets paid to them ...

2008\11\24@044852 by Richard Prosser

picon face
2008/11/24 Alan B. Pearce <.....Alan.B.PearceKILLspamspam.....stfc.ac.uk>:
>>You'll see TV polls etc that you can send a TXT to. And they
>>say that'll cost you 99c. But wait, I've already paid for my
>>TXTs. How does that work ? Or do I have that wrong ?
>
>>It's the same as the recipient of a letter with a 50c stamp on
>>(my contract with the Post Office), sending me a bill for
>>another $5
>
> Yeah, you are texting to the text equivalent of an 0900 number ...
>
> I don't mind texting my TV station for a competition, but I do object when
> they then send me another text in reply, to apply for another competition -
> and it costs me another 99p to receive it, which also gets paid to them ...
>
> --

You pay for incoming texts??

RP
>

2008\11\24@050730 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>You pay for incoming texts??

Not normally, but the TV station effectively sends from an 0900 number that
YOU pay for ...

2008\11\24@135304 by Richard Prosser

picon face
On 24/11/2008, Alan B. Pearce <EraseMEAlan.B.Pearcespam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTstfc.ac.uk> wrote:
> >You pay for incoming texts??
>
>
> Not normally, but the TV station effectively sends from an 0900 number that
>  YOU pay for ...
>
>
>  --

Sounds like a scam to me. OK, you pay the 99c you initially agreed to
and which often goes to charity etc. but to charge you an additional
99c or whatever for no good reason is a ripoff. Unless you knew about
it beforehand.

I'd be phoning my service provider and asking how come I'm getting
charged for incoming texts which is outside my contract. Not that it
would do any good but if enough people complain, then something might
happen. Sure as, if they get away with it, they'll try again.

RP

2008\11\24@235021 by apptech

face
flavicon
face
If it happened in NZ the Commerce Commision could be relied on to stand on
their heads if you complained..

It may take 3 years to happen, but they are very effective and deadly.
Something like a very small version of "The mill of God turns awesome slow,
but grinds exceeding small".
Never fall foul of the commerce commision. Second only to the IRD and
probably ahead of OSH in lethality.


       Russell

{Quote hidden}

2008\11\25@040238 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Sounds like a scam to me. OK, you pay the 99c you initially
>agreed to and which often goes to charity etc.

Well, in this case it goes to pay for the competition prizes, but yeah ...

>but to charge you an additional 99c or whatever for no
>good reason is a ripoff. Unless you knew about it beforehand.

I didn't know about it before hand, and was surprised when the charge showed
on my bill. Only done it a couple of times, so the effort involved in
attempting to recover the cost is hardly worth it.

>I'd be phoning my service provider and asking how come I'm
>getting charged for incoming texts which is outside my contract.
>Not that it would do any good but if enough people complain,
>then something might happen. Sure as, if they get away with it,
>they'll try again.

I don't recall anything about it in the T&C that were given by the TV
promotion.

2008\11\25@043058 by Jinx

face picon face
> Only done it a couple of times, so the effort involved in attempting
> to recover the cost is hardly worth it

On an individual's basis perhaps, unless you really feel your principles
are under assault

You might think that for something on that scale a lawyer or two on
their side would have been consulted, but even the slickest of the slick
get caught doing something they shouldn't, simply because they believe
no one will challenge them

Take all the unfit-for-proper-use merchandise that's cheap enough to
just throw away, when really you should be complaining and sending a
message to manufacturer and retailer alike

2008\11\25@045149 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> Only done it a couple of times, so the effort involved in
>> attempting to recover the cost is hardly worth it
>
>On an individual's basis perhaps, unless you really feel your
>principles are under assault
>
>You might think that for something on that scale a lawyer or
>two on their side would have been consulted, but even the
>slickest of the slick get caught doing something they shouldn't,
>simply because they believe no one will challenge them

Well, probably the best thing would be to pass the information on to the
Broadcasting Commission (or whatever the UK call it) and see what they have
to say about it. There has been an almighty stink here about shows charging
for phone calls to shows, and the calls actually having no effect on the
voting, so shows like Strictly Come Dancing now have a rider on the
announcement that calls after the closing time may still be charged, but
will not be counted.

So it would be interesting to see what the commission has to say about this
trick for increasing income.

2008\11\25@051728 by Jinx

face picon face
> There has been an almighty stink here about shows charging for phone
> calls to shows, and the calls actually having no effect on the voting

The mismanagement, to give it a very charitable name, of UK game shows
was all the news not so long ago. Regular complaints were made by home
viewers about Wheel Of Fortune in NZ concerning TXTs being accepted
after the answer to the home viewer puzzle was broadcast. Although not
admitting "anything wrong with the way it was run", ISTR that TVNZ have
now changed that way

The point being that organisations will try it on if they think they can get
away with it. When they do get caught out, the repercussions for them
are minimal and the refunding of those who just know they were ripped
off is too costly and messy to be practical, so a bit of chicanery or mis-
leading by omission is a worthwhile gamble

2008\11\25@065902 by Tony Smith

flavicon
face
> > There has been an almighty stink here about shows charging for phone
> > calls to shows, and the calls actually having no effect on the voting
>
> The mismanagement, to give it a very charitable name, of UK game shows
> was all the news not so long ago. Regular complaints were made by home
> viewers about Wheel Of Fortune in NZ concerning TXTs being accepted
> after the answer to the home viewer puzzle was broadcast. Although not
> admitting "anything wrong with the way it was run", ISTR that TVNZ have
> now changed that way
>
> The point being that organisations will try it on if they think they can
get
> away with it. When they do get caught out, the repercussions for them
> are minimal and the refunding of those who just know they were ripped
> off is too costly and messy to be practical, so a bit of chicanery or mis-
> leading by omission is a worthwhile gamble


I used to do that sort of stuff, and we were honest, general stupidity &
stuff-ups aside.

The basic problem is that a call to those numbers costs $x, and there's no
real way around it.  It would be nice to have a message saying 'Sorry,
voting has closed' and not charge the caller, but unfortunately they still
get charged.  The alternative is you simply switch the line off, this is
easy to set up.  Downside there is the caller gets a disconnected tone, and
starts ringing the help desks.

More fun would occur when the TV station ran a repeat, but forgot to block
out the number.  A hassle even if it's the next day, but it might be a year
or two later.  By that stage the number was probably being used for
something else.  Stuff like that gets a special number, known as a mass call
numbers, and is configured to reduce network congestion.  (In Oz, they'll be
something like 190x 555 xxxx.)  They usually don't get permanently assigned.

There is such a thing as a multi-rate line (in Oz anyway), where the cost
can be altered during the call.  This was done for dodgy psychic & sex
lines, but works for tech support and similar.

The caller gets a preamble that basically says "Press 0 to continue, after
that you'll be charged $x/min".  They still pay the flag fall cost though
(say 20 cents), and if that was a sex line, it will show up on the bill.

Refunds were handled by giving people phone cards (we had them specially
printed), from $2 and up.  We'd occasionally get collectors ring up asking
for one, we thought that was a bit tragic so we'd just send them a few.  

The main rip-offs were the carriers themselves, where they'd charge 3-5
times the normal rate from a mobile phone, so a $5/min call might be a
$20/min call instead.  We (& the client) still only got the $5, the carrier
pocketed the rest.  If you see a "calls from mobiles may be charged at a
higher rate" message, beware.

The really dodgy companies manage to charge you without the number even
answering...

Tony

2008\11\25@151856 by Mongol Herdsman

picon face
Alan B. Pearce wrote:
>Only done it a couple of times, so the effort involved in
> attempting to recover the cost is hardly worth it.

Worth it to handle the situation with care.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...