Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for "Criminals"? (was: Re: UCENET II and Peter duh Silva)

[Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>]

Steve Schear <schear@lvdi.net> writes:
> I've heard some U.S. cellular carriers are experimenting with
> "caller pays" billing.  Does anyone on the list have experience with
> "caller pays"?

I was totally amazed when I heard from a US friend that US cell phones
don't bill the caller!  My immediate thought was "people can spam call
you and run your bill up, ouch!"

Must be weird having a cell phone where people can run your bill up
just by calling you.

In the UK to my knowledge all GSM mobiles and POTS lines are caller
pays all.  The obvious thing to do is for the US cell phone suppliers
to "experiment with caller pays" billing, the only way that makes
sense.

(With the logical exception of 0800 (freephone) and 0345 (lo-call
half way between 0800 and 0345)).

(0800 = BT free phone, 0500 = mercury freephone; 0345 = BT lo-call,
0645 = mercury lo-call, 0845 = energis lo-call).

Adam
-- 
Now officially an EAR violation...
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`