Archive for June, 2005

Competition in the mobile phone market

Tuesday, June 28th, 2005

I have often wondered why we pay so much to call mobiles in Europe, but pay so little in the US. It has just been suggested to me what the reason for this is, and it makes a lot of sense.

In the US people pay to receive calls, in Europe we do not. Clearly then the mobile networks have to charge more to calls a mobile to cover the cost of running over the mobile network, ok, we can accept this. Why are these charges so much higher than the cost of the incoming call in the US though (generally included in very large numbers of inclusive minutes, making it similar in cost to the outgoing inclusive call in Europe)?

I shall pose a question. Who in Europe changes their mobile network based on the price of incoming calls? That is who changes network to save their friends on other networks and on landlines money? Noone, right, they may change net to save themselves money, but the outgoing call cost is what they make the decision on. In the US, however, the incoming call cost is charged directly to you, not to your friends, it is therefore to your advantage as a normal, slightly selfish, person to make the decision based on the cost of both incoming and outgoing calls, as you pay for both. By the nature of an open competitive market, then, the price drops faster when you have to pay for both sets of calls (you choose a net with inclusive minutes covering both incoming and outgoing, for example).

There are flaws, of course, for unknown reasons calls coming from abroad are not usually included in the inclusive minutes; this seems nothing more than ripping off the customer as it can’t possibly cost more for a friend in the US to receive a call from me here, than from me there, if I’m already paying the international part of the call, however this seems an extension of the old local/national issue and so is unfair but somewhat natural in a communication network’s evolution.

At least it makes more sense now how the competition works to give US customers lower prices, even with the strange necessity to pay for calls you haven’t chosen to make.

Maybe a solution to this that allows competition to work freely in Europe would be to force mobile companies to quote their termination charges in their adverts, so that people are fully informed such that anyone who is likely to receive more calls than they make can choose the network with the lower termination charges, hence competition works correctly. Anyone up for joining me in contacting OfCom with this suggestion?

Star Wars

Wednesday, June 22nd, 2005

Great film. Shame about the shop window actors and pre-school script, though.

Finished

Monday, June 20th, 2005

It’s all over! I can rest, sleep, not have to work weekends.

Fabulous.

Just hope I get a degree out of it.

Matlab

Saturday, June 4th, 2005

I would expect that if I purchased software it would work. Not least if this software was in version 7 and has something of a reputation for what it does. I’m sure that Matlab does what it is designed for very well, in its own quirky way, but is that any excuse to not save graphs properly? For reverting back to some odd old design just because you’ve decided to save as a pdf? I don’t even mean that it messes up the pdf output… the pdf output looks perfect, if you compare it to what the graph becomes in matlab! Unfortunately what the graph becomes is very different from what it started out as.

What a joke.

A living catalyst

Friday, June 3rd, 2005

A wonderful way to prove one’s own ignorance:

A:
Could you tell me why fire is not alive?

B:
Uh…fire is a catalyst, guy. Didn’t your mommy teach you anything?

A:
Um, at the risk of descending to your level, it seems that your mommy was your only source of your home-schooling. Fire is not a catalyst: By definition, a catalyst is a substance added to a chemical reaction that increases the reaction rate by providing a reaction path with a lower activation energy. The catalyst is not consumed (i.e., does not lose mass) in the process. Heat nor fire are catalysts, because they are not substances.

B:
Catalyst A substance, usually used in small amounts relative to the reactants, that modifies and increases the rate of a reaction without being consumed in the process.
Fire A rapid, persistent chemical change that releases heat and light and is accompanied by flame, especially the exothermic oxidation of a combustible substance.

Does fire increase the rate of reaction? Definately. Is fire consumed in the process? Nope. Does fire induce a change from one state to another? Yes. Are all fires catalysts? By definition, yes, because they consume fuel and oxygen, produce heat and cause a conversion. Are all catalytsts fire? No. Is there any particular reason we are discussing this outside of the fact that certain evo’s were proved incorrect in their definition of nonliving? Not at all.

——————————

Not to mention of course that it’s definition as a catalyst isn’t really directly related to whether or not it is alive…

God

Friday, June 3rd, 2005

A slight extension to Rishi’s small crisis of non-faith, of a sort at least. This is something that was brought to my attention recently.

Let us consider the concept of a god.

Either the god exists, or the god does not exist. It would be reasonable to say that if the god does not exist, this discussion is moot. If the god does indeed exist then this brings up a further question:

Is the god good or evil. If the god is good, we have nothing to worry about, regardless of our views of him.

However, there is one final possibility. The god is not good. This causes problems, the first of these is that many people, myself included, would not want to have anything to do with an evil god. However, being evil, and all powerful, whether I want anything to do with said entity or not is not really important. If the god is evil he will find ways to punish us for his pleasure anyway. In this circumstance I don’t think we can win.