UltraViolet!

Will never work.  Not unless Netflix dies and ISPs decide to charge nothing for 100GB of bandwidth/month.

I don't care. I get it free anyway.

Not unless Netflix dies

So all they need to do is reach out of the Americas and get to all those people who have never even heard of Netflix.

and ISPs decide to charge nothing for 100GB of bandwidth/month.

Wait, they limit your monthly download? That... still happens?

Quote from: Lorddave on November 01, 2011, 05:03:01 PM

Not unless Netflix dies

So all they need to do is reach out of the Americas and get to all those people who have never even heard of Netflix.

Indeed. But I don't think they're that smart.

Quote from: Lorddave on November 01, 2011, 05:03:01 PM

and ISPs decide to charge nothing for 100GB of bandwidth/month.

Wait, they limit your monthly download? That... still happens?

All ISPs do last I checked. The limit is just so high most people never see it.

All ISPs do last I checked. The limit is just so high most people never see it.

See, that's one thing that keeps me wondering about the US. No offence intended, but your telecom services plainly suck.

My phone can make free calls (within a monthly limit) to pretty much everywhere in the world (including everywhere in the US). That's me calling from the UK. Calling one place in the US from another place in the US may or may not be an expensive "long-distance call". I've also heard from some Americans that they consider "long-distance" and international calls to be an unnecessary luxury.

In Soviet Europe, receiving texts is always free. No matter where you are, who sends you the text, and what the text is about - if they sent it, they pay for it. In America, receiving texts from abroad often costs money.

It turned out that I was getting better deals from my UK mobile phone operator's roaming service in the US than if I was using a US operator for texting/calling Europe. Sending texts was slightly more expensive, but I didn't pay for receiving, and calls were actually cheaper.

You can easily get unlimited monthly downloads with any decent ISP without paying much for it. The only real alternative to unlimited bandwidth is one of those "Now you can use e-mail and send lolcats to your grandchildren!" kind of connection with a 5GB or so limit. Those usually cost fuck all, though.

Your debit cards are still running primarily on magnetic strips. Come on, pretty much no one here does that anymore. We don't even need the strips anymore - they're only kept for the sake of backwards compatibility. They're terribly unsafe (case in point: I've used my USD debit card in an American convenience store, said store got hacked, and someone bought $10 worth of New York Metro tickets using a magnetic copy of my card ). In the meantime, Mother Europe's debit cards have microchips, which are significantly harder to copy.

Damn, I've even seen Americans balance their chequebooks so that they keep track of their balance. That's in the 21st century, when you can access your bank statements with just a few clicks. It's called on-line banking.


I just don't understand. America seems to be using a whole lot of horribly outdated technology, and there doesn't seem to be any good reason for that.

Quote from: Lorddave on November 02, 2011, 01:51:10 PM

All ISPs do last I checked. The limit is just so high most people never see it.

See, that's one thing that keeps me wondering about the US. No offence intended, but your telecom services plainly suck.

My phone can make free calls (within a monthly limit) to pretty much everywhere in the world (including everywhere in the US). That's me calling from the UK. Calling one place in the US from another place in the US may or may not be an expensive "long-distance call". I've also heard from some Americans that they consider "long-distance" and international calls to be an unnecessary luxury.

In Soviet Europe, receiving texts is always free. No matter where you are, who sends you the text, and what the text is about - if they sent it, they pay for it. In America, receiving texts from abroad often costs money.

It turned out that I was getting better deals from my UK mobile phone operator's roaming service in the US than if I was using a US operator for texting/calling Europe. Sending texts was slightly more expensive, but I didn't pay for receiving, and calls were actually cheaper.

You can easily get unlimited monthly downloads with any decent ISP without paying much for it. The only real alternative to unlimited bandwidth is one of those "Now you can use e-mail and send lolcats to your grandchildren!" kind of connection with a 5GB or so limit. Those usually cost fuck all, though.

Your debit cards are still running primarily on magnetic strips. Come on, pretty much no one here does that anymore. We don't even need the strips anymore - they're only kept for the sake of backwards compatibility. They're terribly unsafe (case in point: I've used my USD debit card in an American convenience store, said store got hacked, and someone bought $10 worth of New York Metro tickets using a magnetic copy of my card ). In the meantime, Mother Europe's debit cards have microchips, which are significantly harder to copy.

Damn, I've even seen Americans balance their chequebooks so that they keep track of their balance. That's in the 21st century, when you can access your bank statements with just a few clicks. It's called on-line banking.


I just don't understand. America seems to be using a whole lot of horribly outdated technology, and there doesn't seem to be any good reason for that.

Don't come to Australia.

Don't come to Australia.

Now I really want to go to Australia.
Why?

Quote from: Lorddave on November 02, 2011, 01:51:10 PM

All ISPs do last I checked. The limit is just so high most people never see it.

See, that's one thing that keeps me wondering about the US. No offence intended, but your telecom services plainly suck.

My phone can make free calls (within a monthly limit) to pretty much everywhere in the world (including everywhere in the US). That's me calling from the UK. Calling one place in the US from another place in the US may or may not be an expensive "long-distance call". I've also heard from some Americans that they consider "long-distance" and international calls to be an unnecessary luxury.

In Soviet Europe, receiving texts is always free. No matter where you are, who sends you the text, and what the text is about - if they sent it, they pay for it. In America, receiving texts from abroad often costs money.

It turned out that I was getting better deals from my UK mobile phone operator's roaming service in the US than if I was using a US operator for texting/calling Europe. Sending texts was slightly more expensive, but I didn't pay for receiving, and calls were actually cheaper.

You can easily get unlimited monthly downloads with any decent ISP without paying much for it. The only real alternative to unlimited bandwidth is one of those "Now you can use e-mail and send lolcats to your grandchildren!" kind of connection with a 5GB or so limit. Those usually cost fuck all, though.

Your debit cards are still running primarily on magnetic strips. Come on, pretty much no one here does that anymore. We don't even need the strips anymore - they're only kept for the sake of backwards compatibility. They're terribly unsafe (case in point: I've used my USD debit card in an American convenience store, said store got hacked, and someone bought $10 worth of New York Metro tickets using a magnetic copy of my card ). In the meantime, Mother Europe's debit cards have microchips, which are significantly harder to copy.

Damn, I've even seen Americans balance their chequebooks so that they keep track of their balance. That's in the 21st century, when you can access your bank statements with just a few clicks. It's called on-line banking.


I just don't understand. America seems to be using a whole lot of horribly outdated technology, and there doesn't seem to be any good reason for that.

I think most of it is just a fear of change.  The technology is becoming more and more available, but the majority of people have no desire to change it.  Hell, there are many people who fear moving form Microsoft Office 2003 to Office 2007!

Though I think most of us do online banking (I haven't met a bank that doesn't do it) and most users use that so that's a plus.

Though I think most of us do online banking (I haven't met a bank that doesn't do it) and most users use that so that's a plus.

Good. That actually had me scared. I've never seen anyone balance a chequebook before I went to America.

Quote from: Lorddave on November 02, 2011, 02:48:12 PM

Though I think most of us do online banking (I haven't met a bank that doesn't do it) and most users use that so that's a plus.

Good. That actually had me scared. I've never seen anyone balance a chequebook checkbook before I went to America.

Fix'd for America.

Also, knowing how to balance a checkbook still has advantages over online banking. The most prominent is the act of giving checks to people. Your online banking won't register that you have less money in your account until they cash it in, so unless you keep a balanced checkbook to keep track of your checks, you may appear to have more money than you actually have.

Oh, yeah, that's another thing to add to the list: cheques. No one uses them. Well, actually, I've seen them used in the UK on occasion, but srsly, that's what on-line transfers and debit cards are for.

Also, I presume that by "knowing how to balance a checkbook" [sic] you mean "knowing how to add and subtract". I agree that it's a valuable skill.

Not to mention, you can make note of a cheque in most on-line banking applications; so no, you won't seem to have more money than you do, unless you're incompetent, or your on-line banking is shabby.

Oh, yeah, that's another thing to add to the list: cheques. No one uses them. Well, actually, I've seen them used in the UK on occasion, but srsly, that's what on-line transfers and debit cards are for.

Also, I presume that by "knowing how to balance a checkbook" [sic] you mean "knowing how to add and subtract". I agree that it's a valuable skill.

Not to mention, you can make note of a cheque in most on-line banking applications; so no, you won't seem to have more money than you do, unless you're incompetent, or your on-line banking is shabby.

Believe it or not, there are lots of people that are incompetent with their finances. How else do you think people get into massive credit card debt, or they find out at the end of the month they over drew their account by $500? There were lots of parents (at least in my district) that were begging the schools to have a mandatory finances class where one of the things kids would learn is to manage money.

In the US a lot of people do not have bank accounts since many of them have a required amount that you must have in your account or you get fined. So if you are living paycheck to paycheck, or nearly are, you aren't going to have $300-500 at once to open an account.

Believe it or not, there are lots of people that are incompetent with their finances. How else do you think people get into massive credit card debt, or they find out at the end of the month they over drew their account by $500? There were lots of parents (at least in my district) that were begging the schools to have a mandatory finances class where one of the things kids would learn is to manage money.

Sure, I agree; but I don't think these people balance their chequebooks.

In the US a lot of people do not have bank accounts since many of them have a required amount that you must have in your account or you get fined. So if you are living paycheck to paycheck, or nearly are, you aren't going to have $300-500 at once to open an account.

Hmm, that's very weird too. Here they'd rather have someone have an empty account with them than not have the account with them - just because it costs nothing to keep it up, and that person might pay some money in one day.

Hmm, that's very weird too. Here they'd rather have someone have an empty account with them than not have the account with them - just because it costs nothing to keep it up, and that person might pay some money in one day.

That is American Capitalism, you are doing it wrong if you aren't trying to make just short term money. One of our major banks has also said that starting next year it is going to charge monthly fees on using debt cards.

That is American Capitalism, you are doing it wrong if you aren't trying to make just short term money.

Nothing wrong with that, I guess.

One of our major banks has also said that starting next year it is going to charge monthly fees on using debt cards.

That happens with some bank accounts here. My current account in Poland will charge me monthly for a debit card if I don't use it at least once during that month, which I think is a reasonable deal.

Quote

Quote from: Lorddave on November 01, 2011, 05:03:01 PM

and ISPs decide to charge nothing for 100GB of bandwidth/month.

Wait, they limit your monthly download? That... still happens?

All ISPs do last I checked. The limit is just so high most people never see it.

No way. If that's true I should be using up the limit constantly with the massive amount of music I download, plus the movies and entire seasons of TV shows.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on November 02, 2011, 06:41:54 PM

One of our major banks has also said that starting next year it is going to charge monthly fees on using debt cards.

That happens with some bank accounts here. My current account in Poland will charge me monthly for a debit card if I don't use it at least once during that month, which I think is a reasonable deal.

The charge is for using it.

The charge is for using it.

Ah, I thought that the charge was for having it.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on November 02, 2011, 11:09:23 PM

The charge is for using it.

Ah, I thought that the charge was for having it.

Nope. You are now charged each month for using it, and you are also fined each time you withdraw from your savings more than three times a month.

The initial $500 is the "charge" for having it.

Quote from: Vindictus on November 02, 2011, 02:24:15 PM

Don't come to Australia.

Now I really want to go to Australia.
Why?

The sights are fine, but almost every modern country has better internet infrastructure. Telecommunications I'm not so sure about, but I doubt the case is any different.

One of our major banks has also said that starting next year it is going to charge monthly fees on using debt cards.

Why?

Nope. You are now charged each month for using it, and you are also fined each time you withdraw from your savings more than three times a month.

The initial $500 is the "charge" for having it.

That's pretty bad. If I ever move to America, I'll just do my banking abroad. Tee hee.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on November 02, 2011, 11:12:15 PM

Nope. You are now charged each month for using it, and you are also fined each time you withdraw from your savings more than three times a month.

The initial $500 is the "charge" for having it.

That's pretty bad. If I ever move to America, I'll just do my banking abroad. Tee hee.

A foreigner with secret bank account abroad? Sounds like a terrorist to me.

Better have him investigated!

I write one check a month to the town clerk for my water bill.  The town refuses to incur the cost of accepting cards and they only have to walk across the street to the locally owned bank to deposit the thing.  If the bank objects, tehy should eat the cost.

And what's with all this check/cheque fixing and [sic] business?  Surely we anglophones can navigate our way through these small idiosyncrasies without this needless assistance.  Besides, within five minutes of looking at this thread this morning I see in a very English short story the phrase "would throw in a blank check if asked." (Nine Points of the Law from The Amateur Cracksman by E. W. Hornung, 1905)  Apparently, the spelling was not always frenchified.  Now I spell the words saviour and armour with the 'u' just because and with the happy knowledge that my mother tongue is not so petrified that someone will insert a [sic] without it being laughable.

I could never understand electronic transaction/ATM fees.  Either you pay for the convenience of doing it yourself or you schlep down to the bank where a live(?) person (presumably on the bank's payroll) will do the exact same transaction for you for free.  Only on a flat earth could this possibly make any sense.

I could never understand electronic transaction/ATM fees.  Either you pay for the convenience of doing it yourself or you schlep down to the bank where a live(?) person (presumably on the bank's payroll) will do the exact same transaction for you for free.  Only on a flat earth could this possibly make any sense.

Well, the key point is that it generally doesn't cost any money (or it costs less than the energy you'll spend to reach the bank) in most countries.

A foreigner with secret bank account abroad? Sounds like a terrorist to me.

One bank account? I've got four!

I could never understand electronic transaction/ATM fees.  Either you pay for the convenience of doing it yourself or you schlep down to the bank where a live(?) person (presumably on the bank's payroll) will do the exact same transaction for you for free.  Only on a flat earth could this possibly make any sense.

Someone's gotta keep the server's running.  Plus it's a way to make money.  That's all a Bank wants to do is make money.  Credit card companies are the same way.  They charge money for using their credit transaction services for things like Visa Debit Cards.

They wants de monies.

Quote from: markjo on November 03, 2011, 10:32:48 AM

I could never understand electronic transaction/ATM fees.  Either you pay for the convenience of doing it yourself or you schlep down to the bank where a live(?) person (presumably on the bank's payroll) will do the exact same transaction for you for free.  Only on a flat earth could this possibly make any sense.

Well, the key point is that it generally doesn't cost any money (or it costs less than the energy you'll spend to reach the bank) in most countries.

That's my point.  If I'm saving the bank money by taking a human employee (or even a whole branch office) out of the equation, then why should it cost me more money?  Which is cheaper, an employee or an ATM?

I'd guess the all-American "because we can" (charge you) would be the answer.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on November 03, 2011, 10:37:09 AM

Quote from: markjo on November 03, 2011, 10:32:48 AM

I could never understand electronic transaction/ATM fees.  Either you pay for the convenience of doing it yourself or you schlep down to the bank where a live(?) person (presumably on the bank's payroll) will do the exact same transaction for you for free.  Only on a flat earth could this possibly make any sense.

Well, the key point is that it generally doesn't cost any money (or it costs less than the energy you'll spend to reach the bank) in most countries.

That's my point.  If I'm saving the bank money by taking a human employee (or even a whole branch office) out of the equation, then why should it cost me more money?  Which is cheaper, an employee or an ATM?

You only get charged if you use an ATM from a different bank than yours. Plus the humans are there anyway so by using an ATM you're not saving the bank anything except floor space.

Plus the humans are there anyway

Incorrect. If people don't need bank tellers, you can employ less bank tellers.