Re: Letters with **three** cases?

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> *** T. Winter wrote:
> >
> > In article <42C95F68.6D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:
> > > > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > ...
> > > > I had expected that many people would have answered this one. It is
> > > > "Short Message Service". This is a feature available on most or all
> > > > GSM mobile (cell) phones. It is also commonly called "text". It
> > > > allows you to send short (usually <= 160 characters) messages from one
> > > > mobile phone to another. It is very popular in Europe and Asia but it
> > > > does not seem to be popular in the USA.
> > ...
> > > Text-messaging is indeed not popular here.
> >
> > It is very popular, especially amongst the youngers (say 12 to 20 year), and
>
> It is popular _there_. It is not popular _here_.
>
> > I think it is also cheaper to send somebody a message than to call, especially
> > when it is to another country.
> >
> > But (at least) in Europe cell phones are much more popular than in the US.
> > In the Netherlands it has gotten to the point that many people give up
> > their fixed phone line in favour of a cell phone. The reason for the
>
> Why do you suppose that is not the case in the US? During our latest
> blackout (August 2003 I think it was), millions of people without a real
> phone discovered that they couldn't call anyone -- the cellphone
> industry relies on the power grid in a way that the telephone system
> doesn't.

I saw a long discussion on this in another group a while ago. How
phone systems, both fixed and mobile, are powered seems to vary from
place to place. Several Americans made comments like yours that when
they lost power they also lost their mobile phone networks. But
others, including myself, have seen the converse. I have experienced
black-outs during which my mobile phone did work. One such place was
the Philippines. Possibly because they expect blackouts, the networks
are more prepared and have UPS (uninterruptible power supplies) and
generators.

We, non-Americans, should not assume that things are the same in
America nor should you, Americans, assume that they rest of the world
is like you.

> > difference is (I think) the tariff structure. In the US the receiver of
> > a call by cell phone has to pay a part. That is not the case in Europe,
>
> ?? Where did you hear that??

It is fairly well known and discussed at great length in other groups.
Outside the US, it is common that you do not pay to receive a call on
your mobile phone (unless you are roaming). But the cost of this is
that it usually costs the caller more to call the mobile phone. Pop
into a mobile phone related newsgroup and I am sure that many people
will explain this to you at great length.

> > overhere the caller pays all, and so cell phones are in number ranges
> > that are different from land-line phones.
>
> In some areas, new area codes were introduced just for cellphones (917
> and 646 are some of them in the NYC area), but cellphones were also
> assigned to existing area codes. But many area codes have been
> introduced into areas that used to have just one. New Jersey, for
> instance, used to be 201 in the north and 609 in the south, but now it
> has 856, 908, and 973 as well.
> --
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx

In many countries other than the US, mobile area codes are always
different. For example in the UK, land lines have codes starting 1 or
2 but mobiles start 7. In the Philippines mobiles always start 9 but
landlines never do.

--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair

.