In message , at 23:50:43 on Fri, 19
Jul 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:
Networks have tried hard over the years to introduce their
equivalent* of* "standing charges" to fight back a little bit. One
I'll be* writing about* later (in more detail) in another
subthread, is the O2* requirement that* PAYG phones wanting to use
the tube Wifi are topped* up at least once a* month.

A standing charge equals a contract. Making someone top up monthly
is* effectively forcing them onto one in all but name.
*It's a slight discount, because the typical top-up would be £10
and the* typical contract £30. And because you can stop any time
you like (apart* from some more recent hybrid plans that include a
partly-subsidised* phone) it's not in any sense a "contract".

Semantics. In all but name it is. If you have to pay a certain
amount of money each month regardless of how much you use it, then
to me it's a contract.
It's vastly more than semantics. The whole point of the "contract"
system for mobile phones (and many other infrastructure accounts) is
locking someone in for a minimum period. The impossibility of
resigning early is the only thing about the contract that ever really


You can have one-month rolling contracts, say £10 a month. Some
operators may call it PAYG but it's still a contract as far as I'm
concerned

It's not a contract, and calling it such muddies discussion such as
this.

and I wouldn't touch one with a very long pole.

Apart from the cost (if you are a very low user), what's wrong with
them?

For my usage, PAYG with no topup required fits the bill. Why would I
pay more..?

What works for you doesn't necessarily work for others.
--
Roland Perry

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 22:56:58 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 19/07/2019 15:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:45:40 on Fri, 19
Jul 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:
Networks have tried hard over the years to introduce their
equivalentÂ* ofÂ* "standing charges" to fight back a little bit. One
I'll beÂ* writing aboutÂ* later (in more detail) in another
subthread, is the O2Â* requirement thatÂ* PAYG phones wanting to use
the tube Wifi are toppedÂ* up at least once aÂ* month.

A standing charge equals a contract. Making someone top up monthly
isÂ* effectively forcing them onto one in all but name.
Â*It's a slight discount, because the typical top-up would be £10 and
theÂ* typical contract £30. And because you can stop any time you like
(apartÂ* from some more recent hybrid plans that include a
partly-subsidisedÂ* phone) it's not in any sense a "contract".

Semantics. In all but name it is. If you have to pay a certain amount
of money each month regardless of how much you use it, then to me it's
a contract.

It's vastly more than semantics. The whole point of the "contract"
system for mobile phones (and many other infrastructure accounts) is
locking someone in for a minimum period. The impossibility of resigning
early is the only thing about the contract that ever really maters.

You can have one-month rolling contracts, say £10 a month. Some
operators may call it PAYG but it's still a contract as far as I'm
concerned and I wouldn't touch one with a very long pole.

No PAYG deals require monthly top-ups.

Yes they can.
para 15 in :-
https://www.o2.co.uk/termsandconditi...o-tariff-terms
and IIRC any other providers where you get more than just a simple
charge for each minute, megabyte or text on PAYG.

Para 15?

In message , at 22:56:58 on Fri, 19 Jul
2019, Recliner remarked:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 19/07/2019 15:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:45:40 on Fri, 19
Jul 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:
Networks have tried hard over the years to introduce their
equivalent* of* "standing charges" to fight back a little bit. One
I'll be* writing about* later (in more detail) in another
subthread, is the O2* requirement that* PAYG phones wanting to use
the tube Wifi are topped* up at least once a* month.

A standing charge equals a contract. Making someone top up monthly
is* effectively forcing them onto one in all but name.
*It's a slight discount, because the typical top-up would be £10 and
the* typical contract £30. And because you can stop any time you like
(apart* from some more recent hybrid plans that include a
partly-subsidised* phone) it's not in any sense a "contract".

Semantics. In all but name it is. If you have to pay a certain amount
of money each month regardless of how much you use it, then to me it's
a contract.

It's vastly more than semantics. The whole point of the "contract"
system for mobile phones (and many other infrastructure accounts) is
locking someone in for a minimum period. The impossibility of resigning
early is the only thing about the contract that ever really maters.

You can have one-month rolling contracts, say £10 a month. Some
operators may call it PAYG but it's still a contract as far as I'm
concerned and I wouldn't touch one with a very long pole.

No PAYG deals require monthly top-ups.

Some do, if you want to keep all the benefits (specifically something
like O2's access to tube-wifi).

Or if you want to stay making[1] calls at all, if the credit expires at
the end of each month. But after a period of complete inactivity you'll
likely lose the number, timescale depending on the network.

[1] Inbound termination fees, especially from classic landlines, are
lucrative, and so you'll probably retain the ability to receive
calls.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 06:48:46 on Sat, 20 Jul
2019, Recliner remarked:
No PAYG deals require monthly top-ups.

Yes they can.
para 15 in :-
https://www.o2.co.uk/termsandconditi...o-tariff-terms
and IIRC any other providers where you get more than just a simple
charge for each minute, megabyte or text on PAYG.

Para 15?

Take a wild stab at para 1.5 instead.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:56:58 on Fri, 19 Jul
2019, Recliner remarked:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 19/07/2019 15:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:45:40 on Fri, 19
Jul 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:
Networks have tried hard over the years to introduce their
equivalentÂ* ofÂ* "standing charges" to fight back a little bit. One
I'll beÂ* writing aboutÂ* later (in more detail) in another
subthread, is the O2Â* requirement thatÂ* PAYG phones wanting to use
the tube Wifi are toppedÂ* up at least once aÂ* month.

A standing charge equals a contract. Making someone top up monthly
isÂ* effectively forcing them onto one in all but name.
Â*It's a slight discount, because the typical top-up would be £10 and
theÂ* typical contract £30. And because you can stop any time you like
(apartÂ* from some more recent hybrid plans that include a
partly-subsidisedÂ* phone) it's not in any sense a "contract".

Semantics. In all but name it is. If you have to pay a certain amount
of money each month regardless of how much you use it, then to me it's
a contract.

It's vastly more than semantics. The whole point of the "contract"
system for mobile phones (and many other infrastructure accounts) is
locking someone in for a minimum period. The impossibility of resigning
early is the only thing about the contract that ever really maters.

You can have one-month rolling contracts, say £10 a month. Some
operators may call it PAYG but it's still a contract as far as I'm
concerned and I wouldn't touch one with a very long pole.

No PAYG deals require monthly top-ups.

Some do, if you want to keep all the benefits (specifically something
like O2's access to tube-wifi).

Sure, and the same applies with Virgin PAYG: when i was on it, you never
had to top up, but there were additional benefits in the month after a
top-up of £10 or more. The way it worked was that the £10 got added to
your credit balance, where it lasted indefinitely, and could be used to pay
for calls, data and texts. But you got some additional benefits in the
month after a top-up that didn't carry over. This included Tube WiFi access
and 1GB of data. It may be different now



Or if you want to stay making[1] calls at all, if the credit expires at
the end of each month.
But after a period of complete inactivity you'll
likely lose the number, timescale depending on the network.

Yes, I think that's common, if not universal.


[1] Inbound termination fees, especially from classic landlines, are
lucrative, and so you'll probably retain the ability to receive
calls.

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 21:32:17 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:36:40 on
Thu, 18 Jul 2019, David Walters remarked:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:32:23 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:07:01 on
Thu, 18 Jul 2019, David Walters remarked:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:03:26 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:15:25 on
Wed, 17 Jul 2019, David Walters remarked:
Ooh, that's a bit strong..! What's wrong with old phones, anyway..?

For a 'dumbphone', not a lot.

Using a smartphone once it no longer receives security patches isn't
something I would do personally.

What's the main threat you are trying to avoid?

Mostly some malware getting installed via a remote or drive-by
vulnerability.

What kinds of drive-by malware has been known to be delivered via apps
like Facebook and Twitter?

I'm not aware of any but I use many other apps on my smartphone such
as Chrome which has had bugs exploited in the past. One example is at
https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2016...droid-malware/.
That still requires an extra step but a similar bug might not.

That's fixed by an upgrade to the browser app, which I don't regard as
coming into the category of "software patches [that one might no longer
be getting].

My phone which isn't getting *Android* updates, has still managed to
automatically update itself to Chrome dated 4th June 2019. Which is the
latest release version.

There is a list of 5 remote code execution
bugs in Android that have been patched this month at
https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2019-07-01. It's a similar
list for June, May, April etc.

What is the malware trying to achieve.

Perhaps it will be combined with some kind of permissions exploit that
means it can harvest data from other apps which in my case would include
my banking details/tokens. I could not have banking apps on my smartphone
but I choose to for the convenience and balance some of the risk by
having an up to date OS. Your choice might be different.

Indeed. I would never have a banking app on my phone unless it was of
very little importance. Although like Chrome, I'd hope to be getting
updates to the *app* which in turn had countermeasures for know exploits
within *Android*.

If someone has root on the device I don't think any individual app can
keep itself secure anymore. Many apps will try and detect a jailbroken
device and disable themselves but it isn't clear to me that that detection
is infallible. Better to take reasonable steps to secure the device
which includes security patches IMHO.

On 20/07/2019 09:25, David Walters wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 21:32:17 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:36:40 on
Thu, 18 Jul 2019, David Walters remarked:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:32:23 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:07:01 on
Thu, 18 Jul 2019, David Walters remarked:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:03:26 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:15:25 on
Wed, 17 Jul 2019, David Walters remarked:
Ooh, that's a bit strong..! What's wrong with old phones, anyway..?

For a 'dumbphone', not a lot.

Using a smartphone once it no longer receives security patches isn't
something I would do personally.

What's the main threat you are trying to avoid?

Mostly some malware getting installed via a remote or drive-by
vulnerability.

What kinds of drive-by malware has been known to be delivered via apps
like Facebook and Twitter?

I'm not aware of any but I use many other apps on my smartphone such
as Chrome which has had bugs exploited in the past. One example is at
https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2016...droid-malware/.
That still requires an extra step but a similar bug might not.

That's fixed by an upgrade to the browser app, which I don't regard as
coming into the category of "software patches [that one might no longer
be getting].

My phone which isn't getting *Android* updates, has still managed to
automatically update itself to Chrome dated 4th June 2019. Which is the
latest release version.

There is a list of 5 remote code execution
bugs in Android that have been patched this month at
https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2019-07-01. It's a similar
list for June, May, April etc.

What is the malware trying to achieve.

Perhaps it will be combined with some kind of permissions exploit that
means it can harvest data from other apps which in my case would include
my banking details/tokens. I could not have banking apps on my smartphone
but I choose to for the convenience and balance some of the risk by
having an up to date OS. Your choice might be different.

Indeed. I would never have a banking app on my phone unless it was of
very little importance. Although like Chrome, I'd hope to be getting
updates to the *app* which in turn had countermeasures for know exploits
within *Android*.

If someone has root on the device I don't think any individual app can
keep itself secure anymore. Many apps will try and detect a jailbroken
device and disable themselves but it isn't clear to me that that detection
is infallible. Better to take reasonable steps to secure the device
which includes security patches IMHO.

I have a device which I know is not jailbroken but the Wetherspoon
ordering app insists otherwise.

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 23:41:26 +0100, MissRiaElaine
wrote:

On 19/07/2019 15:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:42:33 on Fri, 19
Jul 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:

I've seen teenagers on the bus communicating with each other by
FarceBuke or whatever when they could just as easily turn their heads
and open their mouths.

Not a new thing. In the office where I was working in 2001, people would
email someone sat beside them, to ask when they wanted to go out to lunch.

It was less intrusive than interrupting their train of thought with a
verbal question.

Blimey, what were they thinking about..? Government policy..? (Sorry,
that just slipped out..)

I expect they were thinking about work.

The importance of "the zone" to productivity in highly mind-based work
(such as programing or engineering) is rarely understood by those not
experienced in such roles. Unfortunately, some of those people are
colleagues from another department, or, worse, management.

Mark

MissRiaElaine Wrote in message:
On 19/07/2019 00:21, Recliner wrote:
One of the current major advantages of mobile contracts is that your
monthly allowances can be used anywhere in the EU. So if you travel
frequently to EU countries, as I do, those included mobile minutes, texts
and data are more useful than any land line equivalents.

That's not unique to a contract though - I use a PAYG SIM at home
in Romania (because, well, why not - for a ?10 top-up a month I
get 20GB data with 150Mb/s download, and I can't see why a
contract would make life easier, since I do the top ups with
about two taps on an app) and I have free EU Roaming from that
allowance. (I believe if you top up less than ?10/month EU data
roaming is blocked though.)

I do keep an old UK number on a 30-day Vodafone contract, but not
for use in Europe because it only has a measly 2GB allowance for
about 16 quid a month - but it does have a handy "Roam Further"
feature where for a flat 6 quid a day I can use that allowance
worldwide. Very handy if stopping over in a country where buying
a SIM is too much hassle, or if I'm just not hanging around there
long enough to matter. Also handy in China where it's an easy
way round the Great Firewall without faffing around with
VPNs.



(As for landlines - I don't even have one, and haven't for years.
I have to assume there is some capability for plugging a phone
into my home cable connection but I've never tried it - and if I
have a number it's news to me. Even when I lived in the UK the
landline was the exclusive purvey of junk callers.)

--

MissRiaElaine Wrote in message:
You can have one-month rolling contracts, say £10 a month.
Some operators may call it PAYG but it's still a contract as far as I'm concerned and I wouldn't touch one with a very long pole.

The difference between 30-day contract, and pay as you go, is very
simple - with PAYG you pay in advance, with the contract you pay
in arrears. (For the calls at least, if not the standing charge
- although these days most calls are covered by the standing
charge anyway so it does become slightly harder to discern the
difference.)

--