Negotiating for purchase a Used Cellphone,..what minor flaws acceptable ?

[mariush]

I'm using a Xiaomi Redmi 8 Pro , was around $200 when I bought it... perfectly fine phone.

You can get Xiaomi 13 for $165 on Amazon, and Xiaomi 12 is 145$ ... both with 8 GB ram and at least 256 GB of storage.

[IanB]

I know we are straying off-topic here a little bit, but since we're sharing (and for those playing along at home).

It's not entirely off-topic, because the cost of the phone is a one-off expense, while the monthly plan charge impacts your monthly budget indefinitely. That is arguably more important ($65/month over 3 years adds up to $2340). That's twice the cost of a brand new iPhone.

The low prices I quoted were for a UK MVNO (giffgaff) running on the O2 network, but I have used them when visiting the UK (paid a little more for 5G), and never had a problem with speed or network availability. The low price does come with a lack of features (no visual voicemail, MMS is extra, premium rate numbers are extra, international calls are extra...). However, it did include roaming within the EU at no extra cost.

In the USA, the main cellular networks (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) do in theory cover the whole country, so roaming is not a thing (except for Mexico and Canada). However coverage is only in populated areas, so "whole country" needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Any time you go off the beaten track you will lose cellphone service. If you want an emergency phone when hiking, you will need a satellite phone.

Anecdote: in 2001, I landed at a small airfield in the Kruger National Park in South Africa (basically in the middle of the bush). I thought no way would there be cellphone service, but when I switched on my phone the signal was 5 bars.

International calling is less of a concern now with VOIP services like Google Voice, which you can use for free with with cellular data.

Also, I have found it nearly impossible to use more than 5-10 GB even with intensive data use. Maybe that is different for people who consume their entire social media on their phone, but my eyes are not up to the task, and watching YouTube on a teeny tiny phone screen instead of a big desktop monitor is frankly an exercise in self-flagellation.

[Postal2]

.... 2G cellular doesn't exist anymore; ....

This is stupid. When I go deeper into the building, my phone automatically switches to 2G to maintain the connection. Most likely, this is due to stupidity in the formation of licenses for frequencies.

[Halcyon]

.... 2G cellular doesn't exist anymore; ....

This is stupid. When I go deeper into the building, my phone automatically switches to 2G to maintain the connection. Most likely, this is due to stupidity in the formation of licenses for frequencies.

The existing 2G and 3G bands are being re-used for 4G and 5G services here. So even in basements and buildings, it's pretty standard to have access to high speed data.
The dropping of 2G/3G is a good thing. It allows for efficient re-use of the existing frequencies. Faster speeds and better coverage.

3G is currently the "fallback" mode here, but soon that'll be 4G.

[ebastler]

The dropping of 2G/3G is a good thing. It allows for efficient re-use of the existing frequencies. Faster speeds and better coverage.

I largely agree. But it's annoying that various 3G-enabled devices, which would otherwise still be perfectly fit for purpose, no longer work. My Kindle e-book reader is an example, and I assume many remote sensors (specialized, expensive, expensive to deploy/replace) as well.

[Halcyon]

The dropping of 2G/3G is a good thing. It allows for efficient re-use of the existing frequencies. Faster speeds and better coverage.

I largely agree. But it's annoying that various 3G-enabled devices, which would otherwise still be perfectly fit for purpose, no longer work. My Kindle e-book reader is an example, and I assume many remote sensors (specialized, expensive, expensive to deploy/replace) as well.

Sure. But hopefully this will force manufacturers to stop being so bloody stingy with the baseband radios they put in devices. Same goes for WiFi or Ethernet ports. 10/100 in almost any product is not acceptable. Spend an extra dollar and put a 4G/5G/Gigabit/802.11ax radios when designing products.

There are still some household products (Dyson, Sonos etc...) that only support 2.4 GHz or WPA2. It's unacceptable.

5G was ratified in 2016 for fuck's sake with networks bullding infrastructure not that long after.

[ebastler]

In Germany we had about 10 years of overlap between the introduction of 4G networks and the discontinuation of 3G (in 2021). Generous enough for comsumer devices like cell phones, but a bit tight for things like remote sensors which have a longer product life cycle. (Regarding product development as well as the duration of using a particular unit in the field.)

[Postal2]

... The dropping of 2G/3G is a good thing. ...

Then don’t be surprised when they start supplying 300 volts to the electrical outlet and force you to replace all devices.

In GSM networks, the transmission power is usually between 1 and 2 watts. This provides a decent coverage radius, which can reach up to 35 kilometers in open areas.
3G standards generally use less power than GSM. The coverage radius is approximately 3 to 5 kilometers.
LTE uses similar power to 3G, giving a similar coverage radius, typically 3 to 5 kilometers.

[ebastler]

... The dropping of 2G/3G is a good thing. ...

Then don’t be surprised when they start supplying 300 volts to the electrical outlet and force you to replace all devices.

Believe it or not, technologies do become obsolete and get phased out, to be replaced by something better. Using your AM radio is not as much fun as it used to be; depending on where you live, the same may apply to your FM radio sooner or later. Analog and ISDN phone lines, as well as analog terrestrial TV broadcasting, are a thing of the past as well in many countries.

I think it is unreasonable to argue that "this should never happen!". One can only debate about timing and lead times, to enable technology users to make decent use of their investment and prepare for a smooth transition.

[Postal2]

... Believe it or not, technologies do become obsolete and get phased out, to be replaced by something better. ...

A 1978 auto magazine wrote that polarized headlights were abandoned because of the harmfulness of polarized light. Now you have an LCD screen. And I have a CRT. You wear glasses, and I don't.

[Halcyon]

... Believe it or not, technologies do become obsolete and get phased out, to be replaced by something better. ...

A 1978 auto magazine wrote that polarized headlights were abandoned because of the harmfulness of polarized light. Now you have an LCD screen. And I have a CRT. You wear glasses, and I don't.

I don't understand the point you're making? Are you suggesting people who view polarised displays over CRTs go blind? I've been viewing LCD monitors for the past 20 years, yet my eyesight is perfect? I've never seen anyone suggest polarised light is bad, so I'd be keen to read some actual science beyond what a car magazine wrote in the 70s.

Viewing ANY display, for long periods of time is bad for your eyesight. You should focus on objects both near and far, varying your focal length throughout the day.

[Postal2]

... I don't understand the point you're making? ...

I gave an example that as soon as something brings benefits - it turns out to be harmless. And also it is positioned as technological progress. If you constantly work with an LCD display (several hours a day) for 20 years - it means that you are very young. All those of my peers who laughed at my commitment to CRT, they all wear glasses, but they continue to say that the type of screen has nothing to do with it.
As for your mobile phone service - the same thing. The company doesn't care about people's needs, it's just profitable for it to do what it does.

[bw2341]

I remember being surprised by the lack of mobile phones in the states when i was there in the early 2000's when they were getting common in the uk, it was explained that it was due to  the call receiver having to pay part of the call charge.Guess thats changed now?

In the USA and Canada, cellular phone numbers are indistinguishable from landline numbers. They are assigned geographically to a small local area.

It's not reasonable for a call to a geographic phone number to have unknown extra charges. Consequently, the cell phone subscriber is responsible for their own airtime charges on all calls, outgoing and incoming. When the cell phone subscriber leaves their local area, incoming calls also have long distance charges.

Since calling is cheap now, the service plans typically include unlimited nationwide calling.

So for people in Calling Party Pays countries, is there a huge charge difference between calling a local mobile phone versus the same phone roaming halfway around the world? Is there an indication of the upcharge?

[ebastler]

So for people in Calling Party Pays countries, it there a huge charge difference between calling a local mobile phone versus the same phone roaming halfway around the world? Is there an indication of the upcharge?

In Germany (and, I believe, many other EU countries), most mobile phone contracts cover all calls to in-country numbers in the monthly flat rate -- for calling both landline and mobile phones. Calls to international numbers in EU countries cost extra, but there is a 19 cents/minute cap set by the EU. Calls to non-EU international numbers can get expensive.

When I call a German cell phone number while the called party is travelling outside the EU, the called party covers the roaming fees -- similar to the US national practice, I understand. (And following the same logic: I can't know where they are at the moment, so why should I be billed?)

Within the EU, roaming fees have been abolished by an EU regulation. Hence, whether the caller or the called party is travelling in Europe, call cost is determined by their national (home) phone number, not by where they physically are at the moment.

[bw2341]

That makes sense. It looks like the difference in Calling Party Pays countries is that there are non-geographical prefixes for mobile phone service. It looks like in Germany, mobile numbers start with 15, 16 or 17.

When I look at my VoIP provider's rate card, I see higher rates for calling mobile numbers than calling geographical numbers. Presumably, I would be paying for the called party's airtime.

[ebastler]

Given the high cost of utilities over here, mobile phone service is surprisingly cheap, by the way. My 10 €/month contract includes all national calls and 10 GBytes/month of data. And the EU regulations have put an end to the fee-gauging for intra-Euopean calls and roaming. 

[IanB]

That makes sense. It looks like the difference in Calling Party Pays countries is that there are non-geographical prefixes for mobile phone service. It looks like in Germany, mobile numbers start with 15, 16 or 17.

When I look at my VoIP provider's rate card, I see higher rates for calling mobile numbers than calling geographical numbers. Presumably, I would be paying for the called party's airtime.

In the UK there has, historically, been a huge difference in the rate for calling a landline phone vs a mobile phone. For example, it might have cost 10x as much per minute to call a mobile compared to a landline. This matters less now with unlimited free calls on most phone plans, but in the past with metered calling it could make calling mobile phones so expensive that people would avoid calling them.

Even today, as you noticed, if you call into the UK from outside and get billed per minute, then the rate is still higher for mobile numbers.

[RJSV]

   My experience, here in the states (U.S.A.) was an emergence of any cellphones close to first months of 2004.   The smaller package size, and awesum convenience was very novel, and took off rapidly over just a couple of months.

   It did take maybe a decade, before you didn't have concerns about using minutes.  (Although I didn't use any international).  Internet access came slowly, starting with email.
   My heavy use of smartphone to play videos was not until at least 2012, (that's 12 years now).   That feature has helped with MASSIVE insomnia, being that I'm very Type A, having troubles relaxing and putting work issues aside.
Ironically, it's the more interesting video programs (like science / NOVA), that put me out, when sleep doesn't come.
The smartphone videos came, and the whole DVD movie industry went 'away'.

   Pre-2004, virtually all cellphones were huge, walky Talky radios, with long antennas,  and perhaps larger than my head.   Rarely, I would encounter some friend that had one...they always said;   "Don't call...ever, because the billing charge is huge....".
   Ironically, the more modern flip phones began occupying a valued place, in big city street 'culture'.

   The rise of tablet media brought huge changes, for GPS functions and ebooks.

[RJSV]

Thanks, also, for discussing the whole 3G, 4G varieties, as I haven't followed current developments on access options.

[Halcyon]

... I don't understand the point you're making? ...

I gave an example that as soon as something brings benefits - it turns out to be harmless. And also it is positioned as technological progress. If you constantly work with an LCD display (several hours a day) for 20 years - it means that you are very young. All those of my peers who laughed at my commitment to CRT, they all wear glasses, but they continue to say that the type of screen has nothing to do with it.

I'm in my 30's and worked with computers my entire life. This sometimes means looking at a screen for the entire day.

But you're drawing a link between types of monitor and anecdotal evidence that your coworkers need glasses. Correlation doesn't equal causation. As I said, it can happen with any type of monitor, even your CRT. Their poor eyesight can also be due to their genetics and nothing to do with the environment they work in.

[Postal2]

... But you're drawing a link between types of monitor and anecdotal evidence that your coworkers need glasses. ...

I'm 56 and I just soldered an Oppo Neo 5 display to a 0.5 pitch ribbon cable without a microscope. Sure, I have LCDs and don't mind using them from time to time. However, I feel the difference. You can't convince me that salty is sweet if I feel it myself. You're right about the different causes of vision loss. But why would I intentionally harm myself if I feel discomfort?

[Halcyon]

... But you're drawing a link between types of monitor and anecdotal evidence that your coworkers need glasses. ...

I'm 56 and I just soldered an Oppo Neo 5 display to a 0.5 pitch ribbon cable without a microscope. Sure, I have LCDs and don't mind using them from time to time. However, I feel the difference. You can't convince me that salty is sweet if I feel it myself. You're right about the different causes of vision loss. But why would I intentionally harm myself if I feel discomfort?

It seems to me that the discomfort you're experiencing is as a result of weakness or damage to your eyes already, not as a direct cause of using an LCD (again, correlation doesn't equal causation).

That's great that you can solder really small things up close. That doesn't mean that your vision is perfect. Before blaming your tools, perhaps actually get your eyes checked. You might find that you're actually near-sighted. It could also be "computer eye strain" which is focussing on screens or objects at a particular focal length for sustained periods (which I described before). This might help: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321536

[Andy Chee]

It seems to me that the discomfort you're experiencing is as a result of weakness or damage to your eyes already, not as a direct cause of using an LCD (again, correlation doesn't equal causation).

Causation has already been established with A/B testing, albeit, not a blind A/B test (which I'm not sure how one would perform with CRT vs LCD!)

Of course, the individual A/B results experienced by Postal2 do not necessarily (and shouldn't) generalise to the entire population of computer users.

IMO, I cannot conceive of a physiological difference between CRT and LCD.  AFAIC, the eyes perceive both CRT & LCD exactly the same.

However one display that definitely has a notable physiological difference are e-ink monitors, though they are far less prevalent (apart from Kindles and similar e-book readers).

[IanB]

Getting way off topic, but it was always suggested in the past that the electric field from the screen of CRT monitors was potentially bad for you. If you place your face too close to the screen, it could induce an opposite potential on your face, which in turn could attract dust and other contaminants into your eyes. If you wave your hand anywhere near such a screen, there is certainly a powerful static charge sitting there.

[Postal2]

... Before blaming your tools, perhaps actually get your eyes checked. ....

I use SONY CPD-E500 with manual RGB adjustment, green color is increased. Maybe you imagined some other monitor for your conclusions.