Wow. I just learned that there are worse places in regards to telco rip offs then Germany. OK; I had expected that, but having both parties paying for the same phone call is some kind of twisted evil genius's plan - isn't it?
Why? We're just used to it being the other way around, where the initiator always pays. However, in an alternate universe, that could just as well be the norm.
Well for one: If I am the initiator (caller) paying is totally fine, because it is me having a stated wish to reach another person and take some of their time for whatever I wana talk about.
So being the recipient, the initiator intrudes on my time. If I accept this I have (at least in old times, before caller ID) no chance of knowing, if this intrusion has a valid (and for me valuable) reason.
Even today, I have no chance of knowing beforehand, if the caller really is adding value to my day. Therefore if my time used in the call generates added value by whatever the caller tells me (or how I feel after talking to him/her).
So if this intrusion by a caller would additionally be fee-ridden, the risk of taking a call grows exponentially.
Therefore I would let go all calls to mailbox and have the person exactly state what they intend to talk about. Even family (I hate social chit-chat calls).
So probably I would not need the phone at all except for mail-checking and in case of an emergency, as after some tries no one would want to call me. The incentive to not take a phone (at least in my case) would lead to that.
