Texting Teens Generating OMG Phone Bills

theodp writes "Last month, Washington high school junior Sofia Rubenstein used 6,807 text messages, which, at a rate of 15 cents apiece for most of them, pushed her family's Verizon Wireless bill over $1,100. She and other teens are finding themselves in hot water after their families get blindsided with huge phone bills thanks to hefty a la carte text messaging charges." Use of SMS in the US doubled from 2005 to 2006.

Comments

Two words:

[mrjb]

Prepaid phone.

Re:Two words:

[TheRealFixer]

I've got 3 words:

No More Phone.

Re:Two words:

[__aaclcg7560]

You can do that. Then your kid will yell child abuse to the local Children Protective Services and have you arrested. A talk show host was talking last night about how today's politically correct society won't allow parents to discipline their own children. A spanking is physical abuse. Going to bed without dinner is starvation. Kicking the kid out of the car to have him walk home is abandonment. Won't be long before denying the kid the right to text message is considered a form of abuse.

Re:Two words:

[OrangeTide]

When your child catches on that nothing they do has consequences, then it's that much harder to raise a well behaved child.

Re:Two words:

[mobby_6kl]

> But what if you're a good parent and your child is just plain evil?

I heard somewhere that Dr. Evil is looking for children to adopt, he's apparently not quite satisfied with "one calorie" Scott.

Re:Two words:

[Jeppe Salvesen]

Yes, there is an answer: Ritalin.

But seriously, most of the time bad behavior is the result of misunderstood parenting.

Some people give the kid no boundaries and not enough guidance, which is a disaster.
Some people give their kids too many boundaries and too much guidance, which also is a disaster.

(And quite a few parents get it right)

The kid in scenario 1 will feel like their parents don't love it and don't care for its wellbeing.
The kid in scenario 2 will either rebel, or become a follower unable to make its own decisions.

Balanced does it. The real world is an ambiguous place, and your job is to prepare your kid for the real world.

Re:Two words:

[BakaHoushi]

When I was still a little kid, my brother went through what we call his "rage" period. He'd get so insanely jealous and angry over the smallest things, he'd get into a fury and break things, smash down my door, and even though I was a year older, he could easily beat me to a pulp. I was so afraid he was going to kill me.

Years later it turns out he has a number of mental conditions and it's taken years of therapy, but now he's a semi-normal boy. ...Okay, so I still say he's an idiot with problems out the wazoo, but that's a sibling thing. But what could my parents have done? They took him to therapy, they took him to the hospital, they punished him by taking away possessions, what else could they do? Hitting him would certainly result in reports of abuse. It really can be that some kids are just fucked up in the head.

What I'm about to say goes against just about everything modern society says to us, but I believe it's the truth:
PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT. WHAT WORKS FOR ONE WILL NOT WORK FOR ANOTHER.
When I was a child, I was rather... obedient. If my mother said "do this" or "don't do this," I did or didn't do it, respectively (I'm sure if she said "kill a man," I might have had some objections, but thankfully, such requests were rare). I didn't really need much discipline. And when I did, taking away my games or a time out always seemed to make me feel guilty, and I apologized, etc. All in all, physical violence was not needed.

My brother, though, as I've explained, was an altogether different story. Can it be that even though we are siblings, we are quite different, and thus require different methods to develop properly? *LE GASP!*

I theorize (though I am not a psychiatrist) that some kids can learn discipline through a time out. Some may require a little yelling or a slap on the wrist. Some kids might need a good boot or a belt to their backsides. And some kids... well, some kids are just rotten, and no sweet talking or belt slapping is going to change that.

Is this view that bizarre? Whatever happened to "Some people are just naturally selfish jerks?"

Re:Two words:

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Bollocks. I'm sorry, but you really are just talking politically correct crap.

For a start, there's no such thing as a perfect parent or a perfectly behaved child, no matter how good your intentions. If you really have children and you really believe they're little angels, have you ever had an honest discussion with their school teachers to make sure they're not just hiding their poor behaviour from you and indulging in it elsewhere? A lot of parents don't, and have absolutely no idea what they're missing. (And yes, I have worked in a school, and seen this phenomenon a surprising number of times.)

More philosophically, which is really more cruel to a child, a quick smack when they do something wrong so they understand that their behaviour isn't acceptable, or the emotional trauma of, say, being denied part of their weekly spending money allowance, which will punish them for several days?

Pain is nature's teacher, and using pain to discipline children is entirely natural. Arguments like yours, which equalise all forms of physical discipline, are painting a coloured world in black and white. In fact, I no longer support certain child protection charities precisely because they can't tell the difference between a parent with a temper who regularly beats their child (a genuine and serious problem) and a loving parent who uses occasional physical chastisement to teach their child what is and isn't acceptable behaviour.

Re:Two words:

[Anonymous Coward]

I work with youth. Ritalin is a bad start for the answer. Less then 3% of the "ADD" youth I worked with need Ritalin. However, the rest of your post is right on. Children need boundaries. They need consequences for breaking the boundaries. They need to test hte boundaries and see the consequences of breaking the rules. And please, remember that guidance is guidance, not direction. Directions are great for setting the table (yes, our 2 year old sets the table) and other things that should be done the same way each time, but we don't have a whole lot of rules. We do have a bit of guidance, but not too much for her to remember, and we make sure she learns it before applying boundaries. Children are people, and they learn. "Don't stand on the chair" is a rule that will be broken. "If you fall of the chair, you're going to hurt" is something they can do once and decided to get with the program and not stand on the chair.

You're about the only person here who's not a real retard.

Re:Two words:

[ArmedGeek]

I don't know where you are, but in Texas ..

§ 9.61. PARENT-CHILD. (a) The use of force, but not
deadly force, against a child younger than 18 years is justified:
(1) if the actor is the child's parent or stepparent or
is acting in loco parentis to the child; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is necessary to discipline the child or to
safeguard or promote his welfare.
(b) For purposes of this section, "in loco parentis"
includes grandparent and guardian, any person acting by, through,
or under the direction of a court with jurisdiction over the child,
and anyone who has express or implied consent of the parent or
parents.

A $1,100 phone bill? TSNF!

[Anonymous Coward]

Solution: forbid her from texting her bff Jill.

Unlimited SMS..

[tgatliff]

You know Verizon does have unlimited SMS plans for only $15 per month... Just a thought for someone paying a $1100 phone bill... :-)

Re:Unlimited SMS..

[loraksus]

Because they all suck equally and there really isn't an alternative.
And the assholes who run the companies use that to their advantage.

Re:227 texts a day?!

[carabela]

So hitting F5 on Slashdot regularly is better?

Re:15 cents each?!

[ottothecow]

they used to be something like 5 to send free to recieve. Then it was 5 to send 5 to recieve, then it was 10 to send 5 to recieve.

Now it is 15c each way. I dont see how they can justify charging that much for a tiny exchange of data. It has risen WAY faster than the rate of inflation on a technology that should become cheaper (look at how minutes have come down) and it is ridiculous. My guess is that the only reason it works for the phone companies to do this is that the first people to start using them heavily are the kids with their parents buying them mobile phones. They dont have to pay per message so they dont think about the ridiculous costs (look at how much data is in a text message and how much a provider charges for data usage and it becomes clear how much of a rip off it is).

It's about time texting caught on in the US

[Ogemaniac]

In many situations, it is both superior to and FAR more polite than yapping. I had my first cell phone when I lived in Japan, and I sent and received about twenty messages a day. Talking on cell phones was banned in many locations including public transportation, and severly frowned upon in most other public locations. It was like heaven.

Then I returned to the US: People yap while driving. Yap on the bus. Yap while in line. Yap yap yap, oblivious to the people around them or how annoying (and dangerous) they are being.

I blame this largely on the cell phone providers. It is obvious that a text message is far cheaper for them than a phone call, as the amount of information to be sent is tiny. Yet here in the states, text is expensive, typically the price of a minute of talk or so. In Japan, a text was 2-3 cents, while a minute of talk nearly ten times that. Text was automatically part of any plan that I saw. Such pricing is sensible, given the large amount of data that needs to be transferred for live calls, and the fact that it has to be immediate.

American wireless companies should drop the price of text down to a fair price (pennies) in order to encourage its use. Not only is this the fair market price, but it would help the adoption of a great complementary technology to direct voice communication.

Re:Why text when you can talk?

[winmine]

Perhaps you should take advantage of the new and popular acronyms to save time and make texting easier. Here are some relevant to your interests:

GOML (get off my lawn)
IGAB (I got a bingo!)
DFOL (dentures fell out laughing)

Re:Not just kids ... talk to my wife

[Anonymous Coward]

that $200 bill almost spelled divorce.

That's a solid relationship you have there.

Three letters: WTF ??!?

[mcrbids]

But seriously, why is a phone call cheaper than an SMS message? It's all a digital network, so in cost per bit, SMS messages are something like 66 times more expensive than a phone call.

Let's compare: Digital cell phones use about 14.4 Kbps of bandwidth. (which explains their clarity) Figure about 30 seconds of talking to get the equivalent of a text message, with the "Hello, is SO AND SO there? Yeah. Yeah. It's Billie. 'O, o joy ur so kul'. -CHUCKLE- Ok, see you later. By by. ".

That works out to a total of 54,000 bytes, or 108,000 Bytes/minute. I get about 1,000 minutes at $70/month, a la Verizon. Each minute therefore costs $0.07. So the cost per 30 seconds of conversation is something like 3.5 cents, for 56,000 bytes.

An SMS message is, at its longest, 160 Bytes long. Include headers, let's be generous and say it's double that. (it's not) 320 bytes in an SMS message. Here, we're asking for 15 cents for just 360 bytes?!?!?

Voice
54,000/3.5 cents = .00006 cents per byte ($0.000006 / byte)

SMS
360 bytes/15 cents = .04 cents per byte. ($0.0004 / byte)

If you were buying soda, it'd be like buying a 12 oz can of soda for about $20 while a 2 liter bottle costs $1.

Does that seem like good math to you? BTW: I bought into "unlimited text messaging" back when Verizon offered it, and have refused to upgrade plans until I get it. I've got a network monitor, and when something goes wrong I can get tons of messages all at once if I'm not careful.

Re:Three letters: WTF ??!?

[rylin]

Each minute therefore costs $0.07.

Is that .07 dollars or .07 cents?

Re:Three letters: WTF ??!?

[tenton]

Is that .07 dollars or .07 cents?

Verizon: Yes.

Re:Why text when you can talk?

[Bogtha]

Why text when you can talk?

It's an asynchronous conversation. If I want to know if you are coming to the pub later, I don't need to know right now, I don't need to interrupt what you are doing, and I don't particularly want to chat, because that's what we'll be doing at the pub. If I see a programme on television about fat chicks, I might text my mate — who is a bit of a chubby chaser — to take the piss, but I don't necessarily want a response or to talk to him. And from a purely lazy perspective, sending a few words via text message just seems like less hassle than a conversation. I'll typically talk to between six and ten people when deciding what to do at the weekend, it takes much less attention and time to do it with SMS than with voice.

Slashdot translation: voice == TCP, SMS == UDP. Voice and TCP require a set-up, whether that's a three-way handshake or a "Hi how are you doing?". SMS and UDP just communicate the relevant information and let you deal with it in your own time.