Slashdot Mirror
SMS 4x More Expensive Than Data From Hubble
paradoxSpirit writes "Physorg has a paper comparing the cost of text messaging versus the cost of getting data from Hubble Space Telescope. From the article: 'The maximum size for a text message is 160 characters, which takes 140 bytes because there are only 7 bits per character in the text messaging system, and we assume the average price for a text message is 5p. There are 1,048,576 bytes in a megabyte, so that's 1 million/140 = 7490 text messages to transmit one megabyte. At 5p each, that's £374.49 [$732.95] per MB — or about 4.4 times more expensive than the 'most pessimistic' estimate for Hubble Space Telescope transmission costs." "Hubble is by no means a cheap mission — but the mobile phone text costs were pretty astronomical!""
because the whole idea that cell towers and the like just sprouted like weeds is appealing but they are costly.
Actually the comparison is bogus because its apple's and oranges. They have nothing in common other than that word "transmit"
How much did it cost to deploy and manage a network capable of servicing text messages?
How much did it cost to deploy the Hubble, let alone a system to manage it?
Both relied on much existing infrastructure but I have to wonder, whats the preoccupation with texting? I know people who can't take a second breath in between having to text others. Are we that boring we need to bombard everyone around us to prove we are alive?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Is that the real cost of sending a text msg or just the average rate charged per msg? One has got to think its cheaper for phone companies to send a text msg then it is to make a phone call, but I don't know.
Everyone knows cellular companies markup text services so high it's ridiculous. I think it's in the range of 4000x higher than data transfer rates. You pay 0.10 for 140bytes for texts, or about 0.15 for 1024bytes in any data transfer service.
This just makes it a stellar ripoff. When will it ever change?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
Ink for your printer is more expensive than gasoline for your car. Where's the justice?
You're comparing cost versus retail price of two things massively different in scale in terms (cost per MB) that is completely meaningless in the world of SMS. Could you possibly have made a more pointless comparison?
/.
My computing time is 4x more valuable analyzing Seti@home data as opposed to loading this article up on
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
It doesn't matter, most textmessages are not 160 characters anyway.
New things are always on the horizon
Is this really a valid comparison? I mean, yes, Hubble is up in space and talks to earth, and that's complicated. But, Hubble is only one target, talking to relatively small handful of earth based stations. On the other hand, a cell phone network consists of traffic management for millions of subscribers, and with thousands of ground based stations that must be maintained.
This is my sig.
... and typing those Kanji in a mobile phone keyboard must be a royal PITA btw. :)
these stupid contracts such as "You pay as 15 pounds a month and we'll give you x many text messages free!" What a stupid offer..
..."
It's actually quite clever. By throwing in "freebies", they can take them away at any time. Just like they throw around temporary discounts "sign up for 12 months, and the first 6 months you only pay
The more a company does this, the less likely I am to do business with them. It demonstrates an inherent lack of commitment to the existing customers (who usually don't get the freebies).
5p is far too low. The average in the UK is probably double that.
Orbis terrarum est non altus satis
Not for the actual concession operators, but that $4 is going somewhere. Most likely to the owners of the baseball team, or the player's salaries, or to the owners of the stadium.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Lack of competition and cost awareness. Really.
For example, take the data rates while abroad. Do you really think the extra cost of transferring data across the world (you know, like you're doing right now) justified a price that's often tens of dollars per megabyte? Or that in-flight calls really cost that much? They charge what people will pay, simple as that.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
No they can't.
SMS is for most people instant messaging - just like E-mail has become. Yes this is not what was intended, but this is what consumers expect. If a telecom doesn't deliver SMS within a very small timeframe people will find a new carrier.
You're probably right that text messaging takes fewer resources but the little devil on my shoulder just hinted to me that that statement could have been motivated by their desire to increase their profit.
As far as I know the cost of SMS hasn't risen. It jus hasn't fallen.
When SMS started (early 90's - anyone?) the cost was, IIRC, 10p each. Now it's 5p. The starting price was a guess and seems to have more-or-less stuck. Obviously if people weren't willing to use the service the price would've been reduced. Since people are willing to pay 5p per message, there's no reason (how do you spell CARTEL, by the way?) for any of the carriers to reduce it.
What they have done instead is to bundle "free" texts in with your monthly contracts - which is nice for the pay-monthly grown-ups, who don't use them, but no use at all for the PAYG kiddies who are the main text users.
Now that's marketing!
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
You don't mean free minutes, you mean minutes that you pay for regardless of whether you use them or not. They're anything but free.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
"you aren't telling the whole story"
What an obviously insidious guy.
Maybe he didn't know about this little tidbit? BTW, FWIW personally I consider it more fair to be charged more if I call someone on a cell, after all, I can usually chose to use some other means of communication if I think it's too expensive. (Really though, unless you're a big talker the mobile doesn't get that expensive -- as long as you're not abroad topping off the bill with some roaming fees...) I'd be totally pissed off to have to pay everytime I get a message I didn't ask for, or everytime someone decided to call me. Why should I pay for something I had no part in initiating?
Where the hell did you get that idea from? I'm not aware of any carrier whose customers can't message people on another carrier. And what does GSM have to do with that? Different carriers being able to communicate with each other has nothing to do with the underlying cellular technology and everything to do with routing on the global POTS network.
You pay extra for calling abroad, even from America, so why is it not fair to pay the extra cash for routing the call through wireless equipment?Because you are effectively making your friends pay for your privilege of having a wireless phone. In the American model the wireless customer pays for that privilege and the people seeking to call him aren't penalized because of his choice of phone service.
Like I said, I don't pretend to know which one is more "fair" and I'm not really interested in a debate about it -- my original point was that pointing out that Europe gets free incoming calls is only half the story.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I really don't know about what is going on in the USA, regarding these "costs", but I used to work for LogicaCMG (who at one point was responsible for the production of 75% of all the SMS servers in the world). I have also maintained software for routing SMS throughout the world.
Let me tell you, the actual costs of sending SMS is peanuts. In 2001 it was approximately 0.1p per message. Its actually much cheaper now. This includes cost of electricity, processor power, and all other associated costs.
A poster below explains how SMS worked previously, that it effectively uses part of the "wasted" sideband in the GSM signalling. This sideband always exists, and if the payload was not used, it is effectively wasted.
Whilst it is true that although "free" there is a finite limit on the total number of sidebands available for SMS, again technology has come up with a different answer. Most modern GSM phones (Especially Sony Ericsson, and I am certain the others have menu options too) have the ability to send SMS via GPRS as opposed to GSM sideband. GPRS has a far higher bandwidth, and on 3G/HSPDA it can go up to 3.5Mbit per second. This "data rate" is already offered to most people at FAR less costs than SMS.
The point being is that SMS is extremely cheap for the operators. So why the insane costs? Lets take one2one-uk (now t-mobile-uk). When they started their SMS service in 1997/1998, they charged 4p per message, and made a tidy profit at the time. Very soon afterwards, they ramped their costs to 10p per message. They said they did this to match what vodafone, etc was doing. It appeared that their surveys shown that customers were willing to pay 10p per message!?!
This was around about the time the 3G auctions happend, and the operators in Europe blew huge amounts of money bidding for the frequencies, hoping the dot com boom will bring immense profits (ie they were greedy)
What actually happened was, that the dot com era flopped, and the services they were looking to profit from the 3G era simply vanished. Laden with debt, they have used SMS to provide their method of debt recovery.
Its just pure profit. It particularly shows when they also charge 10p per message when sent through their web interface. grrrrrrrrrr.
What's even more galling is that that T-Mobile charge 20p per message to send abroad, and when abroad they charge 40p per message (rip off).
Now when you consider T-Mobile charges 20p per message for MMS (which can contain MUCH more text, and Pictures, AND sound - and should cost more to send). and its 20p irregardless of whether you send from within the UK, or abroad, and to any number in the world. So it PROOVES that the operators CAN reduce costs.
Finally the same phones sending or receiving SMS and MMS, can also send Email at potentially more cost benefits, and you can see how crazy the whole situation is.
I can "partly" understand BT charging 10p per text message send via the "landline" here in the UK (yes we have SMS send and receive through landlines as well, with a suitable phone). But its a bit more involved through a landline, as it involves a "hidden" data call both ways to send/receive.
So there you go.
Have a nice day!