Slashdot Mirror


OMG Did U C What U R Paying 4 Texting?

theodp writes "If you thought gas prices were rising too quickly, writes CNET's Marguerite Reardon, check out what's been happening to text messaging. Since 2005, rates to send and receive text messages on all four major carrier networks have doubled from 10 cents to 20 cents per message. If the same pricing was applied on a per-byte basis to a single MP3 song download, it would set you back almost $24,000 according to one estimate. So why are carriers gouging their customers so? Because they can, concludes Reardon."

16 of 721 comments (clear)

  1. Some data 4 U by suso · · Score: 4, Informative

    I was recently reading about the whole George Vaccaro fiasco and did some calculations on how much the cost of transfer is over a T1 line vs. what companies like Verizon charge for data transfer. Its astonishing that people put up with this:

    • Cost of a T1 line: $600 (Verizon's cost would be less and they probably have higher capacity lines in many places.)
    • Monthly bandwidth capacity of a T1: 40,687,488,000 Kilobytes (86,400 sec. * 30.41 avg days * 197 KB/sec)
    • Cost per KB over a T1 line: 60,000 cents / 40,687,488,000 KB = 0.0001159190 cents per KB = $0.000001159190 (for all those Verizon reps out there)
    • Verizon's charge per KB to the customer: $0.02
    • Verizon's markup on data transfer: x 17,253!!!!!
    • Screwing generation Y & Z: Priceless

    Why do people put up with this? Some people might say I'm comparing apples to oranges, but Apples dont' cost 17,000 times more than oranges. There should be a class action suit over this.

    1. Re:Some data 4 U by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Informative


      Okay, now remember that you need a cell tower in every area you want coverage. Now remember that you need to wire up all of those cell towers. Comparing the cost of a single T1 to that is insane.

      Not really - most of the towers are not owned by the cell company but by one of a couple of twoer companies who lease antenna space; so you'd need to add in lease costs.

      I'd argue they are fixed costs rather than variable so they should not be considered when calculating the cost of sending the n+1 txt msg; and while the bandwidth cost is probably more of a fixed cost as well I'd say that since it limits carrying capacity more than the antenna (as far as I know)it's not a bad estimation of the marginal cost associated with a txt msg or other data transfer.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:Some data 4 U by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      No they will not. AT&T will NOT disable incoming texts.

      you can easily bankrupt an ass-hat by having thousands of SMS messages sent via the net to them. AT&T will NOT block the incoming they claim they dont have the ability.

      and yes this has been tested, I saw it happen to a business colleague. He kind of deserved it and the only solution was to have AT&T add a unlimited messaging plan to his phone for $29.95 a month. Otherwise he was having an extra $280.00 a month on his phone for the incoming spam and prank messages that was being sent by several hundred computers from all over the planet.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Some data 4 U by norminator · · Score: 3, Informative

      And to add to the USPS comparison:
      Have you ever sent a text message, then found out that it didn't get to the recipient until the next day? For crying out loud, if you're going to charge an arm and a leg for me to send a message, and again for someone else to receive it, all in the name of "convenience", then just make sure it gets there within a minute or two!

    4. Re:Some data 4 U by Tyberius · · Score: 5, Informative

      The original mail system did charge the receiver of the letter, but no one would pony up to receive it. They then decided to charge the sender to send, so they would get their money up front.

    5. Re:Some data 4 U by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      No they will not. AT&T will NOT disable incoming texts.

      Yes they will. They've done it for me and apparently for some other posters. It seems not to be a default configuration and you may have to shuffle through some folks until someone has a clue, but it can be done.

      Keep trying.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Some data 4 U by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 4, Informative

      What was the justification for such a system? Surely it must be an entirely unintended side effect of some other short-sighted but at least sane idea?

      In the US, there is are no dedicated prefixes for mobiles. A 415 number could be a landline in San Francisco, or it could be a mobile over there, or even a mobile from that area currently in Zimbabwe. The sending party can't possibly know this and might expect (when also in SF) to pay as little as zero, when also in SF and placing a free local call. Therefore, the receiving party pays, having full knowledge about the phone type (landline/cellular) and its location.

      In Europe this is quite different: mobiles have dedicated prefixes. The sending party now knows to be calling a mobile and to get charged differently. Only when the receiving party is roaming (e.g. in Zimbabwe) it pays for receiving a call - the sending party pays up to the border.

      These differences between Europe and the US have always existed for voice calls and simply continued to be when it comes to SMS.

      With most European providers you don't even pay for receiving text messages even when roaming, precisely because there is no way to reject them.

      (I know this why? Well, I have a landline number here in Holland, a mobile number here in Holland and one for the UK, as well as VOIP-redirected landline leases in San Francisco and London. And I've previously had mobile numbers in the US, Uganda and South Africa.)

  2. Whoops, sorry by suso · · Score: 4, Informative

    The 40,687,488,000 should actually be 517,602.528.0 I made a mistake the first time I did this and corrected the prices, but didn't correct the rest of the comment. The rest of it is right.

  3. Something should be done by neokushan · · Score: 3, Informative

    In the UK, the Telecom Regulator OFCOM recently (as in a few days ago) started pushing our mobile operators to reduce the cost of sending and receiving text messages while abroad, where the price was often around 30p (60c!) or more just to send one.
    I hope this sets a precedent and they start to clamp down on the cost of sending regular, local messages as well.

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
  4. Re:Is this really an issue? by Nukenbar · · Score: 3, Informative

    actually, with the new plan from AT&T with the 3G IPhone, the price for unlimited texting is $20/month. See here.

  5. Just to compare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    In Norway, NOK0.59 is a pretty average price to pay, which corresponds to about $0.012 using todays rates. Furthermore, many companies give you 100+ free messages per month. With my own usage pattern, I keep my cellphone for free (No monthly charge, 120 mins of calling and 90 sms for free per month). Stiff competition does wonders :) If companies in Norway can do this, I'm sure it would be possible in the states too, as long as the consumers keep up the pressure.

  6. Re:Texting vs. Hubble by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Informative

    A professor at my university was recently asked by a British TV program to calculate the cost of retrieving data from the HST, and it came out quite a lot cheaper than sending text messages.

    From the physorg article:

    Dr Bannister estimated the cost of the data from Hubble could vary between £8.85 and £85 per MB- much cheaper than the £374.49 per MB cost of transmitting one MB of text.

  7. Try this on... by Larsrc · · Score: 5, Informative

    Texting prices in .dk: ~5 cents and falling. Yay free market economy! The US should try it one day.

  8. Not when you have oligopolies by hellfire · · Score: 5, Informative

    You started the economics discussion, so here comes ECON 102.

    There are only a small number of wireless carriers. Therefore an oligopoly exists. The demand curve for oligopolies is "kinked." This means above a certain point customers will rapidly stop buying, but below this point buyers will not start purchasing in drastically greater numbers. This means that the oligopoly will set a price point right at the kink in the graph.

    What does this mean?

    1) A section of the populace feels txts are necessary, and demand is inelastic. This is the lower half of the demand curve. This means a change in price does affect demand significantly.
    2) An increase in population of that subset of people changes the demand curve, and moves the kink in the graph higher on the price axis. A price increase ensues. The oligopolies charge exactly the price they can get away with because market dominance allows them all to effectively charge the same prices easily. One carrier changes, the rest change to follow.
    3) To stop this pattern, you don't have users reduce demand, you have to break the oligopoly, because lack of competition means that prices don't follow standard supply and demand.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  9. It's really a good thing! by ciscoguy01 · · Score: 5, Informative
    These type of mid-contract price increases are good for consumers, if they know and take action.
    Cellular carriers give out free or subsidized phones as a method of keeping their customers signed up for long contracts. They keep a stranglehold on the equipment to further that.
    However, by law when a carrier makes a material change mid-contract their customers, *all* their customers get a get out of contract free 30 day window. It's a great deal and you should exercise your rights when a carrier changes *anything* whether the change affects you or not.

    http://wirelesscontractsinfo.blogspot.com/2008/02/cancel-your-wireless-contract-without.html
    From Sprint Nextel contract:
    We will provide you notice of material changes, and may provide you notice of non-material changes, in a manner consistent with this Agreement (see "Providing Notice To Each Other Under The Agreement" section). If a change we make to the Agreement is material and has a material adverse effect on Services under your Term Commitment, you may terminate each line of Service materially affected without incurring an Early Termination Fee only if you: (a) call us within 30 days after the effective date of the change; and (b) specifically advise us that you wish to cancel Services because of a material change to the Agreement that we have made. If you do not cancel Service within 30 days of the change, an Early Termination Fee will apply if you terminate Services before the end of any applicable Term Commitment.

    So now that you know you are gaining important new rights that you didn't have before they raised the text message rates you can take advantage of that. You don't have to stop using the service, you can probably just cancel the agreement, though they may deny that. If they do just hang up and call back, it costs cellular carriers over $400 to acquire a customer, they don't want to lose you even month to month though they may deny that. So you're now month to month and can threaten to leave unless they give you another free phone. Heh.
    FWIW I have done this. There was much gnashing of teeth at the cell carrier. Uh-oh. A customer who has actually read the contract!

    --
    .
  10. Re:There's a good reason we pay for incoming calls by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wrong!

    I live in Ukraine where ALL incoming calls are free by law. So cell companies HAVE to compete on outgoing call rates. And the do compete - I see a lot of advertisements like: "0.1 cent for all calls!".

    Also, the stupid '300 minute a month' plans are also US specific. Most plans here are of debit 'pay-as-you-go' type. For example, I pay about $20 a _year_ because I just don't talk much other the phone.