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."
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:
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.
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.
Most people who are serious about texting have unlimited plans, at least in the U.S. I'm not sure how much they cost but say $5/month on top of your regular contract, even 100 text messages is 5 cents a piece.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
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.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Maybe these prices will help drive the American consumer away from their opulent sport utility text messages to something a little more environmentally sustainable.
You'd think one of the wireless carriers would be able to differentiate themselves in the market and make a killing off selling 10 cent text messages. (That is, people would change to their service when possible because they're half the price of anyone else, and 10 cents for a text message is still a huge profit.) Do I just not understand the market dynamics, or could this be a case of price fixing?
In India the cost of texting is as little as 80paisa. i.e 0.80 INR. Now calculate the difference and make your new calculations on it.. Why do you guys spend so much then. Sue the companies that charge you so much for something which costs next to nothing.
517,602,528. There must be something infectious about Verizon and getting your decimal points in the wrong place.
and solve this issue. Caution: Unlimited texting may decrease your social skills and will cause everyone around you to want to smash your phone!
I just emailed Sprint asking for free text messaging and got it. I have done this for about 10 extra things on my account for free. I have 500 free text messages a month and never used half
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
Pretty much the same as gas...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
to download an mp3 ... if the RIAA smells you.
The so called free market isn't free.
If customers had any idea about the true cost of things to the companies that they purchase from, they wouldn't buy at the prices that things are being sold at.
Free markets require perfect knowledge. And without that, the invisible hand doesn't work.
Oh yeah, like in the US you have to pay to receive messages? Would you put up with having to pay to receive emails or take all phone calls? Fuck no.
Meh, this is a random ol' rant.
(Oh yeah, to the fuckers who say "communism", I'm an anarchist. Check my "homepage" for info about that. Oh yeah, and no I don't get anything for the referral link, and if it really bothers you, you can remove it.)
I wank in the shower.
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.
Furthermore, get off my lawn!
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.
Looks like we're not downloading MP3's from the same place... Even if my price goes up 2000%, I will still pay exactly $0.00 for my MP3's.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Price is the intersection of supply and demand curves. The US carriers charge what they do because people are willing to pay those prices. If you don't like the pricing, don't text. If enough people vote the same way with their fingers, prices will drop.
My father's 64, I'm 37, and he and I text each other several times per day. Just because you're an adult, doesn't mean you have to be a Luddite.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I have SMS disabled on my phone at the carrier level. The only SMSs I can receive are administrative which are free. No one can send me a mesg and I can't send out. I did that after my previous carrier (which got bought by AT&T) started charging for incoming messages. I asked why they did that and they said because everyone else was charging for incoming too. And of course then it went from 10 cents to 20. I don't need SMS so the charges don't hurt me because I don't have any.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
I wonder what the feasability is of getting two mobile phones, each with unlimited text accounts, hook one up to your home PC and the other to your laptop. Now for the tricky part; write custom software that would enable you to use the text messaging system as a communication system between the two computers.
So with such a setup you can do rudimentary webbrowsing (without images) / emailing etc., your laptop sends an url via the mobile to the mobile at your home, which the PC there picks up, retrieves the webpage & sends it back in txt message "packets" and your laptop retreives and combines back into a web page, with all the txt messages encrypted so the carriers can't directly snoop on your browsing/emails.
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
To put it bluntly, your mobile communications' market isn't free. The companies serving that market don't feel the need to compete with each other in any way perhaps besides area coverage. Their clients' business is always a given as they are unable take it elsewhere (no alternatives) and are happily shelving away more and more money to get the exact same service.
So, if they have a captive audience and there is no other actor in the stage, what else forces them to put on whatever show they wish?
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
Telcos can charge you 4-10-30-50 cents for a text message that costs them hundredths, thousandths of a cent to carry because they monopolize the network. If your phone could login to any radio network to which it can eletromagnetically connect, depending on which services and prices it provides, then the networks would compete for those connections.
Instead, you're locked in. If you want to switch in realtime, you have to pay prohibitive "roaming" fees that are arbitrary and extremely high - higher than even the ripoffs from the primary network. Switching your primary network requires "porting" your phone number, days or weeks of bureacratic "processing", and sometimes can't port, and breaks your old primary network's contract at great expense.
These constraints are all made-up for telcos to retain their old monopoly status with their existing customers. The exact same truths that forced open the wired networks are still true for the wireless networks, but the telcos have lobbied to make that much more expandable market into an "exception".
Note that this problem is more true in the US than in Europe and elsewhere. Foreign countries don't have as much contractual monopoly, but do have some residual technical fragmentation that is more of a basis for lockin, even though there's somewhat less lockin. But since their formerly more separate states (AKA "countries") had separate telcos that compete with each other, there's still some effort to keep whatever lockin they can, though there's less of it.
The US Congress should fix the laws to apply "universal access" to the radio networks as well as to the wired networks (including the Internet). Make these lockin contracts illegal, so they become the exception (merely to purchase rates even lower than the open market produces after competition, to pass along to consumers the savings telcos get from lower "churn" rates). We're a loooong way away from that kind of Congressional alliance with consumers instead of telcos. But we can get there, just as we got there with landlines after many years of fighting.
We just have to start by making the problem of telco monopoly privilege the conventional wisdom. 300M Americans whining about paying too much with no choice usually eventually has an effect.
--
make install -not war
Thank god no one texts me duplicate Slashdot stories!
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
Now kids remember "Deregulation will result in more competition and lower prices for the consumer"
I love it when an industry that is inherently non-competitive due to the fact that the spectrum is limited and the only way to make money in telecommunications is through economies of scale. The only guys who make money in telecom are the big guys and they make it buy making us pay and controlling parts of the spectrum. This is why it is licensed, the "tubes" are only so big and you can't add more.
It is just like the media ownership rules. Buy loosening the rules, consumers don't benefit but the bottom line gets bigger for the big guys. Government used to understand that because these companies are caretakers of our EM spectrum, they are allowed to make money and have monopolies (or close to it) but they must follow certain rules like justifying price increases with fact.
OK, rant over. Proceed with texting while driving.
---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Texting prices in .dk: ~5 cents and falling. Yay free market economy! The US should try it one day.
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"
Rubbish. That's only true if
(a) There are lots of suppliers (limit as number of suppliers goes to infinity)
(b) There are lots of buyers
(c) There's perfect information (about the value of goods, and about all options)
(d) All goods are equivalent
(e) The market is "free" of regulation (but there's a dodge here -- regulation constraining theft, murder, or the threat of one of those is allowed)
The mobile market fails on many of these. Certainly it fails on (a). (c) is also a failure -- all of the services advertise to distort their brand worth, use confusing contracts, and so on. (d) is of course not true, since each network has different coverage (and small networks that may be interested in cheap prices suffer here). (e) doesn't hold either, with the FCC et al. involved in the game.
But even supposing that the big BIG assumptions of the free market held, why do you think the "equilibrium" delivered by the intersection of supply and demand is stable? It seems obvious to me that it's an equilibrium because no player in the market is happy with the price, but the forces pulling the price each direction are perfectly balanced. That sounds like an unstable equilibrium to me.
Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
Price is the intersection of supply and demand curves.
Are you really so naive?
If text messages cost to the user a lot more than what they cost to carriers the normal laws of economics would make new carriers appear on the market that offer competitive prices and drive the cost down to the _real_ service cost. Why doesn't it happen? Well first entering the wireless carrier business require a huge initial investment and second: *monopoly*. The current american carriers are a cartel that agrees to keep the sms prices over a certain price so that the business is profitable for all the players.
quoting from a comment:
So you wonder, why do I pay so much for a SMS or a MMS or even a Call: after the debts for the initial hardware infrastructure have been paid by the carrier you are still paying because of market segmentation (You wonâ(TM)t change the carrier on the fly) and a little monopoly (Almost impossible to start a new carrier from 0).
A very similar thing is happening in Italy where a new carrier (Wind, but later Blu did the same thing) entered the field offering free sms, then started to charge for them after it established a position in the market.
Yeah, if you could fit a telegraph in your pocket and use it inconspicuously when you're in a social situation in which it would be either rude or inconvenient to take/make a phone call.
This article isn't about Europe and the rest of the world. But thanks for proving the point of the article and my post.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
My 8-year-old daughter's free* phone on a new phone number came with over 1000 spammy and raunchy text messages. They wanted to charge us over $100 for the messages. I called Sprint the instant I opened the box.
At first, she tried to say that we were on the hook for it but then I explained that we had just received the phone and I had just opened the box (direct from Sprint). I told her that we didn't want text messages (especially if some randomly-dialing computer can cause you to be charged hundreds of dollars before you even notice). Recently after we changed plans, I noticed that I got a text message again. I called them up and told them that text messages were supposed to be off on all our phones. They took it off again and I haven't had one since.
It's really not too much of a problem on Sprint. Just tell them you don't want them and they disable it.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
In the calling-party-pays system, the person paying for calling the cell phone is NOT a customer of the cell phone company. Therefore the cell companies have NO incentive to provide competative rates for incoming calls. If you have to call someone, you aren't going to not call just because they are using company-x.
In the mobile-party-pays system, the person paying is the cell phone owner, who IS a customer of the cell phone company and can shop around or choose a different plan to get better rates. The cell phone companies have a huge incentive to offer competative minute plans since people tend to shop around when buying a phone. Also, because there is no difference in calling a cell phone, this system allows people to abandon their landline phone and use a cell phone only -- no need for two separate bills.
In the US most people have a plan that provides more than enough "free" minutes so that they never get a per minute charge. What is the charge to call a cell phone in a calling-party-pays country? The equivalent of $0.15/minute? On my mobile-party-pays plan I have NEVER come close to going over my allocated minutes, so the marginal cost per minute is $0.00/minute.
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.
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!
.
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.
Text messaging costs as much as it does purely to rip people off.
[snip]
The size limit is pathetic too
[snip]
then again I'm quite a verbose person.
I didn't notice ;)
AT&T Family unlimited texting plan ($30 covering five phones) ... Let's just call it 26,000 messages per month. 3000 / 26000 = $0.115 per message.
Layne
You're a couple decimal places off... you mean .115 cents per message, or $0.00115
This is why I don't understand complaints about text message prices. If actually use text messaging a decent amount, then yes, it is ridiculous to pay per message.
If you want cheaper text messages, then buy a plan that includes them (Verizon has a 250 message option for $5 = $0.02/message). If you want to send a single text message here or there, then you're going to pay a premium for using services that aren't part of your plan. I don't see how this could be considered unfair.
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.
Let's consider these same calculations on the $30 unlimited ATT plan. A single MP3 download would cost... $30. Let's just say if I'm planning on downloading MP3s using text messages I'm going to get an unlimited plan and save myself $23,970.
the vendor changes according to how *useful* the service is
Or, more accurately they charge what they can get away with to maximize profits before people start shifting to less suitable substitutes. In this case things like voice mail(or even old style answering machines), actual email, or just don't text.
Texting just shows that the cell phone service market is not very competitive.
Or, at least at the moment, that people don't choose their service providers on the basis of per-text charges. As others have noted, those that text a lot generally go for unlimited plans.
I had a choice of a whole two of the cell companies given my location(verizon and alltel), and I'm old-gen, I don't text or surf. I bought a phone on the basis of reception, battery life, and bluetooth. The bluetooth headset helps reception because there's only a few good reception spots in my house/area. Being able to stash the phone in one helps. I have the second cheapest national plan they offer(I do travel semi-frequently). I don't even remember what the fees for data or text messages are - because I don't do that. Though I am considering getting a data plan now - my cell can act as a modem using bluetooth with my new computer. Then again, I have high speed internet at home through DSL that'd kick the data rate I could push through my one to two bar signal zone, have high speed internet at work, and most hotels/motels today offer free internet. The biggest area for me to use my computer would be in the airports - and I'm not in them enough. Still cheaper than the $10-20 my local hub wants for the hour or two layover I generally have, but I just do without at the moment. I looked at it mostly in the 'wouldn't this be neat' fashion.
Back on text messaging - you could say the same thing for long distance rates, pay phones, per minute charge rates for going over your monthly minutes.
In fact, it seems that phone companies like doing the same thing as banks - offer plans/accounts with decent terms and rates - yet charge fees/penalties like crazy for any deviations.
I don't read AC A human right
AT&T Family unlimited texting plan ($30 covering five phones) ... Let's just call it 26,000 messages per month. 3000 / 26000 = $0.115 per message.
So, how is work at Verizon these days?