Slashdot Mirror
What Carriers Don't Want You To Know About Texting
An anonymous reader writes "Randall Stross has just published a sobering article in The New York Times about how the four major US wireless carriers don't want anyone to know the actual cost structure of text message services to avoid public outrage over the doubling of a-la-carte per-message fees over the last three years. The truth is that text messages are 'stowaways' inside the control channel — bandwidth that is there whether it is used for texting or not — and 160 bytes per message is a tiny amount of data to store-and-forward over tower-to-tower landlines. In essence it costs carriers practically nothing to transmit even trillions of text messages. When text usage goes up, the carriers don't even have to install new infrastructure as long as it is proportional to voice usage. This makes me dream of the day when there is real competition in the wireless industry, not this gang-of-four oligopoly."
The truth is that text messages are 'stowaways' inside the control channel â" bandwidth that is there whether it is used for texting or not â" and 160 bytes per message is a tiny amount of data to store-and-forward over tower-to-tower landlines.
From what I understand, the problem with SMS's sent on the GSM standard is that it is in the control channel - as the anonymous submitter stated. But there's only one control channel for each cell versus many data (voice, etc) channels, and it has a lot less bandwidth than even one data channel. It was only ever meant to handle connecting calls, phones moving from one cell to another, etc. Administrative stuff. SMS was never meant as a proper way to move lots of messages. But it's now a major form of communication and it's using a channel (the control channel) that is very limited.
When "text usage goes up", I'm guessing the only thing the carriers can do is to install more cells in order to get more control channels. But surely there's a limit to how many cells can co-exist in a given area. But everyone's moving to various "3G" networks and AFAIK they have proper means to send messages, photos, videos, etc. The anonymous submitter is still an idiot though.
In Japan there's this magic concept. The $30 plan actually costs $30! Go figure! A brand new cell phone is also free with no contact. And you can watch TV for free on your cellphone. But, don't let the Americans know or they'll want decent service too! ...oops!
Only outside the US as far as I know. Everywhere else uses sugar, not that that makes any difference since I don't drink fizzy pop.
Jonathanjk.com
You were once those feckless youth, and I'm sure believed what you had to say was of utmost importance. We have been conned into thinking that text messages actually cost the network operators anything, but while this is to do with the critical faculties of the general public it isn't about those teenagers utilising our new social conference ground. They are wiser than you assume.
I'm still looking forward to the day when I'm only charged for what I send, not what I receive. I have two phones on my account, one for me and one for my fiancee, and before I added a texting package any time one of us texted the other my account was charged twice. Once for the sent message, again when it was received. I honestly believe the cell companies do this to force you into a texting package.
I still think it's pretty funny that Americans have to pay to send and receive texts.
I'm not sure of many, if any, other countries where this happens.
Just recently I had to battle with an AT&T rep to get 18 text messages on my phone and 18 on my wifes phone credited back. They came from an unknown source and they all had two letters in them that was pointless. After talking to the rep for 10 mins or so he finally consented and gave us credit for them. I forgot to mention that I don't have a texting plan so each message received, that I didn't want or ask for, was going to cost me .35 each!
In this case I believe "byte" is revalued at 7-bits. It's still 160 bytes, just now it's 1120 bits instead of 1280 bits.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
Better off financially? Almost certainly, particularly as text conversations are frequently longer than one message each way. But I don't think that's the point. Calls require an instant response and a lot of attention an you can't really multicast voice as effectively. Setting up even a 3-way call takes longer than writing a short text ("Pub tonight?") and sending it to half a dozen friends. Texts, like emails, can be responded to at your leisure. I prefer to receive texts than voice calls for that reason. A-la-carte texts can be absurdly expensive, but packages (available with many hundreds of texts per month if you're a heavy user) will hardly break the bank.
The bandwidth comment in TFS is curious - the bandwidth for voice is also there whether you use it or not as well. Mobile voice and landline networks work that way too - mostly fixed infrastructure costs for the operators, but a pay-per-use model for the consumer. It's nothing new. Increasingly commonly, broadband works like that as well.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
I disagree. To get the equivalent of a text message in a short call, I would have to say "My plane landed safely in Phoenix, I love you, bye," and then hang up before they have a chance to respond. I use phone calls for conversations, even short ones. However, if I can fit the entire conversation into 160 characters, I use a text message instead.
I, like almost everyone else on Slashdot, think that text message rates are exorbitant, but I have no room to talk since I signed up for a plan. Yes, I'm a "feckless youth" like conureman says, but I pay out of my own pocket for my plan. I justify it to myself by saying that I'm paying for convenience, and I am.
as long as it is proportional to voice usage
That's the reason for the pricing model. SMS has to be priced high enough to make sure its use doesn't grow faster than voice.
The telcos want to balance the profit they make from the use of both channels, voice and signaling, while being backward compatible and not having the expense of updating the protocol to use the data channel(s).
I use text a lot for work. I live in Germany, but deal with people from all over Europe for work. Often, I may need to give or receive an address, and since I don't speak every European language, addresses are a complete pain if spoken to me on the phone or left in a voicemail. With text, I (or others) can just show the address to a taxi driver and there's no confusion. (example: The address of the Holiday Inn in Brno, Czech Republic is "Krízkovského 20" (carons over the r and z - can't show them on Slashdot) - if someone told me that by voice, I'd be lost - put it in a text, and it's dead easy)
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
"Texting is the closest thing to pure profit ever invented" - Sir Chris Gent, founder of Vodafone.
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
While there may be some price plans that allow for free incoming calls or free incoming text messages, the majority of US price plans charge airtime for incoming calls and charge the same for incoming text messages as outgoing - currently 20 cents per message.
WTF? Does that mean the US telcos are double dipping?!
In Australia, depending on the plan, text messages generally cost around 10 to 20 cents to send. The receiver never pays to receive an ordinary call or sms. (There are exeptions for premium rate services though).
By reading this signature, you hereby agree with the content of the above comment.
no, voice and landlines are different. this is basically like if you were shipping a package to someone and you "piggybacked" a message onto the delivery by writing a note on the actual box. the surface area of the box is going to be there whether you write that extra message on it or not, and it doesn't cost FedEx or USPS anything extra to deliver a box with writing on it. as long as you're paying for the box/shipping, you really shouldn't have to pay for the text you write on the package.
the article is talking about actual bandwidth usage, not the bandwidth potential of the existing infrastructure. yes, the infrastructure is going to be there whether you use it or not, but it's there because of all the voice traffic we send/receive. consumers are charged minutely or per-message rates because, presumably, these activities increase network usage. but sending SMS doesn't increase network usage as it's recycled bandwidth.
but even if SMS activity used more network resources, it should not cost anywhere near what we're being charged for them today. it's only because the telecoms have a monopoly/oligopoly that they're able to charge these outrageous rates. frankly, it would be more efficient if simply build a national open wireless infrastructure. text messages could be sent/received for free using open standards like e-mail or XMPP. voice calls could be made independent of carriers/telecoms using VoIP. this would also foster innovation and technological progress as people would be free to develop new applications/technologies using the wireless network.
That's what pisses me off. Both Sprint and AT&T have both told me that there is nothing I can do about unsolicited text messages (except to add texting specifically), that I will be charged for them. Sprint, at least, has a bit buried on their website which most of the reps don't know about where you can block specific numbers - but last I checked it was limited to 50 numbers - no way to block all text messages. Alternatively, like you, we can call every month and argue with the clowns.
There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.