Slashdot Mirror


Facebook May Bust Up the SMS Profit Cartel

AndyAndyAndyAndy writes "Fortune had an interesting article recently about wireless providers and their exorbitant profit margins for SMS handling, especially when looking at modern data plans. 'Under the cell phone industry's peculiar pricing system, downloading data to your smartphone is amazingly cheap — unless the data in question happens to be a text message. In that case the price of a download jumps roughly 50,000-fold, from just a few pennies per megabyte of data to a whopping $1000 or so per megabyte.' A young little application called Beluga caught the attention of Facebook, which purchased the company a Thursday. The app aims to bring messaging under the umbrella of data plans, and features group messaging, picture and video messaging, and integration with other apps. The author argues that, if successful, Beluga (or whatever Facebook ends up calling it) could potentially be the Skype/Vonage or Netflix-type competitor to the old-school cellular carriers and their steep pricing plans."

262 comments

  1. Google Voice and TextFree by Mean+Variance · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've found the available workarounds are sufficient to the point that I could give a crap about texting fees. I use GoogleVoice and TextFree and they work great. My wife uses Virgin Mobile for $25/mo (that's it no extra taxes or garbage) and can text to her delight.

    1. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      I've toyed with using virgin's 25$ a month but I don't trust the wording on the contract. Just how "unlimited" are things like web browsing and the like. Now that they have non contract Android phones for under 150$, it almost sounds too good to be true, which means to me that it probably is.

    2. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by oracleguy01 · · Score: 1

      The "unlimited" data plan is limited to 5GB a month. After you go past 5GB your throttled way down, AFAIK.

    3. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My sister uses the $25 VM plan, and it really is unlimited, tho after 5gb / month they heavily throttle it. Even so this is still much better than the 2gb hard cap AT&T gives people.

    4. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2.5 GB/month, after that, they throttle you hardcore. Just remember, you're also limited to the Sprint-only CDMA network, no roaming, so your coverage is going to blow chunks outside major metropolitan regions and highways with greater coverage on the East coast. Also, since you're on a secondary carrier, Sprint will drop frames on you like mad if they've oversold bandwidth in your area (the odds are NOT in your favor). On the other hand, you can get the Optimus V for $130 right now, jailbreak it and set up a WiFi hotspot at $25/month (until Virgin notices your usage stats and drop you like a stone for suspected tethering).

      US cell phone voice, data, and SMS plans are among the worst and most backward in the world. Most of the people I know that visit here from Europe and elsewhere find it laughable.

    5. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      The terms of service for those plans don't seem to make sense from a technical perspective:

      Beyond Talk Plans: $25.00 per month for unlimited domestic text messages, picture messages, instant messages ("IM") and email messages, unlimited video, unlimited access to Downloads (VirginXL) and the mobile Internet (but not unlimited downloaded content), and 300 anytime minutes.

      I know it's legalese, but I've always been told that the point of such arcane terminology is to accurately and unambiguously cover all eventualities (usually in the context of none of those eventualities being the company's fault, but I digress). How can one reconcile " unlimited access to ... the mobile Internet" with "but not unlimited downloaded content" - is the mobile internet somehow defined differently to the regular internet? Obviously if something ends up getting from a server to your phone it's been downloaded, but under their odd definition does something count if it's only stored in RAM? What if it's cached on the persistent memory but automatically deleted? What if it's not automatically deleted?

    6. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by markass530 · · Score: 1

      thats only for their Data only usb sticks & wifi

    7. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife also has the VM $25 plan, with the Intercept (Android slider). It has been fine, she can stream Pandora in the car etc. Not sure that she really uses all that much data overall, though.

    8. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never mind throtteling sms's. 110 baud would do just fine.

    9. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by david@ecsd.com · · Score: 2

      If you're chewing up 5 gigabytes on a cell phone, you need to find a better tool for the job.

    10. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL, but I read that as unlimited access to all the content (i.e. does not restrict what you can get by type) or where you can get it from (by location)
      but doe *not* give an unlimited *amount* - so if there were 1 million things you could get on the internet, they wil let you get any of them but not all of them.

      BTW - i just switched to this plan with the new LG Optimus android whichis easy to enable the wif- hotspot in android 2.2. I let you know if I get cut off
      or throtteled at some point.

    11. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I agree that text messaging is priced ridiculously, but if people are using it that much, they should probably be communicating by a more efficient method. I probably send and receive about four text messages a month. If that. Why do I need text messaging when I already have email, IM, and . . . uh . . . A TELEPHONE. But yeah, Google Voice does SMS, so you don't really need anything else. At least, as long as their service remains free (for the rest of this year, I guess).

    12. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      I couldN'T care less about your opinion.

    13. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      and that's why I'm concerned. I don't plan on being a data hog by any means, but if they limit me to 40 meg a month or some other foolishness then why bother. Their terms of service are as clear as mud.

    14. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      Maybe so, maybe not, but in either case they don't have the right to sell it as 'unlimited' if there is, in fact, a limit.

    15. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      Are you a heavy SMS/MMS user? I average about 3,500 a month. I use Google Voice as well though it lacks MMS, something I really need. It's my understanding that TextFree gives you a phone number to use for texts. Are you basically juggling a minimum of three telephone numbers just for texts? I mostly give out my GV number now, but often I'm asked whether I got an MMS, and of course I did not, so I'm back to handing out my main phone number too.

    16. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've looked into VM's plans and the deal breaker is the lack of roaming. It's locked onto the Sprint network and can't roam to other networks at all.

    17. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well what they mean is this:
      We have a 5GB limit, but many people don't know what that means, so we'll put it this way:
      You can probably look at as many web pages as you want (being that they are mainly text, with some JPEGs in there, you probably won't go over 5GB in a month).
      As for "downloads" like MP3 files, etc. it's not "unlimited" because you'll likely run over our limits in a short period of time if you play with that stuff every day.
      Also, we don't want you to use your cell phone as the connection for your office's intranet, your corporate mail gateway, etc.

    18. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the keyword in that legalese is "content". It's most likely their way of saying that some content has additional fees (like apps/ringtones/etc).

    19. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but not unlimited downloaded content" sounds like a way of saying that you have to pay extra for ringtones and the like. The lack of legal specificity when any computer is involved is annoying and should be stopped though.

    20. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by Mean+Variance · · Score: 1

      GV is my phone number for everything. It points to my T-Mobile prepaid (using Comet Android), my iPod Touch TextFree, and my office phone.

      If I get a text it goes to the T-Mobile (okay, that actually does cost me 5 cents), TextFree, the GV account, and email. I then carry on the conversation from whatever device or app I happen to be near. I use the free apps if I'm in a wifi zone or at home where I work. I may carry the conversation on T-Mobile and pay the fees, but that might amount to $2.00 a month at the most.

      For me a text conversation is useful for about 4-6 texts, then I go to phone call at that point. It's what works for me.

    21. Re:Google Voice and TextFree by mjwx · · Score: 1

      If you're chewing up 5 gigabytes on a cell phone

      He could have a Windows Phone 7. BTW, 5 GB isn't hard to do if you leave a download going overnight (if you've got an Iphone and cant do this, now would be a good time to stick your fingers in your ears and go LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU). For general web browsing I use about 300 MB a month, if I tether to my PC for 2 weeks because my DSL was down that's another 500 MB without downloading anything, if I used it as my primary internet connection, I'd be going over 5 GB every month.

      But my phone has a 1 GB cap, I've never gone over that because it's not my primary internet connection.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  2. Google Voice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Congrats, I've been getting/sending free text messages for two years?
    -Google Voice User

  3. Another retread by Imagix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can already do this. It's called Google Talk (or pick almost any other IM system). Why is "Beluga" any more special than any other IM system?

    1. Re:Another retread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      With Beluga, the recipient doesn't have to have *anything* more than SMS capability. They will be charged SMS fees until they get it, but they're still capable of participating in group chat sessions without other individuals in the Beluga Pod.

      I don't believe Google Talk or any other IM system can do that. I could be wrong...

    2. Re:Another retread by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      So it's Google Voice, but without the other features.

    3. Re:Another retread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From a technological standpoint, it's not special. From a market standpoint, Facebook could change everything because of the huge number of people who could finally adopt this technology. It could finally force carriers to change. Or not. Depends on whether Facebook makes a deal with carriers and how resistent people are to make the small behavioral change required to SMS in a new way.

    4. Re:Another retread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Standard SMS users can join Google Voice group chats? I don't have it and I can't verify, but definitely curious.

    5. Re:Another retread by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Standard SMS users can reply to Google voice messages, but I have never used any group chat function of GV.

    6. Re:Another retread by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Yes, Google Voice gives you its own phone number to use and anyone can use that number to send you standard SMS messages.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    7. Re:Another retread by locallyunscene · · Score: 1

      That it has the backing of Facebook.

    8. Re:Another retread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is "Beluga" any more special than any other IM system?

      Because it's FACEBOOK! And FACEBOOK! is what's happening!

      Right now, if FACEBOOK! came out with an app for making maps, there would be stories about how FACEBOOK! has invented internet mapping. Don't underestimate the power of HYPE!

      -ilPapa, modding

    9. Re:Another retread by icebike · · Score: 1

      Group chat has been added to Google Talk (android client) for some time now.
      (As well as the gmail interface to Gtalk, and the Windows version of GTalk).

      And because its just Jabber (XMPP) Google Talk is inter-operable with almost any other Jabber based messaging service.

      But you kind of miss the point of the whole story here, and that is to avoid SMS due to ridiculous pricing. So having something that ONLY requires the recipient to have SMS is EXACTLY what this thread is all about avoiding.

      Paying a carrier for a text message VS selling my soul to Facebook is a choice I can avoid making with Google Talk, for the price of a gmail address.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    10. Re:Another retread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Facebook"

    11. Re:Another retread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that AIM has allowed you to do this for years.

    12. Re:Another retread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you need to leave your phone connected to 3G all day ? Chew up battery just to receive some free text messages ? This is hardly a solution.

  4. I'm getting old by guruevi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I remember when SMS was free and was hidden in the advanced menu of a 3-line text display of a phone.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:I'm getting old by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Indeed, it's a great scam they have going. A bunch of idiots paying exorbitant prices for something which costs the carrier basically nothing to provide.

    2. Re:I'm getting old by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "basically" nothing?

      Every time your phone pings a cell phone tower, it transmits a packet of data to and from the tower. This packet of data has some spare space at the end. This bit of room is where the put the text message data.

      Your phone is using the text message's bandwidth whether or not you're sending or receiving a text message.

      Quite the racket they've got going, making you pay to make use of bandwidth that you're already consuming regardless of the use of text messages.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    3. Re:I'm getting old by arivanov · · Score: 1

      SMS in its classic form is justified to be expensive. It does not travel as mere data. It on the network as Intelligent Network messages which are transactional and reliably transmitted on a per-hop basis taking in each case signalling processing resource. Once it gets through the core network to the radio it once again travels on the signalling channels where the capacity is extremely limited and is at premium. It is once again reliably transmitted and the acknowledge once again goes back with hop-per-hip reliable transmit to the SMSC. If the sender has enabled message receipts, that repeats twice just for good measure. In all cases it uses signalling capacity and signalling processing which costs an arm, a leg and a prosthetic because it is originally designed to deal with voice call setup, billing, mobility, authentication - all things that need to work 100% of the time.

      If you want to design the most expensive technical way to transmit a message in a mobile network that is SMS. It was designed as a "cool, see what we can do with it" and nobody had a clue how popular it will become. If the people who designed it had an idea of how popular it will be they would have never designed it that way.

      Now at some point someone devised as nice scam by making it possible for handsets to use GPRS to transmit/receive SMS messages straight from the SMSC. That is a scam because it costs under 1% of what SMS costs to transmit while it is being billed the same. However, I have so far seen only one operator to enable this feature. Most just stick with good old signalling capacity for this because it gives them a technical justification to charge the premium for it. You see - it actually costs us to transmit it that much.

      It is the same story as with not using divert to temporary ISDN numbers in international roaming which has been in the GSM standard for 15 years now. If it is used a call between two roaming handsets in the same country will not need to be routed back to the home country. So there will be no justification to charge an exorbitant roaming premium from dolts arranging where to get and get hammered while gunning down the piste at 40mph. However, because it is not enabled by any operator, they can happily charge crazy roaming fees for such calls and these charges make up a very tidy sum for operators in tourist countries like Austria, Spain or Greece.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    4. Re:I'm getting old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the routing and carrier handoffs on the backend are free, right?

    5. Re:I'm getting old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bunch of idiots paying exorbitant prices for something which costs the carrier basically nothing to provide.

      This is the business model of Corporate America circa 2011.

    6. Re:I'm getting old by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      Well they need some relatively expensive hardware or software, but once amortized across their whole customer base over the multiple years it's functional, it is essentially free. Because it was a non-zero cost to provide it initially, it isn't actually free... but it might as well be.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    7. Re:I'm getting old by thynk · · Score: 1

      So they found a way to make money on what would normally be overhead, I don't see a problem with that. For me, it's worth the $10 I spend on each of my lines for the family to have the option to txt the kids, or them to txt me. Even tho I account for maybe 1% of the messages each month, I don't have a problem paying for the service. I got caught paying per message fees once with my teen aged daughter, worked out a deal with the carrier to back date the unlimited plan. They were quite reasonable about it.

      It seems everyone gets really upset when a company finds a way to make a profit. Companies that don't make money go out of business.

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    8. Re:I'm getting old by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      When I make a phone call, there are further routing and carrier handoffs. Those aren't free, and yet I'm not charged per phone call, but per minute.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    9. Re:I'm getting old by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      The lack of competition allows an oligopoly to manipulate the market and artificially inflate the cost of a service by four orders of magnitude. But you're a good little customer, paying whatever your corporate masters think you should pay for a service, instead of what the market actually prices the service at. You even go so far as to be thankful that they retroactively applied some lube to the ass-raping they gave you with per-message fees. Then you justify this abuse with the straw man that "everyone needs to make a profit", even though my argument was never that companies should not make a profit on anything.

      It makes me wonder what you think about banning drug reimportation. I would bet that you side with the ban, believing that Big Pharma has a right to their profit, even though consumers ought to have the right to get their drugs from wherever they want. So much for a free market.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    10. Re:I'm getting old by Jason+Pollock · · Score: 2

      Actually, you are charged for the entire call, that's why most calls have a "X for the first minute, Y for each additional minute, with a minimum of 60s, and billed in 6s increments".

      The charge for call setup and teardown is included in the first minute charge.

    11. Re:I'm getting old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dont forget about message storage. typically 3 days around here. So if the phone you are sending the message to is unavailable, they will hold the message and send it on at the first opportunity. I'm not saying this costs how much they are charging, but its not free.

    12. Re:I'm getting old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SMS takes up sod all data bandwidth. My friend used to work at BT and their entire SMS messaging system in 2004 ran off of ONE sun server. They are positively coining it.

    13. Re:I'm getting old by jrumney · · Score: 1

      An old phone of mine had a setting for the SMS bearer. I tried changing it to GPRS in the hope that SMS messages would then be charged as data, but the charges still kept coming at the same rate. I think most operators have this enabled on their networks, but they do not have the phones configured that way by default.

    14. Re:I'm getting old by jquirke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is simply a myth. The sending of text messages consumes network resources that cost money. How much they cost is a different question - and I am not disagreeing with you that the markup may be exhorbitant, but I do have to correct your claim.

      In GSM, sending a text message still predominantly operates over an SDCCH (standalone dedicated control channel), which requires a full paging (for network originated) or random access cycle, encryption setup messages, authentication messages. The whole process can take around 5 seconds (don't believe me? put your phone on top of an old radio so you can hear the radio transmission activity..)

      Where your claim is correct is during a call - the SMS uses the SACCH (slow associated CCH) which places minimal additional load on the network, but the majority of SMSes occur when the phone is not in a call.

      Some GSM networks allow the text message to be send as a packet of data over GPRS/EDGE which greatly reduces radio-link (Um link) signalling burden.

    15. Re:I'm getting old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think "basically nothing" is the operative phrase. More like "very little".

      Keep in mind that text messaging requires infrastructure and costs over and above the voice and data networks. This includes:

      inter-carrior relationships for resolving text messages
      48 hour queue to hold text messages that could not be sent
      911 SMS support or whatever they call it in your area. Some carriers allow 911 calls and texts from phones with or without an account with that provider
      A few days storage so the police can request text messages sent to and received by a phone
      24/7 support

      So while it is very cheap to provide text messaging, the setup and support isn't free and just doesn't work "Out of the box"

    16. Re:I'm getting old by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      I don't think my technical manager at Motorola told me a myth, and he told us exactly what GP said.

    17. Re:I'm getting old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite the racket they've got going, making you pay to make use of bandwidth that you're already consuming regardless of the use of text messages.

      How is that a racket? The fact that the necessary "raw materials", as it were, are already being used does not mean you shouldn't pay. Quite the opposite: this is a prime example of the market working out the price. (If you don't believe me and think that there's just a few phone companies that form an oligopoly and perhaps a cartel as well, think of it this way: literally almost nobody actually *needs* text messaging.)

      But let me give you an example, right? Suppose there's a baker, and he's got an oven, and he's baking things there every morning. So you approach him and say, dear baker, I've got something here I'd like to put in your oven as well. It's not gonna interfere with his business, so he says, sure, put it in. Now you continue doing this. And then more people do it. And eventually, everyone and their dog does it, every day. Would it be wrong for the baker to start charging people? Why?

      Granted, you may say that the extra item in the oven consumes a miniscule amount of heat. But that's really fluff, and even if the baker has to pay an extra 0.0001 cents as a result, does that make a difference when he's charging you 5 or 10 cents for the priviledge of access to his oven?

      I think it's fair for the baker to charge, and I think it's fair for the phone companies to charge. Are they raking in money for doing essentially nothing? Of course, but that just means people are willing to pay. Personally, I'm not, so I don't message people, just like I never did in the 90s or the 80s or the 70s.

    18. Re:I'm getting old by tsj5j · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying in car analogy terms:
      Roads will exist, and roads will need maintenance whether they are used or not. So we shouldn't charge road users for it right, because 'the maintenance needed to be done anyways'.

      Yes, the bandwidth is 'free' and SMS bandwidth will be used either ways.
      Just as someone needs to pay to build the roads in the first place (and more roads as the car usage goes up), someone needs to pay to build cell phone towers (and more towers as more phones are needed).

      Now of course there are several ways to go about this:
      1.) Everyone Tax: If cell phone service is deemed critical enough, the government taxes everyone to pay for the expansion of services.
      2.) Per-Cellphone Tax: Just like the road tax, the government controls the expansion of the system through a monthly fee from all cell phone users. Of course, that means infrequent users will be charged the same high monthly fee to get SMSing.
      3.) Free Market: Providers distribute the costs through various more 'tangible' services in order to allow greater accessibility to infrequent users whilst making the frequent users bear the brunt of the costs.

      Since Americans scream "COMMUNIST!" at the first two options, naturally the third has taken root.

      The -REAL- problem, however, is that alot of the money is not used for expansion but instead wasted by top management in terms of salary, lawyering, entertainment, etc.
      You need to break up your monopolies, America, or let the government intervene.

    19. Re:I'm getting old by trickyD1ck · · Score: 1

      The technical details you provide are completely irrelevant to the question what price of an SMS reflects the cost of providing this service. I bet, the calculation is extremely complicated considering the number of different types of costs involved. This should give you a basic idea of how costs can be calculated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenzplankostenrechnung#GPK_marginal_costing_diagram

    20. Re:I'm getting old by Bengie · · Score: 1

      My wife's phone does not have a "data" plan, but she does have a text plan. Last night, she sent a text message to my gmail account and it took ~1.5-2 seconds from the time she pressed send to when my computer dinged that I received a new email. (No pics or video in the text message though)

      I can't see how it could take 5 seconds to setup a connection without having signal issues.

      Heck, it only costs me $20 total for unlimited text/pic/vid messaging on up-to 6 lines. In network, out of network, it doesn't matter.

      If I wanted only a single line, I could pay $70/month for 200minutes of anytime, but 5GB data and unlimited texting (nation wide). That also includes free incoming minutes 24/7 (nation wide), and free minutes after 7pm(nation wide) and free minutes on the weekend from 7pm friday to 7am monday (nation wide), and free in-network calls (nation wide). My coverage map is extremely good and has much much better rural coverage than AT&T/Verizon/Sprint.

      If you want to talk about costs, most companies charge more for texting than it costs to rent time from the Hubble telescope. I'm not sure how you can defend these practices.

    21. Re:I'm getting old by Jason+Pollock · · Score: 1

      Actually, SMSCs are typically priced per SMS.

  5. Google already did it by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 1

    I mean, isn't this exactly why Google Voice exists?

    --
    Furries make the internet go.
    1. Re:Google already did it by icebike · · Score: 1

      NO, its exactly why Google TALK exists.

      GV has other reasons for being. Google could flip a switch and turn every android phone into a Voip phone overnight. Then all you would need is a data plan and no minutes. The carriers would scream, but even they will come around after LTE is widely deployed.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  6. Anything to stop the carriers.. by iONiUM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, I can't believe I'm going to say this considering I am definitely not a fan of Facebook, but if this is what it would take to make them drop the completely outrageous SMS price tag, then I'd support it.. And, that's knowing full-well that Facebook is just doing this to increase platform adoption, since if you want to 'text', you'd have to be on FB..

    That said, I doubt I'd use it, just because I don't have a Facebook account. But I'm hoping it would lower the SMS fees for myself. Competition is good, right?

    1. Re:Anything to stop the carriers.. by pandrijeczko · · Score: 2

      There's one problem with you plan - babies.

      Yes, go on Facebook and everyone from here to Timbuktu who has had a baby is taking photographs of their baby and putting it up on Facebook.

      Oh, and talking about their babies.

      Lots.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    2. Re:Anything to stop the carriers.. by nine-times · · Score: 2

      And, that's knowing full-well that Facebook is just doing this to increase platform adoption, since if you want to 'text', you'd have to be on FB..

      This is sort of my concern. Carriers are charging ridiculous prices, which should be a lesson of what happens when you give a company too much control. So is the solution to hand the control over to Facebook?

      Why not come up with a standard/open messaging protocols? I really don't understand why we need to go with Facebook or Twitter to deal with status messages and short-form messaging. It's like being in the dark ages of the Internet, when you had AOL and Prodigy and CompuServe, but their respective users couldn't interact with each other.

      Ultimately, all these social media companies are guarding their own little fiefdoms, and no one has the influence to push a standard, so I guess we're just never going to get a well-designed system.

    3. Re:Anything to stop the carriers.. by icebike · · Score: 1

      Hard way to get lower rates if you ask me.

      Just use Google talk for free world wide and to hell with facebook.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:Anything to stop the carriers.. by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      It's like being in the dark ages of the Internet, when you had AOL and Prodigy and CompuServe, but their respective users couldn't interact with each other.

      "The Internet" existed before any of those services. Just because those services couldn't _gateway_ to the Internet, doesn't prove anything.

      Great, "come up with a standard/open messaging protocols". The problem is getting everyone to use them.

    5. Re:Anything to stop the carriers.. by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      You are correct and I think it's great: Getting to share pictures of babies (and geeky/hobby projects) with friends in far flung places. Though obviously if your "Facebook Friends" and "Real Life Friends" aren't the same set of people - as mine are - then your experience may vary.

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    6. Re:Anything to stop the carriers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF does this has to do with messaging? Having a Facebook account does not compel you to look at baby pics, nor is looking at baby pics a compelling reason to sign up to Facebook. The only link between what you're talking about and what the parent is talking about is Facebook.

  7. What about kik? by FesterDaFelcher · · Score: 1

    Kik messenger is doing this right now, and surprisingly well. With the exception of being kik'ed (hah) off of Blackberry, although I could see BB doing the same thing to any other startup doing the same thing, Facebook backed or not...

    --
    My user number is prime. Is yours?
  8. Don't have facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, do I need to use facebook?

  9. I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think most of us have known for years that the amount we get charged for cell phone SMS and data plans is really out of whack.

    How is something with a limit of 140 chars or so worth the 10 or 15 cents they charge you for it?

    They've been advertising broadband and cell for the last decade as "look at all the shiny things you can do", but the price never goes down, and they keep lowering the cap on what you can use.

    They've bet the farm selling telecom services, but they can't actually afford for you to use them the way they advertise them. Or, at least, we can't afford to use them the way they're advertised.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by jackbird · · Score: 1

      10 or 15? Sprint charges a quarter to send and receive, even within your family plan, so if my wife texts me, and i reply, it costs a buck.

    2. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      10 or 15? Sprint charges a quarter to send and receive, even within your family plan, so if my wife texts me, and i reply, it costs a buck.

      Really? That is expensive, but I don't keep close tabs on the price to be honest.

      I don't text, but my wife does a little ... we've looked at it, and for our phone carrier we just worked out that unless she's going to routinely text more than x messages, the cheapest texting plan isn't worth it since she'd pay less every month on average since she doesn't text that much. So, she pays for the 5-10 text messages she gets/send each month.

      I basically view it as a scam that they overcharge for. I refuse to believe the incremental cost of an SMS is actually anything more than, well, zero actually.

      Unfortunately, the carriers continue to charge stupid money for something that should have gotten cheaper over the years.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      Do they seriously charge you to receive an SMS? that's completely stupid, as your phone automatically receives it whether or not you want it to. Do they also charge you for calls that make your phone ring, but that you don't pick up? What of somebody on an unlimited texting plan sent you 1000 messages in a month? Would you automatically get billed $250 just because somebody decided to send you a bunch of messages, even though you didn't want to receive them?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never understood why everyone gets so offended at SMS rates. Why don't you complain about the markup on bottled water, too. What something is worth is whatever people will pay. You cannot begrudge a company a profit. It's why they exist.

    5. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, you would get billed for those 1000 received messages. You'd have to call customer support, explain what happened, ask them to block all incoming texts to your device, and then- maybe- you might be able to negotiate a refund.
      But they're not crooks, it's all perfectly legal... as long as you do it on a large enough scale.

    6. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I've never understood why everyone gets so offended at SMS rates.

      Try committing to a premium unlimited data plan then having one of your dipshit friends send you a bunch of SMS's as if he's using an instant messenger. I'd like to see you say "you cannot begrudge a company..." after that.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    7. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by praxis · · Score: 2

      Now you are starting to understand why people aren't overly fond of the telecommunications companies Stateside.

    8. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 2

      I've never understood why everyone gets so offended at SMS rates. Why don't you complain about the markup on bottled water, too. What something is worth is whatever people will pay. You cannot begrudge a company a profit. It's why they exist.

      When I ran a cafe, we purchased bottled water for $0.28 and sold it for $1.50. So roughly a markup of 5x-6x more than we paid for it.

      Let me know when the carriers start charging 5x-6x what an SMS costs them, and I'll happily stop posting about SMS rates.

    9. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by praxis · · Score: 1

      I could care less what they charge to send a text message, for then I can decide whether or not the information I want to convey is worth the cost and the medium is the best one.

      What I do care about is having to pay for text messages I receive. That leaves me open to large bills due out-side of my control or living with the feature at all. I haven't checked recently, but when I asked them if there was some method for me to whitelist numbers from which I wish to receive texts and block (without charge) the rest they told me no. Perhaps that's changed.

      Why can't they just charge double for sending and make receiving free? That seems far more sane.

    10. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Most of them charge not to receive the text message, but to view it instead.

    11. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by bertok · · Score: 1

      Would you automatically get billed $250 just because somebody decided to send you a bunch of messages, even though you didn't want to receive them?

      In a word? Yes.

      In every country I've been in, telco and ISP companies are the only entities allowed to charge unlimited amounts of money for a service that you aren't even aware you are using. Here in Australia, there's been lots of horror stories of kids watching youtube videos, and then the next monthly bill on the "$25/mo" plan is $40,000! I've had this kind of thing happen to a friend, she had a bill arrive for 1 month that was bigger than her life savings.

      There was a point here in Australia where Telstra had a cable plan where you could exceed your monthly quota in about 40 minutes, and subsequent to that, every hour would cost you about $5000. That's more than the most expensive prostitute, or the most expensive lawyer you can hire as an individual. In other words, they've found a way to make the Internet not the best source for porn, and cheaper to sue them than pay the bill!

      What do politicians do about this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They're not even aware that there's a problem with companies being allowed to hold their customer to ransom, bankrupt them, and ruin their credit rating. Yet, we keep voting them into power, and they keep getting fat checks from corporations.

      Move along citizen, move along...

    12. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Unlikely, considering that SMS traffic is just filling empty packets so it literally costs the providers nothing on top of their existing infrastructure.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    13. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by markass530 · · Score: 1

      what kind of insane plan are you on?? I'm on the basic individual one for 50 bucks a month, and it's unlimited data (text is part of data)

    14. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by xwizbt · · Score: 1

      Did you not feel even slightly guilty?

    15. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that every business have its fees and services reviewed by a government regulator? Said regulator would then need to have the power to accept or reject specific services and/or fees, right?

      Every business? Or just the ones that the public uses? (The difference being, well, zero.)

    16. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by justin12345 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, though US telcos have been rubbing our faces in shit for so long that SMS charges doesn't seems so bad, somehow. Back in college I got a bill from Verizon for $2000 for just voice (it was a land line, not a mobile, no long distance). I called them about it and it turned out it was a billing mistake and they promised to correct it and send a new bill. They did not, the next bill was for almost $6000. Six months later they finally got the balance straitened out, but insisted I pay over $400 in late fees because I didn't pony up the $6000 (I didn't owe them) in time. I suppose I should have sued them, but its hard to sue Verizon when you're a college kid struggling to pay rent.

      Fuck Verizon, I don't care if their network is better. They will never see another dime out of me.

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    17. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by Jstlook · · Score: 1

      I think the parent is suggesting that businesses should ensure three things for all their customers:

      1. Their pricing model is fair, and publicly available to everybody.
      2. It should be clear when their goods/services are being "consumed".
      3. There should be a simple, and straightforward method to prevent selected goods/services from being "consumed".

      When a business has a good/service that is used by 99% of the population, perhaps the government ought to step in and verify those three things meet the intent of their wording, and if not then certainly, accept or reject fees and services that are not clear.

      --
      ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
    18. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by glittalogik · · Score: 1

      As a teenager I cost my father a few $300+ dialup bills before I convinced him that switching to a $25 unlimited plan was a far superior choice to just yelling at me.

      While I agree that corporate malpractice - price-gouging, fraudulent representation etc. - is both rampant and inexcusable, I've been jaded by working in helpdesk and customer support roles. I was constantly astounded by people who treated the (temporary, fixable) malfunction of their broadband/TV/MP3 player/DVR/shaver as an egregious betrayal and insult, and incontrovertible evidence of deliberate and personally directed malice. Consequently I have limited sympathy for people who fall into the sorts of traps that could be avoided by 5 minutes of glancing over the features and pricing information of a phone plan before they signed up, or at least googling for a review by someone who already had.

      I think there needs to be a new formal logical fallacy (logicians, feel free to correct me if there's an obvious existing one that covers this) - the Appeal to Complexity (or perhaps Clarke's Third Fallacy): where an argument assumes that any system (especially technological or contractual) whose complexity exceeds the arguer's understanding has implicit benevolent, magical or infallible properties.

    19. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do.
      If your provider is nice, they show you the first few characters and let you decide to delete it without reading it, =nothing billed.
      Quite a frustrating experience, these telecom fees, if you are coming from Europe...

    20. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by adolf · · Score: 1

      Why should someone feel guilty about profit?

      Do you feel guilty when you cash your paycheck?

    21. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at least in australia we don't have to pay to receive a bloody sms though

    22. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by Eivind · · Score: 1

      There's actually some merit to that - the terms you are asked to read and agree to in order to use the appstore and buy a random $1 app for your ipad is, in the current iteration, 31 pages of legalese.

      "Could be avoided by glancing over" does not, infact, come close.

      To accurately read the terms, you'd require a minimum of an hour, and to actually feel fairly sure that you understand what they say, you'd need to be legally trained and spend a week studying the terms.

      This is not reasonable, for what is literally a $1 purchase.

      As a general principle I support peoples right to enter into any contract (any that's without illegal conditions anyway), but in this specific case I also support legislation such as the one we have in Norway that stipulates certain *minimum* requirements for a consumer-sale. The practical consequence is that you *can* ignore the 31 pages of legalese (everyone everywhere generally do anyway!), and be certain that you still have atleast those rights that the law stipulates as *minimum*.

    23. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      I ran it, I didn't own it. So no, I didn't feel very guilty about making $10 an hour busting my ass all day.

      That was pretty much the highest margin item we had. The coffee was actually really expensive, and had to be tossed constantly for freshness. I'd wager we lost money on it. The frilly latte type espresso drinks were only sold at double or triple their true cost.

      None of this overcame the cost of rent, electricity, plumbers, repairmen, and near minimum wage staff.

    24. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every country you have been? I wonder how many that is.

      In Singapore getting SMS is free. We only get charged to send them (after we exceed the 100 or 500 or whatever free sms in the plan first). It's the same with all the 3 telcos here.

      Oh yeah, people calling us on our mobile is also free for us. I can get my GF to call my mobile from her land line and speak for hours. It will cost her a few cents only.

    25. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by glittalogik · · Score: 1

      I agree that 31 pages for a 99c app is retarded, or at the very least suspicious. An executive summary of sorts that plain-Englishes the key points that you actually need to know really wouldn't be too much too ask in that case.

      My experience with mobile phone T&Cs on the other hand has generally been pretty straightforward - for example, here shows "included data" telling you exactly how much Youtubing you can get away with, and the "additional data charges" under "more details" shows what'll happen after that. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect customers to understand at least that much.

    26. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes - retarded. When I moved to Canada I first thought the salesperson was joking when he said "oh and with this plan, you can receive unlimited text messages". "Well, duh...?". Turned out, not so much, duh.

      Off topic rant: For me even worse is still the fact that you can indeed get charged when someone makes your phone ring and you don't pick up! If they leave you a voicemail that is... You pay for those minutes. And you pay for listening to it later. On top of the monthly fee they charge for the voicemail service in the first place. For the (very low) usage I have, I am actually better off keeping my Dutch mobile plan here in Canada and paying international rates for the occasional SMS or call. Even pay as you go is not a good option, as your balance will expire after a month (or two months, the best I've seen so far) unless you top it up. To me that makes it indistinguishable from a normal monthly plan, but maybe I'm just dense.

    27. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by jackbird · · Score: 1

      The $70/month for two lines family plan. Yes, the Individual $50/month has unlimited texting. (For $10/month over the one where you get charged for SMS)

    28. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm shocked.

      Disregarding whether it actually costs the carriers to provide SMS service, here in the UK most calling plans include a bundled text message allowance along with the calls allowance. Off-plan SMS charges are a rip-off, but most people on a contract never actually pay the charge, because they never exceed their monthly allowance.

      It's staggering that these companies charge $60 a month with no text allowance or data.

      I'm paying £20 x 24 months for 200 minutes and unlimited texts, and half of that cost is subsidizing the phone. For £25 a month I get data too.
      The only way a plan would cost me more than about $50 a month would be if I had an iPhone 4.

    29. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by Eivind · · Score: 1

      The 31 page agreement is to use the app-store at *ALL*, not specific to this particular app -- indeed you'd have to agree to the same agreement in order to install a *free* app on your own apple-product.

      It's not an outlier. Instead it's common and indeed the norm for things like software, insurance, banking and suchlike to routinely ask users to "agree" to dozens and dozens of terms written in legalese over many many pages.

      It's *not* reasonable to expect the average consumer to read and understand it all, indeed it's frequently not possible to be sure what exactly it means even for someone *with* a law-degree and 2 days time to study the agreement in detail.

      Even your example link ? "Terms and Conditions" brings up a 580 word summary with a link to "Full Terms and Conditions", this alone is a huge warning-sign: It says: we don't actually expect even those who click "Terms and Conditions" to want to wrestle with the *actual* terms, so we summarised for you.

      The *actual* terms and conditions are at http://vodafone.com.au/personal/plans/termsandconditions/index.htm and weigh in at 4055 words and more than 25KB of text. (that's not counting the html-markup - just the plain text) The text has a readability-score that indicates even most college-graduates would be unable to comprehend it in detail. (fog-index of 14 where 7-8 is the level of average people and 10-12 the level of average college-graduates)

      Since average reading-speed is about 200wpm (and goes down with more complex text) we're talking a text that would take more than half an hour just to read - nevermind understand.

      Is that reasonable for a bog-standard contract for a mobile-phone-subscription ? It's not as far-out as the Appstore, but it's still fairly bad.

    30. Re:I hope this actually puts some pressure .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When and how can we get "calling party pays" and "texting party pays" in the USA? We need it.

      Text messages are 30 cents on my plan (each way, sent or received).

  10. Re:except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or send an email...

  11. facebook very untrustworthy by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the way facebook sells and shares private data is too scary, wouldn't want them to have personal contacts or phone browser information

    1. Re:facebook very untrustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the way facebook sells and shares private data is too scary, wouldn't want them to have personal contacts or phone browser information

      Dude, Facebook is built to know your personal contacts. That's the whole point. And they get phone info easily enough from people signing up for Facebook mobile and the Facebook app. They get their info cuz we give it to them.

    2. Re:facebook very untrustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just your personal contacts and browser information, they would be able to read every text message you send and receive. Imagine all that personal information to be mined from daily conversations, jackpot!

    3. Re:facebook very untrustworthy by straponego · · Score: 1

      Yes. If Facebook doesn't show your conversations to the world by default, and certainly to advertisers for a price, it will be a first. Also, their security record is absolutely horrible-- but they can't really be as incompetent as they pretend.

    4. Re:facebook very untrustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, then, I hope you don't use their Android or iPhone app. The permissions that both those apps require give full access to your phone's information (including contacts and network).

    5. Re:facebook very untrustworthy by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand what facebook does. They have thousands of major web sites loading scripts and links from facebook systems, with sharing of data with those partners. Put no-script or similar on your browser and see how many of your favorite websites includes facebook tracking/data sharing hooks.

  12. Do you have any evidence to support that claim? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Call me skeptical, but I've never heard of anything like that.

    1. Re:Do you have any evidence to support that claim? by fruity_pebbles · · Score: 2

      I'm skeptical too. None of the Google Talk messages on my phone have been billed as SMS.

    2. Re:Do you have any evidence to support that claim? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      None of my Skype messages get billed as SMS.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    3. Re:Do you have any evidence to support that claim? by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      And I've never been billed for emails or MSN messages myself. I know some carriers try to do this shit with traffic to Facebook & Twitter, but those are usually the lowest of the low plans where you don't actually get any real data, but data to FB & Twitter.

    4. Re:Do you have any evidence to support that claim? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I always see plans with unlimited data to Facebook, myspace and twitter. Sometimes carriers provide "unlimited email" which is useless to me because they only provide that to their email service, not to my own email server. It's just an attempt to drive people towards popular services and I'm sure it's very effective on the average consumer. But give me a normal data plan any day.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    5. Re:Do you have any evidence to support that claim? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0

      Another instance of the problem net neutrality is intended to solve. I'll add it to my list of points to show the next libertarian who uses the "fixing a problem that doesn't exist" argument.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  13. US users can already text for free via data by Khoa · · Score: 1

    Google Voice plus a few other services already offer this (sms only, no mms) via an app download. Only thing is that you'd have to tell your friends about your new number.

    1. Re:US users can already text for free via data by frizzantik · · Score: 1

      you can text for free with gmail too.. you just have to text people first since it's not a static # (at least i dont think)

  14. Re:except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    My cellphone bill says otherwise. Saved $30 a month by switching to google talk for international texting.

  15. What will they think of next? by jarrod.smith · · Score: 1

    Wow, that's amazing news. It does almost everything that email can do. What will they think of next?

    1. Re:What will they think of next? by avgjoe62 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I hear they're working on extracting fibrous cellulose from trees that, when dried, you can create images on using nothing more than a graphite stick.

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    2. Re:What will they think of next? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      The problem with email is that you have to install a separate application...Oh...right....

      Really, this has the same problem that every other alternative have. It requires everyone to install the same app to be on the same network. The only draw I can see to SMS is that every phone has it, so if you have a phone capable of doing anything with any kind of data, you know you are compatible with everyone else. It is a question of critical mass.

    3. Re:What will they think of next? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Since when have you ever needed to install an application to use email?
      What smart phones don't have email as a standard feature?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    4. Re:What will they think of next? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      True and fair enough. That being said, SMS gained acceptance on feature phones before email was available, and there are still a lot of phones out there that do SMS and not email. It would also take a little tweaking to get email to work like SMS. Not much, but a little. Even on smart phones, it would require users to basically 'sign up' for the service, which is basically what google talk is. Because of that, you don't have the critical mass.

    5. Re:What will they think of next? by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      My assessment of that research indicates that the graphite sticks will need to be pointed - now what if someone attacks me with a pointed graphite stick??

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    6. Re:What will they think of next? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      There is no doubt that SMS became popular because it was the only system available at the time. Plus all/most phones have had it for well over 10-15 years and all you need is the persons phone number. Good for the primitive address books of the time (name and number only; stored on sim card).

      I think the rise of Android and iOS will see an uptake of email inplace of SMS, but SMS will never be lost.

      I do use email on my phone, but I wouldn't bother trying to make it work with SMS. Just two totally different systems.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    7. Re:What will they think of next? by Egregius · · Score: 1

      That sounds like I thought this product was: http://noteslate.com/

  16. This is why... by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

    ... I've been boycotting SMS for, well, years. I only send or receive them when absolutely necessary (activating some service or other, or for Google's two-step authentication)...

    SMS is bullshit, plain and simple. Then again, I doubt anyone at Slashdot wasn't already aware of that.

    1. Re:This is why... by characterZer0 · · Score: 2

      Verizon lets you disable all text messaging other than messages to and from Verizon services. See if your carrier does the same.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    2. Re:This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How very magnanimous of them...

    3. Re:This is why... by frizzantik · · Score: 1

      you must not be single.. chicks like to text..

    4. Re:This is why... by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      Good point, didn't think of that. I'm in a long term relationship, so yes, that would explain my lack of a need for SMS. Buying the girlfriend a decent Android phone and teaching all my friends to use IM and E-Mail to reach me (since I'm always instantly available on either thanks to my smartphone) has proven very useful ;)

  17. BBIM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this why BB IM is so popular amongst young people?

  18. Not normal Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    SMS isn't normal data. Ever notice how you can still send text messages even when you don't have a data connection?

    1. Re:Not normal Data by praxis · · Score: 1

      Yes, the underlying method for sending the bytes of the SMS message is different than IP. But, SMS is normal data. It's still a string of bytes. I think the argument is that the load on the network generated by SMS messages with their protocol versus the load on the network generated by IP packets with their protocal is not 50,000:1 in ratio.

    2. Re:Not normal Data by IgnitusBoyone · · Score: 1

      A few things here to realize a text message is just an email once it hits the tower. The method two and from the phones are a handled in the SMS protocal but the server side methods between networks are basically emails. So, if you get unlimited emails in your data plan they really have no justification for charging so much for emails that must be smaller then x-amount.

      http://www.emrupdate.com/blogs/ducknet/archive/2008/11/30/how-to-send-email-text-messages-to-any-cell-phone-for-free-from-your-computer.aspx

      Second, is that GSM and CDMA handle the SMS protocol differently, with CDMA taking a very long time to come up with a solution that worked as well as GSMs. For years to send a text message on sprint I had to log in to a web portal and send it. The first phone with a native interface just hid the process from me. The same restrictions applied to Text messages as data plans including not being able to send them on them while using a voice connection. This has been fixed over the years.

      Now, I'm not expert on the subject and other more experienced posters might correct the following in formation, but I believe its cheaper on a GSM network to send an SMS because the bandwidth portion of there network is pre-allocated and while its not the same as sending something on its IP bandwidth the point is it doesn't hurt there voice quality and they can't really argue its that much different from IP data. Things are supposedly very different on the CDMA.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS

      --
      Momento Mori
  19. Good-ish? by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

    Anything to stop that horrendously unconscionable markup is a good thing. ...or so I'd say if it's under the Facebook umbrella. I didn't notice any technical talk but this is FB so I can only assume everything flows through their servers and is saved.

  20. Re:except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sorry, but that is not universally true. Even back to the days of the T-Mobile Dash Windows Mobile phone I had. It depends on how the developer creates the IM client. On the Dash if I used (if I remember correctly) AIM it used the data plan. However if I used ICQ or Y! it used SMS to send the "instant messages". Not because T-Mobile charged that way, but because the apps did indeed use SMS to send the "instant messages". Even today on Android, if you use GTalk to instant message, it uses your data plan. Same goes for lots of other IM clients. However if the IM client was created to use SMS then you better have an unlimited SMS plan!!!

  21. Re:except by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 2

    Yep. Using Talk let me drop my txt plan. Not to say others aren't, but considering how much Verizon likes to nickel and dime customers, I'd be surprised if others were doing that and they weren't.

    --
    "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
  22. Re:except by asn · · Score: 1

    Examples? I've never had that happen....

  23. No by Tanman · · Score: 2

    You are confusing "internet companies provide IM clients which bill as SMS if you use them" with "companies monitor traffic to . . ."

    if you get your new non-smartphone with its included AIM application and send messages with that, it will likely bill those as a SMS message. That is entirely a different thing.

    At least that is my experience.

  24. But wait a second... by kevinmenzel · · Score: 1

    I have limited data, but unlimited texts... so if anything, a large amount of SMS data would cost me near nothing... Is there any highish-latency browser that can use a stream of SMS texts for data? Cos that would be awesome...

    1. Re:But wait a second... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't like it, because it would be incredibly high latency. And incredibly low bandwidth.

      Besides, you have unlimited SMS just like other people have unlimited data. It's "unlimited" on while you use it in a way that the carrier defines as normal.

  25. Great, so voice and/or data call prices will go up by glyphi · · Score: 1

    Do you really believe the carriers will put up with reduced profit? Remove their massive SMS income and other prices will rise to compensate. So I'm hoping Beluga doesn't catch on big time.

  26. Not new by headhot · · Score: 1

    You mean it will do what google voice has been doing for years?

  27. Voice Data by Lord_Jeremy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Cell phone networks use digital voice protocols, of course. Essentially, your audio is being streamed as a (compressed) data file over a data network. The GSM-EFR audio codec has a bitrate of 12.2 kbps. Obviously more modern phones probably use a higher-bitrate codec. That means for one minute of audio 60 * 12.2 kb or approx. 750000 bits of data is sent. One AT&T text message costs $0.20. The maximum size of an SMS message is 1120 bits (140 characters). That means in the data space of one minute of voice you could send 700 messages. At 20 cents each that's $140. Now I'm pretty sure that there aren't any cell phone plans (excluding sat phones) that cost $140 per minute of speech.

    1. Re:Voice Data by dave562 · · Score: 1

      You can send a text message when the voice channel is down. You cannot make a voice call when the text (control) channel is down.

      It is like crying about the cost per gigabyte of a fiber channel, RAID1/0 SAN LUN compared to the cheap Western Digital drive you bought at Best Buy. SMS is ridiculously expensive because the underlying infrastructure is expensive. Unlike the SAN analogy, the SMS infrastructure does not need to be as robust as it. Yet rather than build out another infrastructure, they send SMS across the control channel.

      The telcos have zero incentive to move SMS off of the control channel. They get around the consumer backlash by offering unlimited text plans. If a customer does not like the cost, they can get an unlimited plan. Most carriers charge about $5 per month for unlimited text. Any customer who is going to whine and complain about $5 a month is not a customer you want to have. You're better off without their business.

    2. Re:Voice Data by Lord_Jeremy · · Score: 1

      $5 a month? AT&T (my carrier) charges $20 a month on top of existing plans. Source: http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/services/serviceDetails.jsp?LOSGId=&skuId=sku1160055&catId=cat1470003 (may have to enter a zip code) Why exactly do you think sending messages over the MAP signaling channel would be so expensive or resource-intensive? We're talking about a sub-protocol of GSM that was already in existence and in use for carrier-related messaging. We're also talking about max of approx. 1 KB per message. The message goes from your phone to a relatively simple routing node. It's best effort, so there's really not much overhead or verification. Not to mention if this routing infrastructure is really as expensive as you think, there's really no reason why they can't move it to the IP layer. That's how 3G and other non-GSM devices function, they wrap the SMS in their native data format. I've got a 3-year-old GSM phone with data capabilities. I don't think there's a single teenager, especially first-borns, that gets a cell phone and then doesn't go over the texting limit in the first month. Back in high school I remember people getting chewed out all the time for racking up something like $200 worth of overages. Honestly, we'd be better off without the telcos as they are. Remember this? http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/2006/12/verizon-doesnt-know-dollars-from-cents.html

    3. Re:Voice Data by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Even satellite phones aren't anywhere near that expensive. $20/minute is expensive on satellite phones these days.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  28. SMS and data traffic are two seperate things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SMS cannot be directly compared to data traffic. SMS is small amounts of data dropped into the signal that tells your phone that it's within range of a cell tower. Pretty much anywhere you have even the tiniest bit of cell coverage you can send and receive SMS. This isn't the case with Internet connectivity (email, gtalk, etc.). You can argue that SMS is too expensive for what it does, but since it's a "special" data path there's no reason for the carriers to charge a reasonable price for it.

    1. Re:SMS and data traffic are two seperate things. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I'd agree with you if A the transfer were free and B data was more expensive than SMS. As it is they're price gouging for something that doesn't cost them anything to provide, and in extreme cases have been willing to extend thousands of dollars worth of credit to allow people to be further gouged.

    2. Re:SMS and data traffic are two seperate things. by praxis · · Score: 1

      My data plan costs me 0.000000015 per byte. My SMS plan costs me 0.0014 per byte. That's a ratio of 95,238:1. Are you saying that it's reasonable for the price disparity to be such, solely because I do not need a data plan and to have strong enough signal to use it? Perhaps. But then you add that the carrier will pre-install an "IM" application that uses SMS to send and receive messages rather than using a data network.

    3. Re:SMS and data traffic are two seperate things. by spitzak · · Score: 1

      The price for *voice* data is about 10000 times less than for SMS data. It is being sent by the same radio to the same cell towers and has the same availability! In many cases the ratio is *infinite*. Me and my SO have a friends and family plan and can call each other for *free*, yet texting each other (which I suspect uses less data than the first 1/10 second of the phone call) costs 30 cents (15 cents for each phone)! Also somebody else texting me costs me 15 cents, yet if they called me it would not cost me anything (it may cost them more, however).

    4. Re:SMS and data traffic are two seperate things. by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      The only reasonable price for this bandwidth is $0. It gets used whether or not you text. Why should it cost you extra to put meaningful information into the payload, as opposed to random garbage?

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
  29. Re:except by rainmouse · · Score: 1

    WhatsApp for iPhone and Android allows you to send sms and picture messages for free via your web connection to anyone of your friends who also has the app. I believe there are others out there (does Google voice also do this?).

  30. Who needs texting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hear there's an app to make voice calls - actually speaking to a human!

    I will never use texting - I've configured my BlackBerry firewall to block them - if TFS doesn't make a compelling argument, then perhaps learning that NASA can download images from Hubble for less than for you to send "hello world" to the person sitting next to you.

    FLEECING!!

  31. A Thursday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    attention of Facebook, which purchased the company a Thursday.

    They are going to need a Friday too. And probably a few more days. One Thursday isn't going to go very far for that kind of tech company

  32. Not all carriers... by TavisJohn · · Score: 1

    Not all carriers rape customers when it comes to TXTing. Sprint, for example, includes unlimited texting on all their data plans. So if you have internet on your cell, you also have unlimited texting.

  33. USA Only? by Gonoff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In Europe, we have been getting better rates than you for years. I believe my teenage son sent over 3,000 text messages last month. Beats me how he manages to get good grades and play sports. I think his plan includes 500 talk minutes and "unlimited" internet - he has never gone over anyway. Costs £30/month because he wanted an extra clever phone. I think the cheap plans get down to between £10 and £15.

    I have never heard of anyone paying to receive them. It's like post. The sender pays. The only real ripoff we have is roaming abroad costs and the phone companies are supposedly being compelled to lower them. I don't think you want that to happen in your country. That is government restricting business practices. We like it though.

    This was not to laugh at you, but to show you what can be done as a start. We need to get it even lower here. Lobby your representatives or something.

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    1. Re:USA Only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lobby your representatives or something
      We dont want them looking at it they may do the exact opposite... They are not so bright...

    2. Re:USA Only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep.. Welcome to America. Ruled by money. Telecoms (phone, ISP, etc) and TV providers are nothing but ripping off people. Because it is easy. Most of the American market is build on the consumer's idea that they have to have 1000 TV channels, Text messaging, etc and that it just cost that much. Of course a lot complains but it is empty complains because they still buy into it. Because the neighbor has it. And the government doesn't do anything about it. Why should they? Because they are lobbied by those companies to allow them to do it. And top of that. Fee after fee without no real purpose. Plenty of lawsuits over those and what happens/ If the public wins then the fees disappear only later be be replaced with a different one. Rinse and Repeat.

    3. Re:USA Only? by xwizbt · · Score: 1

      In the US it's quite common to pay for receiving messages or calls. I agree - it's rather odd. Imagine crippling your enemies by sending them a massively heavy signed for parcel...

      "Two tons of lead, sir? What do you mean you don't want to pay - it's yours!"

    4. Re:USA Only? by ewieling · · Score: 1

      In the United States the called person pays for the call to the mobile phone.

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    5. Re:USA Only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm from the UK too - think the cheapest price we have here is £7.50 for 150 minutes plus 5000 texts (no phone, one month contract). Not bad!

    6. Re:USA Only? by blahbooboo · · Score: 2

      Not in my experience is Europe cheaper than plans in the USA anymore. A few examples.Cell phone overall costs are FAR cheaper in the USA than in Europe. We can roam the entire continent with our standard plans, Europe buy a sim card per country. USA has no cost to call a cell phone (most plans have PLENTY of minutes), Europe it's expensive to call a cell phone from a land line (~$0.25-0.50/minute when called from USA to Europe cell phones). As for unlimited internet, a friend of mine in London grabbed an "unlimited internet" sim card -- sure it was "unlimited" until he hit 500mb of data! haha crazy. Most of the time when I see details of european cell plans, and overall costs, USA actually comes out about same or better.

    7. Re:USA Only? by snookums · · Score: 1

      In the United States the called person pays for the call to the mobile phone.

      This always mystified me. The US seems to be the only country that does this. The US was also the last western country to get ubiquitous mobile phone usage.

      The only sane explanation I've seen is that, for some odd reason, the US cell phone numbering scheme is unified with the land-line numbering scheme. Your cell phone has an area code based on where you were when you signed up for the phone account. Thus, the caller cannot know whether they are calling a mobile phone, so it would be unfair to the caller to charge them call-to-mobile rates without warning. In other parts of the world (certainly in the UK and Australia), mobile phones have their own prefix codes, so you always know when you're calling a mobile, and you know you're going to pay more.

      --
      Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
    8. Re:USA Only? by Rhodri+Mawr · · Score: 1

      That would surely result in a stand off between callers where neither party would answer calls from the other and return the call immediately? What do you do if someone makes an international call to you? What a bizarre state of affairs. I'm reminded of Dirk Gently's fridge.

    9. Re:USA Only? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      The thing about "crazy SMS prices" is that they're for the people who don't buy an SMS plan and instead get charged per message. If you're sending hundreds or thousands of messages a month, you get the $25/month flat fee SMS plan and be done with it. Carriers like it because they get fixed income (for 2 years at least) and that's a big reason they set the alacarte SMS fees up at punishing levels.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    10. Re:USA Only? by s4ltyd0g · · Score: 1

      Nope they do it in Canada like that as well, unless you pay extra for the texting plan. It was even advertised as such. "If you don't buy a texting plan, you'll pay for each SMS you recieve"

      regards

    11. Re:USA Only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are really generalizing here, as Europe is not one country and plans, taxes, etc. differ between them. I can only speak about rates in Germany as that is where I live, but I just switched to O2 and lowered my costs dramatically. My phone costs have been around 5 EU / month and that is with data plan and some number of free SMS and me making frequent calls. The data plan is something like 500 MB / month at full speed and then slows down a notch after more than that is downloaded. It is essentially unlimited. For more money per month, you can setup so called "home zones" and preferred numbers you'd like to call (including international) so that you get land line rates for those. Granted, I never used the "home zone" or preferred number setup as I don't need to. I'll instead go to a web site that lists the current cheap prefix code to use when calling the US. Then I'm paying fractions of a cent per minute and just don't worry about it anymore.

      In addition I've used my phone in France, UK, Czech Republic, Spain, Sweden, Netherlands, etc. over the last 10 years without ever needing a different sim. Whenever I go to the US and am not in a big city (New York, Chicago, Detroit, etc) my phone becomes a useless brick as no network (where there is network) wants to accept my phone. My relatives in the US have the same issues. So on this point, you really truly have no idea what you are talking about.

      J

    12. Re:USA Only? by a_hanso · · Score: 1

      I'm from a 3rd world country. SMS costs me only US$ 0.0026 a pop.

    13. Re:USA Only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you compare USA to the EU as both being the same type of country you might have some points; however the EU is not a country, we don't speak the same languages around here either.

      For a Dutch citizen not calling 'abroad' I'd be paying 20 cents per minute for cell to cell, 6 cents for cell to landline. text messages are 15 cents, and only paid by the sender. All costs are paid by the initiator (unless you are 'abroad', then the person calling you pays up to the country where you have the contract, you pay from that country up to where you are now). Data so far costs me 10 euros a months for unlimited data (which isn't exactly unlimited, I don't have pure statistics but you can stream mp3 for a whole month without hitting it)

    14. Re:USA Only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe isn't a single country in this aspect either. Most nations here have their own carriers and operators.
      When I travel to London (I live in Finland), I know I'm abroad and I don't really expect my calls to be cheap anymore. It's no different from traveling to Russia, Spain, Egypt or Indonesia in that way. I do regularly chat with my friends in England and South Africa by my phone though, via GoogleTalk and SMSs.

      And for normal costs, sans traveling? I have 200/10 internet at home and 5/1 in my phone. The 'net at home costs 50€ or so per month, the one on cellphone 2€. Neither have any caps in them. Granted the cellphones mobile connection is part of my contract with the operator, which sums up to about 20€ per month with my 1000 free SMS's (I think it's like 5 cents each after that, but I've never went that high since I tend to like google talk & IRC better) and ~250 minutes per month of talking.

      I don't know if ~70€ per month is cheap or expensive on worldwide scale, but I'm happy enough with my connections. I don't feel like I'm being robbed in any way.
      And I most certainly haven't worried one bit about SMS costs for years. These days I send maybe 50 SMS's per month at max, but I can't recall any bills worth mentioning even from five years ago when peaked some 300-400 monthly messages.

      Landlines calling I can't comment, since I don't think any of my friends even have those these days (I sure don't!), unless you count ADSL modems.

    15. Re:USA Only? by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      we have ridiculously cheap rates here in india too.
      my prepaid sim cost me inr 20. (divide by 45 to get usd)
      i can send 200 texts to anyone in the country daily for free.
      i can call local numbers at inr 0.01 per second.
      i can call long distance at inr 0.02 per second.
      3.5g data at inr 0.01 per 20kb. (you can also pay inr 750 for 2gb and such plans go upto 15gb)
      and i need to recharge it when the balance gets to zero.

      i dont think you need to lobby your representatives or anything. just adopt policies that encourage a freer market.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
  34. Not going to replace SMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the reason everyone uses SMS is because every phone can do it. Even if you don't have a texting plan the carrier will happily deliver the SMS to you can charge you for the privilege.

    That's not true with data plans. So you'll always have that one friend who keeps texting you everything, and thus you'll still want the texting plan. then once you've got the texting plan why make it complicated for yourself by texting some people and beluga-ing others? Thus the cycle continues and we're stuck with the idiocy that is SMS.

  35. It's the kids by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

    Texting is something we all do reluctantly. It's the way to reach older phones without data plans. And as long as data plans are too expensive to give to the whole family, texting will remain.

    My wife and kids have smart phones without data plans, just plain prepaid service. Synchronising contacts and rearing mail can all be done near a wifi hotspot. Saves us tons of money.

    There will be a time when data plans are cheap. But the time isn't now.

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    1. Re:It's the kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but even then, you can use google talk on your end so save having to actually pay. (or like me, if you want to use SMS to people in the US when you in fact don't live there).

  36. Fleecing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why, if you use txt'ing, a fool and his/her money are soon parted.

    There is such a thing as bad tech - imho this is one of them.

    Txt'ing does nothing that a phone call can't!

    But I guess if someone creates a service, no matter how absurd the cost, then as long as everyone uses it it it's OK.

    1. Re:Fleecing by kevinmenzel · · Score: 1

      Texting creates a message that can be read at any time, with your phone at a distance, without interrupting your ability to listen to what is going on, with a length limit that forces people (generally speaking) to be rather quick in their communication. Therefore it has a distinct benefit over say, someone leaving you a voice message. It is also, for some things, more precise than a voice message - for instance "Call me at my office, 555-7983" - is quick to read, understand, and the important information (the actual phone number) is clear and precisely communicated - no worry about having to say it three times to make sure that they get the number.

      So to compare SMS to voice communication is not necessarily 1:1, or even A>B. They both have strengths and weaknesses.

  37. Re:except by rsborg · · Score: 1

    Carriers already detect Internet traffic that isn't really an SMS and bills it as an SMS, such as various instant messengers.

    cite?

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  38. hahaaa google got shafted... by xTantrum · · Score: 1

    All the members of "Team Beluga" are old google employees or worked on/at google. I find that really funny...wonder what google thinks of that. just sayin'

    --
    $action = empty(PHP) ? backToC() : unset(PHP) ; "when the concrete cases are understood, the abstractions are readily
  39. Ummmm, no by mr1911 · · Score: 1

    Carriers already detect Internet traffic that isn't really an SMS and bills it as an SMS, such as various instant messengers.

    I use Google Voice on my iPhone and pay no additional fee. Same with TextFree, which was my free text alternative while waiting for Google Voice to make it through Apple's approval process. You can text until your thumbs bleed with no SMS charge.

    The only issue I have is that, while Google Voice and/or TextFree work fine most of the time, there is randomly a delay where the messages do not come through in a timely manner.

    I hope Facebook is successful at this. Not because I have any intent to use Facebook messaging, but I would like to see the carriers forced to drop their text charges.

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    1. Re:Ummmm, no by icebike · · Score: 1

      But again, Google Voice can only send SMS to somebody who has an SMS plan or to another Google Voice account.
      Google Voice stopped allowing international SMS messages a while back.

      Using Google TALK, instead of Google Voice lets you SMS for free worldwide with anyone who has an iPhone or Android or even just a regular gmail account. (You can also speak world wide on google talk, but only pc-to-pc.)

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  40. this will never work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but I would rather trust my sms messages to a cell phone carrier who are forced by law to put privacy controls in place (government excepted), than facebook, who will sell my messages to the highest bidder...

    1. Re:this will never work by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Or you can use Skype, so neither government or anyone else can access your messages.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  41. Awesome by NewsWatcher · · Score: 1

    The cost of text messages, down greatly.

    The time taken to delete spam texts, up exponentially.

    --
    If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
    1. Re:Awesome by IgnitusBoyone · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is true. Maybe networks blacklist ips that send to many text off network, but it is already free to send text messages from any computer and I have written plenty of server apps which send text to report critical failures. If your assertion was true I should be getting multiple spam text a day which I don't. I don't know what the networks do to keep the spam down, but it seems to be working.

      --
      Momento Mori
  42. Re:except by markass530 · · Score: 1

    Also sprint doesn't make a big deal out of texts, just lumps them in with data

  43. Re:except by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    Wrong.

    Carriers install instant messengers on their phones that use SMS as a transport and not IP. (This practice is getting less frequent as time goes by, but a LOT of mobile IM clients do this!). They do NOT detect "SMS-like" IP data and bill it as SMS.

    Another reason why stock ROMs from carriers suck.

    You're probably in fairly good shape with Android or iOS, as I don't think any IM apps exist for Android that use SMS as the transport instead of IP. However, feature phones, fakesmartphones (you know, those touchscreen phones NOT running one of the major platforms), and some of the older mobile platforms (WM5/WM6) are at risk for the "old and evil" IM apps.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  44. Re:except by trapnest · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's not really the case, most of the dumbphone "IM" applications are really sending IMs over SMS.

  45. Innovative... by Arricc · · Score: 1

    So... Facebook has an App that lets you send short 140 character messages across the Internet by data instead of by SMS..... aka... Twitter.

    1. Re:Innovative... by xwizbt · · Score: 1

      I like this - all you have to do is set up codenames and hope the right person reads it.:

      "Rosebud - won't be home for tea. The Squirrel Flies South later, okay?"

    2. Re:Innovative... by DewDude · · Score: 1

      Here's where your comparison fails. Twitter and SMS are actually entirely different technologies.

      SMS allows you to send up to 160 chars over the standard network over a special channel.

      Twitter, OTOH, was based around SMS...actually, it was designed as a social-network with SMS as the platform. The 140 limit comes in to play based on the thing of appending the person who sent the tweet's ID to the SMS, ensuring an entire tweet would comprise 1 text message. It's only been with the recent adoption of smartphones and apps has twitter moved from SMS to a nice pretty app...or accessible from other apps.

      But, while we can be alerted by Facebook or twitter in much the same manner as SMS...if your data network goes down, those aren't going to get through...with that in in to consideration this idea is mostly redundant.

  46. Re:except by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    Which carriers?
    I use both google talk and google voice for sms-like messaging. Neither one have I ever been billed for sms usage when using.

  47. Collusion by sjbe · · Score: 1

    I've never understood why everyone gets so offended at SMS rates.

    Because the cost to the telecom company is almost zero and the only way it should be staying so high is if the telecom companies are either expressly or tacitly colluding. There is no other explanation for the cost of text messaging being as high as it is when all other forms of data are constantly dropping in price. Competition should be driving the price down but that isn't happening.

    You cannot begrudge a company a profit.

    Sure I can, especially if that profit comes at some detrimental expense to society or myself. I definitely begrudge the profit that tobacco companies make. Just because companies exist to make a profit doesn't mean any and all behavior becomes acceptable.

  48. Caller ID is the same principal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the cost per MB of caller ID on landline phones? Another probably larger rip off by the telecom providers.

  49. Re:except by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 2
    I got caught on this when using the phone's built in messengers. Made a $40 phone bill $170. After swapping to the unlimited plan (cost an extra $5 but unlimited text and net) I switched to eBuddy which handles Yahoo, Facebook & more a la Pidgin/Kopete.

    By the way, does anyone know if they are planning a new version of Kopete? it seems like all real development has ended on it which is a pity because I loved it until the lack of facebook support for months after Pidgin had it killed it for me.

    --
    I call it 'The Aristocrats'
  50. if birds had radios in their butts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there'd be music in the air at all times.

    has anyone heard our 'swan' song?

  51. Old School Solution by macraig · · Score: 1

    What would happen to SMS pricing if people, en masse, simply stopped using it unless and until the price became actually reasonable and proportional?

    Yes, I know... that solution requires educated consumers we don't have, but I can dream, can't I?

    1. Re:Old School Solution by dave562 · · Score: 1

      The cost is reasonable. I doubt you can find more than one (if you can even find one) cellular telco that does not offer an affordable, unlimited texting plan. I think I pay $5 per month for unlimited text. I bet Verizon pays more than that to power the cell towers that I send my texts through.

    2. Re:Old School Solution by macraig · · Score: 1

      That cost seems "reasonable" to you only because by itself it's a trivial amount to you personally AND you're unconcerned with what the actual profit margin is. An educated consumer needs to be concerned with profit margins and actual cost-to-produce. Ignoring that is what allows manufacturers to continually manipulate their customers.

      Business Law 101 will teach you that every contract ideally defines an equal exchange of value, so if the profit margin for one party in a transaction is excessive then that transaction is not balanced. That is the very definition of concentration of wealth, when it occurs on a large many-to-one scale, as happens with, say, text messaging services. That may not hurt you personally directly to a degree you notice, but it definitely hurts society and the economy collectively.

    3. Re:Old School Solution by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Hurt's society, and the economy? You're nuts. SMS could evaporate right now and society would be fine. It is an unnecessary luxury. We are not talking about the cost of food here.

  52. Re:except by justin12345 · · Score: 1

    Who does that (I'm curious, I'm not contradicting you)? I've never heard of anything like that. I know that AT&T doesn't do it, neither does Sprint. Other posters have a said Verizon and T-Mobil don't either. Is it a non-US practice?

    --
    Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
  53. Mobile Facebook by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

    I can already do that by sending a message using the Facebook client on my smartphone. BB Messenger works great for folks with Blackberries. There are also 5 other IM clients on my phone. Although I used ICQ extensively years ago, its only function now seems to be receiving solicitations from Russian hookers.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  54. Pricing model by ben_kelley · · Score: 1

    Keep in mind that the pricing model your carrier offers at the moment is based on what the consumer is prepared to pay, rather than what the service actually costs them to offer.

    Some plans offer SMS for "free", but at the end of the day you're still paying.

    If the market changes such that the consumer will no longer pay extra for SMS, then those fees will be absorbed into something else the consumer is prepared to pay for.

  55. Re:except by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Plus One.

    Google talk has totally replaced SMS for me on my Android phone.

    Even my Iphone friends use one of the many Google Talk clients, like IMO. Nobody in their right mind would use SMS internationally, and unless you paid for the unlimited SMS plan you would be nuts to pay for SMS on a per-message basis.

    Google talk is Google's implementation of Jabber, (XMPP) and interoperability with standard Jabber Servers/Clients has improved of late to the point where you can send and receive to just about any standard jabber gateway, and any jabber client.

    The Android version of GTalk comes on every Android phone, and is essential for the Android market to work. But it leaves a tad to be desired, as Google has only implemented about half of jabber capabilities on the smartphone platform.

    But there are a dozen or so XMPP/Jabber clients in the android market to choose from, some of which handle file transfer and voice calling as well.

    SMS is a dead man walking. The carriers priced it out of existence.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  56. SMS uses the thin "control" pipe. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember when SMS was free and was hidden in the advanced menu of a 3-line text display of a phone.

    SMS messages go over the (VERY!) low bandwidth control channel used for communication between the cellphone and the tower, and from there over the call set-up channels among the towers, their controllers, and the rest of the telephone network. Using them to let cellphone handsets emulate a text pager (and a text pager message sender) was something of an afterthought, put into the GSM spec and then ported to others. Because they're on the control channel, they work even if the phone has no data service or is not data service capable.

    Once they caught on and started having major traffic despite the small packet size, the telcos put a price tag on them, both to try to avoid channel saturation and as a handy revenue stream. (Yes even a large number of the little text messages wouldn't clog the channels. But a customer-deployed IP-over-SMS would have been trivial. Charging a few cents for every 140-byte packet killed that idea.)

    Now that mobile data services has created a fat data pipe under the separate "payload" bandwidth, moving the services currently running on SMS makes great sense for the users. But now that SMS messages have become a major income stream, despite their extreme price, the carriers have no incentive to kill this surprise cash cow. So the innovation has to come from apps developers.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:SMS uses the thin "control" pipe. by Splab · · Score: 2

      While absolutely right, also totally way off the mark depending on the market.

      The US market is very peculiar, so you might be spot on there, but over here in the EU where there is competition, SMS are in most cases free, even though they do as you point out actually cost quite a bit to service, the competition here is just so fierce you can't charge anything meaningful for them.

      I used to work for a carrier and trust me, there is nothing we would like more than to have our users stop using SMS and MMS and move everything into cheap data.

      We even welcomed VoIP clients like Skype - we couldn't care less how you contact the outside world, only thing we care about is how calls arrive at your phone.

    2. Re:SMS uses the thin "control" pipe. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US market is very peculiar, so you might be spot on there, but over here in the EU where there is competition, SMS are in most cases free, even though they do as you point out actually cost quite a bit to service, the competition here is just so fierce you can't charge anything meaningful for them.

      I agree completely (with the caveat that, if a significant number of people started using IP-over-SMS to avoid data charges it wouldn't stay free AND unfettered for long.)

      The US cellular market has been noncompetitive from the beginning, due to a failing of the FCC: They defined "competition" to exist when there were TWO cellular carriers in a given market, and initially allocated the spectrum in a way that made it essentially impossible for a third player to get in. They stayed that way for decades, while a small number of carriers became entrenched.

      Market forces don't significantly drive down prices until there are THREE competitors (or the barriers to entry are so low that a new player is always a possibility that must be headed off.) At two players the market forces drive their prices toward each other but don't penalize that price point being high. The incentive is still to go for all the market will bear, creating a defacto cartel with no communication but price signals. Add a third player and the incentive shifts toward defecting and sucking market share from both of your competition. (Or at least that's how I understand it.)

      These days we've got opportunity for more players (with more bands, plus service alternatives). And we are seeing some price and service pressure. But we've got a long way to go before somebody with a better idea can get funding from investors burned by the .com collapse and roll out a continent-wide service that would win the resulting price war and the ability of the entrenched players to turn up more/better services when it's in their interest to do so.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re:SMS uses the thin "control" pipe. by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The US market is very peculiar, so you might be spot on there, but over here in the EU where there is competition, SMS are in most cases free, even though they do as you point out actually cost quite a bit to service, the competition here is just so fierce you can't charge anything meaningful for them.

      It wasn't initially because of competition. The U.S. had an extensive analog cell phone system before other countries, so it was actually Europe and Asia which had the first major rollouts of digital cell phones. Back then, they didn't know how popular SMS was going to be. Since it cost the carriers practically nothing to provide, they just added the letters 'SMS' to the feature list of the phone and thought nothing of it. Consequently, when it became hugely popular, they couldn't really retroactively increases prices on them.

      The carriers in the U.S. got to see what features were popular in Europe and Asia, and charged for the most popular ones (ringtones also had high demand). It's not unusual to see this sort of thing in a new market. The market price for new features is primarily based on demand, not cost to produce. So even though SMS costs the carriers virtually nothing, the demand was high enough to sustain the $0.10 per text price.

      That said, in a properly functioning market, competition should have quickly dropped that price to something much closer to how much it cost to provide the service. But with only 6 (4 now) major carriers, it was pretty easy to establish an unspoken agreement not to kill their cash cow. It's still collusion, but apparently not of the type which warrants anti-trust action. Since you need spectrum to compete in the cell phone market, the smaller, local carriers couldn't really make a dent in the major carriers' userbase. So they usually ended up just adopting the outrageous SMS pricing. i.e. Even if one of Verizon's smaller competitors let you text for free, it would only affect Verizon's sales in a small regional market. So there was little pressure on the big carriers to lower the prices.

    4. Re:SMS uses the thin "control" pipe. by Splab · · Score: 1

      But SMS does cost carriers money, quite a lot of money. In order to handle peak time SMS, for instance New Years, they need extreme amount of additional sleeping capacity, the hardware for this needs to be paid at some point, thus requiring a certain price.

      Most MVNOs are paying around 12 Ãre/SMS ($0.022) here, but competition dictates prices around 1-2 Ãre. This has nothing to do with being short sighted, but the fact that there are some 20 competitors working the same 3 networks which makes competition cut-throat.

    5. Re:SMS uses the thin "control" pipe. by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Market forces don't significantly drive down prices until there are THREE competitors

      True on roads as well. 2-lane (each way) highways are often choked by the idiot in the fast lane. A lot harder to do that on a 3-lanes each way highway.

      --
      I come here for the love
    6. Re:SMS uses the thin "control" pipe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Competition is not about a specific number of players. As long as a new player could come in (which takes investment, of course), dominant players can't abuse of their position much or for long.
      The FCC regulation of the spectrum which you point out seems the big problem to me.

  57. what providers/plans are you guys using? srsly! by DewDude · · Score: 1

    No, I want to know. Why are people complaining about the cost of text messages when there are plenty of plans out there that give you an unlimited option.

    I remember back in 1999..or was it 2000...it was a long time ago when the carriers in my area first started having digital service. I discovered the text message feature and promptly used it to text my sister (who was the only other person I knew at the time who had a cell phone...being as, you know, when I was a kid cell phones were, rare). These things NEVER showed up on our bill...which was an already STEEPLY discounted corporate rate with 0 minutes but free weekends.

    Then..I don't remember when as I personally had an analog phone till 2001 and got a digital phone in 2002; text messages started costing like, a dime to send. This was on the major contract carriers...prepaid was limited to tracfone and AT&T (in my market), I never had a digital Trac and my AT&T was a dime to send...and I was using the AIM-over-SMS feature a LOT. When I went to the then new Virgin Mobile in late '02, i still think it was like a dime to send...i can't remember if they were the first place I saw the charge to receive a text...come to think of it, when I got Boost back in '04, that was the first time I remember seeing that.

    I had both Sprint and Tmobile contract plans and on both of those I chipped in the extra for the text messaging (of course I was also paying for data and with TMobile they never informed me the AIM app on the phone was over SMS) because...I'm not a fan of making phone calls unless it's required. The first prepaid I remember having unlimited text for was the Sidekick...that was part of the standard plan. I went back to VM in Oct '09 and was, for a while, paying separate for a block of data and 1000 text messages...now I'm giving them $25/month for unlimited data and texting on an Android device...with only 300 minutes of airtime.

    Ok, I seriously didn't mean for that to be an ad for VM...the point I'm making is this. Prepaid providers used to be the real gougers out there...but somehow the cost of texting has stayed close to equal on both sides of the phone world (prepaid/no-contract vs contract)....I could go on at how the prepaid providers have switched to more of a no-contract model and are actually beating the bigger brothers in terms of price and features....but maybe that's part of the point.

    If I'm getting unlimited texting as part of a no-contract plan....why am I still hearing all this crap about the cost of texting? Surely if the N.C guys offer it, the ones that want to lock you in for a couple of years should to. Are they not making it clear? Are you people just not purchasing it? It's that very reason when I hear someone talk about a huge bill due to text I find it hard to believe.

  58. Re:except by icebike · · Score: 1

    For android you can start here for a list: https://market.android.com/search?q=jabber&c=apps

    For iPhone you will find many of the same companies providing apps. Some don't support file transfer (pictures) and some do.

    Google Voice (phone answering system) does support SMS. But you only need Google Talk (free) for unlimited world wide text.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  59. Re:except by Digicrat · · Score: 1

    And here I thought Verizon was supposed to have better pricing.

    I've been using Google Voice for SMS and transcribed voicemail on my ATT phone for almost as long as it's been available. Works even better now that I've moved to an Android phone. No sense paying $20 a month for SMS when your already paying $30 for unlimited data ...

    There are tons of IM applications around for all platforms now that work on the data plans, there's no need for another one. Then again, one can't understimate the power of the facebook fanatics either.

    Certain phones do have IM applications available that are carrier-specific and work via SMS messaging. These are the exception though, not the rule and mostly only exist now on the 'feature' phones.

    One of these days the cell phone providers will gain some sensibility and price things in a logical fashion ... or am I dreaming again?

  60. Re:except by mxs · · Score: 1

    it seems like all real development has ended on it which is a pity because I loved it until the lack of facebook support for months after Pidgin had it killed it for me.

    "Facebook support" means XMPP support. You can access facebook via XMPP/Jabber. It would surprise me if Kopete did not work with that.

  61. I'm very unhappy about this development by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    This is going to mean higher cell phone bills for me. I don't send text messages. Therefore all the chumps that run up high cell phone bills with text messages are effectively subsidizing me by letting the phone company offer me basic cell phone service at a lower rate. I don't believe the cell phone companies simply will earn less gratuitous profit if you remove the ring-tone and text messaging markets from profitability. Instead if you lower their margins in one area you will simply drive them up in another.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:I'm very unhappy about this development by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      So you're very unhappy about the concept that you should pay for what you actually use, rather than relying on some other sucker paying half your cell bill for you? Nice.

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
  62. Re:except by maxume · · Score: 1

    Which is what is stupid about the summary. Sure, lots of people pay $0.10 or $0.20 per text, but anybody sending 1 MB of texts is going to pay about $240 a year for huge buckets of texts, not $1,000.

    At least, if they are in their right mind. I guess $240 is still probably hugely profitable for the carriers, but it is something like 75% less ridiculous than $1,000.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  63. Re:except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But there are a dozen or so XMPP/Jabber clients in the android market [android.com] to choose from, some of which handle file transfer and voice calling as well.

    Do any of them work without a google account?

  64. Hello? Twitter? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    I'm going to repost an older post of mine, regarding twitter - frankly - fuck facebook (and yes, I have an account but those slimy assholes treat privacy and their users with utter disdain)

    Twitter is one of the greatest new forms of communications in the last 20 years.
    My first 2 tweets stayed for 6+ months iirc and were just "twitter is lame" and "update: twitter is still a wank" or something like that.
    I didn't 'get' twitter.

    Now that I do, I do not understand why on earth SMS still exists, this website / application(s) allows me to talk to people instantly across the planet with a 0$ fee (unlike SMS) and I can include pictures, links or whatever, I can use trending topics to see what is big in the world right this second! (yes, that's big)
    When someone posts "is that an earthquake?!" I go to twitter, type in earthquake and can have confirmation in seconds

    Twitter allows manufacturers, famous people and important people to instantly share messages and thoughts with people. There is an awful awful lot of stupid and irrelevant shit, mark my words I understand this but inbetween all that it's amazing, utterly amazing.

    I can see my friends have conversations - and yes they can do it privately but they can also do it publicly, that ability to see their conversation - is almost like being at a restaurant or bar where everyone is having a chat - my ears are tuning in (if I desire) to their conversation and I can at any moment join in, all wirelessly, all instantly - in any timezone.

    I don't often praise things and it sure as shit took me a while to get it, infact until you literally have an account and follow a couple of people, I totally get hating on it - the interface is silly to understand at first, once you do get it - it's incredible, utterly incredible.

    My only problem with twitter, or rather their only problem is that I simply can not fathom how they can monetize it - in any way. Google however purchased Youtube and I distinctly recall me saying "what the fuck is google thinking? 4 billion? That's stupid - this is googles first big mistake" - I mean there was no ads back then and it was 5 years ago, bandwidth is fucking expensive and they just paid money to serve up terabytes of data a day, why?!
    Anyhow: TLDR is that twitter should utterly replace SMS, without question, SMS is completely dead to me, all my friends with twitter I can tweet in seconds, it's a fucking incredibly powerful and clever communications tool, once you learn it, you'll love it.

    1. Re:Hello? Twitter? by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      SMS remains because not everyone can access Twitter from a mobile. You need constant data access which will likely be paid for unless you have free uninterrupted wi-fi, otherwise you're stuck using SMS to send or receive tweets. I'm paying both for a data plan and unlimited messaging on top of that. I'm in the same camp with you, personally. My Twitter languished for years as I tried to figure out what the hell to use it for. I really should try to adopt your strategy.

    2. Re:Hello? Twitter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twitter: it's centralised RSS. Nothing more.

  65. Sending is easy, receiving is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sending a message via IP is generally easy but the problem is receiving a message.

    I've worked on this before and It's easy to send a message via IP using HTTP or even another protocol like SIP. The problem is receiving messages. You either have to keep polling (e.g. HTTP), or keep the IP channel alive (e.g. SIP). This will drastically reduce the battery life on your phone compared to normal SMS. This is becoming less of a problem with smartphones that keep the data on, but the polling \ signalling to keep the channel open will still reduce battery life.

    You also have the fact that mobile data networks are less reliable and less available than the part of the network used to send SMS, so to have a reliable service you must be able to back it up by sending a normal SMS. To do this properly and seamlessly it's best to have the co-operation of the mobile network, otherwise when you fall back to SMS you can get charged more or you can miss messages.

    1. Re:Sending is easy, receiving is hard by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Push notifications:

      Android Cloud to Device Messaging Framework
      http://code.google.com/android/c2dm/

      Although, I agree. SMS is almost always more reliable than data, as SMS messages can eek through when reception is spotty, whereas data can be unusable.

    2. Re:Sending is easy, receiving is hard by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      Exactly, even when connections are good, data speed can be crap.

      What we need is 100x more wifi, to help reduce 3G traffic.

       

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  66. Already dead here in Korea by crossmr · · Score: 1

    There is a cross platform messenger called Kakao Talk, that works like many others, except it's Korean made, which means an instant success here, with the proliferation of smart phones, sms will probably be gone within the year, as the only people who will hold onto their older style phones will be old people who don't text anyway.

    I use Pingchat, which is also a cross platform app, to keep in touch with people out of country. Between the 2 of them, that's over 90% of the people I talk to.

    Sure another app is nice, but I checked out Beluga and it didn't do much for me.

  67. Re:except by icebike · · Score: 1

    Android doesn't work without a Google account.
    IPhone doesn't work without a Apple Account.
    Windows 7 phone requires a Windows Live ID (I think, not absolutely positive about this).

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  68. a shiny new Thursday by amaupin · · Score: 4, Funny

    A young little application called Beluga caught the attention of Facebook, which purchased the company a Thursday.

    Nice. Wish someone would buy me a Thursday.

    1. Re:a shiny new Thursday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw that. I want to buy me a Saturday to use on a Monday.

    2. Re:a shiny new Thursday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is also "Mixit" and "Fring" (which Skype stopped and finally gave a free OS for Nokias too).

    3. Re:a shiny new Thursday by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

      Why, you can have Friday! Useless bastard's been unemployed since his "great career".

  69. Re:except by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

    Android *DOES* work without a google account, actually

  70. Re:except by icebike · · Score: 1

    Well, that's true, of course, I spoke too broadly. This thread was about SMS (phones) and that was what I was addressing.

    Some Android Tablets, Nooks, and assorted android devices actually have no need of a google account unless you want to purchase from the Android market. Of course these things don't send SMS messages either, so they sort of slipped off of my radar.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  71. Governments have back-doors into Skype by Khopesh · · Score: 1

    Or you can use Skype, so neither government or anyone else can access your messages.

    Excepting, of course, the governments and anyone else that has paid or forced Skype to offer back-doors. Austria, Russia, India, and China have all demanded back-doors. Austria has made vague claims about actually getting it, China may have cracked it instead, and with all this noise about potentially blocking Skype, I'd be surprised if there was only a small number of governments that have been awarded this access.

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
    1. Re:Governments have back-doors into Skype by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Interesting, I will have to keep a close eye on that. Be wary of any government that want's to monitor it's citizens private conversations.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  72. Re:except by Jstlook · · Score: 0

    This is slashdot, not wikipedia. We're perfectly entitled to say something completely arbitrary without citing any sources. Regardless of it's authenticity, we simply refer you to the 'almighty' Google. If you can't find it, obviously your google-fu is weak. I would link you to a source that affirms his post, but it would really only be a a link to goatse.cx We usually get modded insightful or funny for such behavior (see this post), depending on the sarcastic nature and/or how obvious the sarcastic tone in the post is.

    --
    ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
  73. Whatsapp does this and more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    take a look at WhatsApp messenger:

    http://www.whatsapp.com/

    My friends in Spain say it's taken off and a great, versatile program.

  74. Re:except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought most of the current tablet devices couldn't access the android app store as they weren't classed as 'phones'.

  75. Re:except by PCM2 · · Score: 1

    Well, that's true, of course, I spoke too broadly. This thread was about SMS (phones) and that was what I was addressing.

    My Android phone doesn't require a Google account. It does require a Motorola account, but adding your Google account info comes after the fact. You definitely don't need a Google account to do SMS, which is completely controlled by the carrier.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  76. Really? by vanyel · · Score: 1

    How is that going to help? Most data plans I've seen include unlimited text messages, or at least if you're spending the bucks for a data plan, you just as well get the all inclusive version. Calling it $1000/megabyte is silly when you're not spending a fraction of that much because you're not sending anywhere near that much. Most things are a lot more expensive per unit in small quantities, just because they can be, even if the production cost is small.

  77. Re:USA Only! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...We can roam the entire continent with our standard plans...

    What standard plan has unlimited North America long distance w/roaming???
    Sprint did, and they cancelled that package 3 years ago or more (thats when I switched to a Canadian provider aka: Rogers). The closest I have been able to find now is the Nationwide (note that this is not continental, only in US)

    My wife is a US citizen, we get raped by our Canadian plan, but we would get even more raped going with a US plan. I would love some advice on how to get unlimited long distance w/roaming.

    Thanks for any response!

  78. Re:except by icebike · · Score: 1

    That rule, he be a changing.

    Froyo on tablets has some limitations accessing the market, but most of the gingerbread and honeycomb tabs can access the market. There are several tablet centered apps in the market already.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  79. Re:USA Only! by blahbooboo · · Score: 1

    Oops, sorry for that. The entire the USA is covered by almost all the major carriers - Sprint, Verizon, AT&T. I said USA, not North American continent.

  80. Whatsapp for smartphones by Bujang+Lapok · · Score: 1

    http://www.whatsapp.com/. Does text, pix, maps, video over a data connection, and folks just need to know your mobile number.

  81. Wont work in the long run by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    It will just cause data rates to go up even more ( or be capped earlier with larger overage fees )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  82. Way overpriced by Danious · · Score: 1

    When I worked for a telco doing their billing system about 10 years ago a text already nominally cost them less than $0.01 and they were charging customers $0.20. I can only imagine it's gotten even cheaper since then.

  83. Text message prices offset the data plan price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just speculative, but those SMS prices are probably balancing out other services that don't have as high a profit margin.

  84. Why not create a boycott meme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=189613534411048

  85. Re:except by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    They don't "detect."

    If you use a crappy feature phone on a crappy network that likes to bill for features individually you might pay specially for IM services. They're usually WAY cheaper than texting though, and frequently belong to unlimited plans, making them cheaper than general data.

  86. Re:except by Bengie · · Score: 1

    unlimited text/pic/video on all lines in my family plan for $20 flat. Not per line, account wide.

    Any line with the 5GB data plan automatically gets unlimited text/pic/video. Data plan is $20 per line.

    text/pic/video is free incoming no matter which plan I take.

  87. Receiving messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    To this day I still don't understand why we have to pay to RECEIVE text messages while the sender is already paying to send them. In Brazil, for example, where most people have pre-paid plans, users don't pay to receive text messages which to me makes a lot of sense.

  88. Not for long....unless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Net Neutrality rules must be clear and enforced. Without them, carriers will block traffic from apps like this.

    I would actually try the app myself, if it were not now attached to Facebook

  89. Re:except by adolf · · Score: 1

    That's weird. My Android phone doesn't even seem to know that Motorola exists, even though they made the handset.

    What is this "Motorola account" that you speak of?

  90. Re:except by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

    Erm, you don't need a google account to send SMS's nether, i was able to do so without having a google account on my android phone. Unless you are referring to using google to send the sms's (in which case it'd be quite normal to require a google account...)

  91. speeling is kinda hard ... or is it edditing? by Ryunosuke · · Score: 1

    "A young little application called Beluga caught the attention of Facebook, which purchased the company a Thursday" I want a Thursday too :(

  92. Or by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    the FCC could do their damned job and ban usurious fees by carriers.

  93. Re:except by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Mod parent Informative, he's right, and the GP is wrong as far as I can tell.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  94. Re:except by Cornelius+the+Great · · Score: 1

    I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but in case you aren't...

    Some Motorola Android phones have MotoBlur, which require a MotoBlur account (it does its own cloud syncing). My Atrix, unfortunately, is one of those phones.

    I believe the Motorola Droid phones (Droid, Droid 2, Droid X) on Verizon don't have MotoBlur, and thus don't require a Motorola account.

    --
    Sigs are for losers
  95. Re:except by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

    This was prior to Facebook going over to XMPP. There was about a year or 18 months where facebook chat was their own homebrew protocol before jumping to XMPP. Pidgin had a plugin within a few weeks, Kopete waited eight or ten months for it.

    --
    I call it 'The Aristocrats'
  96. Re:except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole thread is about Alternatives to SMSs. Try to keep up.

  97. Re:except by adolf · · Score: 1

    Ah.

    Thanks for the tip. I'll be sure to stay away from such devices in the future.

    I've got a Droid 1, all modded and fucked with and well-understood, but I do not pay attention much to what the rest of the market looks like since this "old" dog still does everything I tell it to do and I'm not in a hurry to buy another $500 toy. :)