AT&T Kills $10 Texting Plan, Pushes $20 Plan

Hugh Pickens writes "AT&T is scrapping its 1,000-texts-for-ten-bucks plan and replacing it with a plan that offers unlimited texts for $20. Users who don't want the unlimited plan can opt to pay 20 cents per text. Current AT&T subscribers are grandfathered in, so you can stick with whatever plan you selected when you signed your contract. 'The vast majority of our messaging customers prefer unlimited plans and with text messaging growth stronger than ever, that number continues to climb among new customers,' says AT&T. The news has not been received warmly in the tech blogosphere. 'AT&T calls this "streamlining." We call it what it is: an outrageous, gigantic scam,' writes Sam Biddle in Gizmodo. 'AT&T's taken away new customers' option to spend less, whereas carriers like Verizon still offer tiered texting plans for varying budgets.'"

Comments

It's the market

[TheSpoom]

They'll charge whatever the market will bear. Luckily for them, they partially control the market too. Imagine what the market would bear if they acquired Verizon as well...

Re:It's the market

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy Sprint stock!

Re:It's the market

[mangino]

That would be true if there was a well functioning market. A market of essentially two companies armed with contracts does not make for a well functioning market. It would be better to say:

They extract monopoly profits because they can.

Re:It's the market

[NJRoadfan]

I remember when I got my first 2-way SMS phone, it was only 2 cents to receive and 10 cents to send a message, most providers used to have no fee to receive SMS messages including on prepaid plans (T-Mobile). Now its 20 cents to send and receive.

Re:It's the market

[tripleevenfall]

AT&T also just announced that they will begin throttling mobile users on Oct. 1 who use some unspecified amount of bandwidth per month, until the next month's billing cycle begins - even if they are on one of the old (grandfathered) unlimited plans.

Until customers punish them with defection, AT&T will continue to do whatever they can to provide less for the same price, or a higher price, to make up for their lack of foresight in developing their data network.

Re:It's the market

[Nimey]

...because the Bush Administration let them buy up their competitors.

Re:It's the market

[Billly Gates]

How can we punish them with defection when we are stuck with contracts where they can punish us for such a move?

Every other country (ok most) outlaw abusive contracts. They are monopolists so you do not have a choice and they take advantage of it. We are 3rd world in terms of what we get for our prices. Even Africa has better bandwitdth and usage. We are a joke thanks to these clowns.

If a republican gets elected as a president next year I would say very likely, you can bet this will continue or get much worse over 4 years. I imagine in 10 years from now we will pay $500 for internet and phone and it will cost as much as a new car lease. This has got to stop somehow as with medical care it is unsustainable.

If far right wing and Austrain economics were not so prevaliant today, we would trust bust the drug companies, insurance companies, and telecoms to more affordable levels. However in this political climate and voters watching American Idol this is not going to happen anytime soon.

Re:It's the market

[Anonymous Coward]

The ONLY reason I have a text plan is for the alarms and notices I get from my servers. The company pays for it. If I had my choice I wouldn't HAVE text messaging.

Re:It's the market

[Darkness404]

...Because the previous administrations gave them $$$$ if they would "improve" the communications of America.

Re:It's the market

[jellomizer]

These guys seem to be missing the big picture here. They are missing out a lot of great returns for the future.

Verizon grows in wireless was because they had some of the best plans back in the late 90's. Back when Cell Phones charged you for Local, Long Distance calls, roaming fees.... Verizon was one of the first to give people a plan that allows a call to be a call no matter where you were at or who you were calling... A big deal back then. It opened Cell Phones for being a toy for the rich to an every-man tool.

But now Verizon AT&T Sprint and everyone else is not taking it to the next step. Unlimited Plans/Unrestricted plans.

Customers want to get rid of their cable companies. They want their internet plans to allow unrestricted tethering so they can get internet they can use at home or anywhere else. They want to use their phones without having to worry about a huge bill later on. A company who does the big push for this, and has the infrastructure to support it will Make a LOT of money and get a lot of switchers right after their other contracts expire.

Re:It's the market

[h4rr4r]

Convert it to gmail and have gmail notify only on sends from your monitoring system.

Re:It's the market

[Darkness404]

Lulwut? Austrian economics is against patents which is what are keeping the drug market alive. Austrian economics disagrees with all of the red tape and mandatory insurance policies which is what keeps insurance companies anti-competitive, and Austrian economics also disagrees with handing out taxpayer money to private corporations which is exactly what has been done with telecoms to "modernize" the US.

Re:It's the market

[RobinEggs]

That would be true if there was a well functioning market. A market of essentially two companies armed with contracts does not make for a well functioning market. It would be better to say:

They extract monopoly profits because they can.

And yet I never see people cursing out Intel/AMD or ATI/Nvidia on slashdot (and of course, now it's just three companies). If you ask an economist, anything less than five competitors of exactly equal capability (not implementation skills or resources, mind you, but the theoretical ability to compete) is a disaster. I don't think any telecommunications market or pc component arena has that many matched competitors right now.

Re:It's the market

[Anonymous Coward]

bleat bleat the sheep says, "I'm stuck!" Try not signing a contract next time - or better yet put your money where your mouth is and get the hell out of that abusive contract you thought a 50$ phone was worth.. There are a very few who cannot vote with their dollars by moving to cricket or boost or one of the actually reasonable (sort of) providers, but since the bleat brigade doesn't want to accept responsibility for their failure think when they sign contracts, instead they'll whine about how the free market doesn't work (I'm NOT a free marketeer.. but if I was, i'd blame the bleat brigade stupidity for this, not the companies who noticed they exist)

anonymous because i've been harsh. (which is why net anonymity is a good thing!!)

Re:It's the market

[Darkness404]

*Keeping the anti-competitive drug market alive

Killing patents wouldn't kill the drug market, only the extortion racket.

Re:It's the market

[TheSpoom]

That was kinda the point I was driving at.

Re:It's the market

[BStroms]

I do wonder how much longer it will bear texting. Now that larger and larger percentages of the cell phone market have smartphones, why pay for a separate text plan when email can do everything texting can better? I get a sound on my phone whenever I receive an email just like a text. I also can view and search all my emails from the gmail client and enjoy the use of a keyboard for replies whenever I'm at a computer (which is a rather significant percent of the time.) All this, and it doesn't cost a cent more than the data plan I have anyway.

Of course I've never had a texting plan to begin with. Too much cost for too little benefit. I'm sure I'm not alone here in being in front of my computer the vast majority of the time. For the few times I couldn't be reached via email, a phone call was still possible. The hardest part was teaching friends/family that if they text me, I'm not going to get it, because I do have text messages blocked.

Re:It's the market

[already_in_use]

Obviously, they will not charge what the market will bear, but whatever the hell they *want* the market to bear! ...and everything will be peachy and rosy when they buy/steal/take-over T-Mobile... Did anyone see the movie "Mars Attacks"? With the aliens running thru LasVagas with the interpreter on their shoulder that was blaring "We are your friends", All the while killing everyone in sight? That's why I left the thieves after starting with BellSouth in 1991 then on to Verizon in 2010. I keep asking myself, " What took you soooo long Bozo? (slapping my forehead with my palm) and the operator said "40 cents more for the next tree minutes..." - Dr Hook and the Medicine Show.

Re:It's the market

[McGuirk]

Basically my entire extended family has moved from AT&T to Sprint across the last 6 months or so. I can imagine that others have done so and will continue to do so. AT&T continues to find every possible way to piss off their customers.

Re:It's the market

[Anubis350]

Are you on the same slashdot I am? I see people cursing Intels monopoly and praying that AMD does well so we don't return to the Bad Old Days (tm) when Intel ruled CPU prices with a more iron fist than they do today all the time...

It's not as vitriolic at the telcos tend to get, but i that's a function of the fact that my tax dollars aren't being given to intel to support their monopoly (at least not in anywhere near the quantities the telcos get)

Re:It's the market

[beelsebob]

It's not just any change the market will bear, it's thinking ahead. They're thinking that in 5 years time, RIM/Apple/Google will have their own messaging systems that are very popular. 90% of people will not be using texts to communicate. They're making sure that even if you want to send just 1 or 2 texts to a few people with dumb phones, you still have to pay $20 a month for the privilege.

Re:It's the market

[Billly Gates]

Right now the current climate is government BUD OUT! Government only destroys jobs while the private sector will always correct itself and jobs will magically appear by laying people off etc.

That is the conservative philosphy I am refering too. Austrain economics is laissez fair and anyone who says otherwise is a radical left wing anti American socialist.

That is who is running agaisn't Obama for the president as well as the clowns who fillabuster and say no to everything in Congress. I am not saying I agree in socialism and high taxation but rather greed and a powerful minority on a rigorous idealogy putting fear in candidates trying to make it pass the primaries.

Re:It's the market

[cjb658]

Obligatory comic

Re:It's the market

[mlong]

If a republican gets elected as a president next year I would say very likely, you can bet this will continue or get much worse over 4 years.

Because it sure has gotten better under a democratic president... uh huh

Re:It's the market

[karnal]

Texting can be done when no data connection is available to a smartphone. I've been in situations where I'm unable to successfully connect to the data "stream" - but sending a text still works. This is one reason why email will not replace text messages.

Re:It's the market

[kj_kabaje]

I like your definition.  How many viable political parties do we have in the United States again?

Re:It's the market

[Fractal Dice]

The irony of a free and competitive market is that it most lavishly rewards those who find a way to make the market controlled and anti-competitive.

Re:It's the market

[tripleevenfall]

We should definitely outlaw AT&T sending those thugs over to your house and holding a gun to your head and making you sign that contract.

That should be illegal.

Re:It's the market

[Shatrat]

Just like the Obama administration hasn't said a peep about T-mobile? If you pretend this is a partisan issue you allow it to continue. This is a campaign finance issue, AT&T donates to Republicans, Democrats, even Independents. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000076

Re:It's the market

[ArcherB]

If a republican gets elected as a president next year I would say very likely, you can bet this will continue or get much worse over 4 years. I imagine in 10 years from now we will pay $500 for internet and phone and it will cost as much as a new car lease. This has got to stop somehow as with medical care it is unsustainable.

Strange. In the past 30 years or so, 20 of those had a Republican in office. Yet, I'm not paying $500 for Internet. For that matter, just five years ago when Republicans held the White House, the Senate and House of Representatives, I was paying less for just about everything than I am now.

I other words, you are either severely deluded, just plain ignorant, or a fucking slimy liar. So, which one is it?

Re:It's the market

[omnichad]

I'm on Net10 prepay, and it's only 5 cents to send and 5 cents to receive. It's still more than it should be, but since it actually takes minutes off my plan to use texts, it's far fairer than requiring the purchase of a full voice plan just so you can buy a separate unlimited texting plan.

Re:It's the market

[Runaway1956]

I curse Intel routinely, and I do my share of cursing at ATI's decision not to support older GPU's on modern OS's. Others, meanwhile, have argued opposite positions - some of them using pretty good arguments. You should search slashdot for conversations on both subjects.

Re:It's the market

[Runaway1956]

DON'T SIGN THE FRIGGING CONTRACT!!!

It's not a recent development that the telco's are raping customers. Nor is it some kind of recently released secret, dug out by a heroic investigative team. Gotta have a phone? Get a prepaid phone, with no contract, reasonable fees, and limited use. THAT is how you tell the Telcos to go get stuffed!

The people who are signing contracts with the telcos today pretty much deserve to be raped. The facts are out there. Ignore them at your own risk.

Re:It's the market

[Yamioni]

None. ;-)

Re:It's the market

[HermMunster]

Smart phones are common-place. You can even buy a pre-paid Motorola Triumph ($300 for the phone and for $35.00 the pre-paid plan gives you unlimited text and data). All in all, you can save, over a two year period, nearly $1800. Even if you choose a more expensive plan, say $45.00 for 1200 minutes and unlimited text/data, you still save considerably.

Those that don't want to go this route and have a smart phone can use a chat program (e-buddy is free, there are several others) or Google Voice to deliver text messages and to have conversations.

Is AT&T so desperate that they need to make money this way or are they so powerful and influential that they need not fear competition?

Re:It's the market

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that was his point...though delivered much more cleverly and subtly than your ranting version.

Re:It's the market

[Yamioni]

How can we punish them with defection when we are stuck with contracts where they can punish us for such a move?

By changing the terms of the contract, the carrier themselves must legally terminate the existing contract and attempt to replace it with the new one. Since they terminated the old contract, you are not subject to the early termination fee. They will likely try to surreptitously get you to agree to the new contract (go online and read the new agreement, which is 8000 pages of legalese) and also try to charge you for termination if you disagree. Don't let them. Just make sure you leave before 'agreeing' to the new contract, otherwise you are legally allowed to be charged the early termination fee. Carriers just like to take advantage of people that aren't aware of their rights.

Also, be aware that changes to privacy policies and other corporate policies are great times to break ties with a carrier without paying the early termination fee.

Re:It's the market

[dgatwood]

And yet I never see people cursing out Intel/AMD or ATI/Nvidia on slashdot (and of course, now it's just three companies).

That's because outside of the PC space, Intel and ATI are irrelevant. Everything else is build with ARM, PowerPC, or occasionally MIPS these days. On the whole, as CPU manufacturers go, they're both niche players.

Also, Intel and ATI sell a product without any particular terms and conditions attached. If I want to take an Intel CPU and use it as a space heater instead of a CPU, I can do that. They won't warrant it, but I can do that. I can move it from machine to machine. I can overclock it. I can use it without paying Intel another dime. Try to take a cell phone and use it without paying one of those cell companies a monthly fee and see how well that works.

There's a big difference between a product and a service. A product can be replaced a lot more easily than a service.

Re:It's the market

[dead_user]

Is AT&T so desperate that they need to make money this way or are they so powerful and influential that they need not fear competition?

Yes.

Re:It's the market

[Yamioni]

SMS messages are a stripped down version of email messages. Fewer headers, plaintext only, and a limited character count. But that's it. Both traverse the internet the same, and both end up in an inbox. You can use any email client you wish to send text messages to someone's phone, and vice-versa. Enter an email address into your phone instead of a phone number and you'll see what I mean. The only caveat is that you have to know the carrier for the person you're emailing a text so you can get the host correct (since you have to enter PhoneNumber@tmobl.net, for example.) But even that is trivial, as most reverse phone number sites on the interent will tell you the carrier, and looking up the SMS host for a carrier is readily available information as well.

The only reason full featured email won't replace texting is because the telephone infrastucture isn't (and likely never will be if these prices are any indication) configured to support it. The cell towers recognize SMS and MMS messages and route them accordingly, but are set to ignore 'data' so they can overcharge you for it. Since we have DSL in homes I'm reasonably certain cell towers could route data traffic rather easily if the carrier allowed them to. But they would rather set up 3G and 4G networks for this and overcharge everyone to use it. Despicable really.

Re:It's the market

[dgatwood]

That's because outside of the PC space, Intel and ATI are irrelevant.

Err... Intel and AMD.

Re:It's the market

[redemtionboy]

I own sprint stock and have for 10 years. I watched it go from $15/share, to well over $100/share where I thought I should sell but held off the temptation in the hopes to have a larger portfolio in the future, to now where it's less than $5/share...So yeah, I guess you could buy now. It can't really go much lower,

Re:It's the market

[delvsional]

Soon it will be: sorry, did we say unlimited? You're causing service interruptions. We really meant 1500.

Re:It's the market

[BStroms]

'Will not' might be a bit strong. Unless there's a significant change to plan costs, I think it's all but inevitable that texting will die out. Wireless data dead zones are only going to become rarer. In addition, some people are in areas that already have rock solid data access. Plus, most people don't like spending more money for something than they have to. Once enough people figure out they can use email like text messages, many are going to want to cancel their text plans.

And even if some people resist, if their friends start telling them to stop texting them because it costs them money, or even figure out how to block them completely, they may be forced to adapt. I'm not saying texting will die in 2012, just that we may very well start to see it go into decline in the years to come.

Re:It's the market

[Dahamma]

I can't believe they would do something so blatantly against customers' interests with the t-mobile deal so close to approval. Sprint has been lobbying hard to have it rejected, maybe this will actually help (though unless someone on the FCC is an AT&T 1000 SMS plan user, I seriously doubt it).

Re:It's the market

[GameboyRMH]

Hahahaha do you know how much more expensive prepaid is? I'm sure they'd love everyone to go to prepaid contracts!

Ironically prepaid contracts are what they use to bleed poor people out the ass. It costs them A LOT more per minute/text to communicate. I know all about that. Every minute of talk time and text message you can send/receive is precious and has to be managed carefully, keeping your credit expiration dates in mind. In some places in Africa they even charge people on prepaid to ring each other's phones because they'd use a ring as a form of communication back when it was free.

Re:It's the market

[toadlife]

I just moved from T-Mobile to Sprint. My wife will be joining me next spring when the contract on her line expires.

Despite their craptacular rural data network, I was happy with T-Mobile but neither my wife or I want to be AT&T customers.

Re:It's the market

[jd2112]

I like your definition. How many viable political parties do we have in the United States again?

One. Although many people suffer the delusion that there are two viable parties if you look closely enough you find they are in fact the same.

Re:It's the market

[_0xd0ad]

The only caveat is that you have to know the carrier for the person you're emailing a text so you can get the host correct (since you have to enter PhoneNumber@tmobl.net, for example.)

If I don't know, I typically just send it to all of the major carriers. Most of them bounce, and whichever one gets an actual reply was the right one.

Re:It's the market

[anagama]

There are a couple kinds of pre-paid. In one you buy a phone and then a card for minutes -- this is indeed an expensive way to get service.

Another kind of prepaid plan requires that you pay for your monthly service upfront, i.e., you pay your fee and then get a month of service. With most contract plans, you get your month of service and then pay for it. These prepaid plans typically have no contract -- you pay and get service, or don't and don't get service. You do have to buy a phone.

I had Boost Mobile for a while till I wanted to get an android phone. If you can get over the whole hiphoppy baloney, it's a good deal. Unlimited voice and text for $50/mo with reductions for ontime payments. It was also "unlimited" data, but at that time, it was modem speed. Now it goes up to edge speed apparently.

I currently have Tmobile and pay $60/mo (a prepaid MTM no contract plan) for unlimited texting, 1000 minutes, and unlimited network (3G), although their plans have changed recently, they're still a good deal. ... Certainly that will change when AT&T takes over at which point

Re:It's the market

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on years of casually reading various Sprint forums... Many people have got out of their Sprint contracts with no termination fees even with small changes in the contract wording. I believe you default to accepting the new terms by paying your next months bill. You have to call to and request the terminaltion. I'm sure the other carriers have the same cancellation opt-out procedures in place.

Re:It's the market

[hazydave]

If they try to change the contract out from under you, quit. You can do this without paying a penalty, at least in the USA. It is, after all, a contract -- AT&T is as much a party to that's contract's terms as you are.

When you change, whether because of this or otherwise, let both AT&T and your new wireless company know precisely why you changed. It doesn't, of course, matter if you're the only one who does that. And if I do it too, they'll just think we're weird. But when hundreds, when thousands do it, when they go into that AT&T office, sing a few bars of "Alice's Restaurant", and... er, what was I taking about?

There is currently a fairly big migration to Sprint, simply because they still have an real unlimited data plan for new customers. Sprint needs the customers, sure, and WiMax at 2500MHz has some issues as a 4G protocol. But basically, they offer a much better deal than AT&T and Verizon. That's become the center of their ad campaign, and their CEO says that "for now" unlimited plans are staying.

I don't actually have a problem with limited plans, either, just unfair limited plans. The all-you-can-eat plan makes perfect sense: I'm paying for everything I use this month, plain and simple. But the capped plans... in effect, I'm paying for 2GB or whatever. If I go over, I pay big fine rates... if I go under, AT&T or Verizon kill that extra data... data capacity I've already paid for. In short, the deals are designed to frighten me into always buying more data time than I'll use.

An honest capped plan would carry over all unused data, indefinitely. Or simply charge me a flat rate per MB. But none of the telcos actually want fair pricing.

And don't get me started on messages. The limit on an SMS message is 160 characters. So if I'm paying $10 for 1,000 messages, that's $10 for a maximum of 160K of data, or what, $62.50 per megabyte? Text ought to just be another kind of data... if Google can offer it free, the telcos can make unlimited messages a basic part of every package. They don't, because people are stupid and will pay big for what's essentially next to nothing.

Curiously, AT&T's lowest tier data plan costs $15, and ought to deliver all the SMS messages anyone would you need, and a little internet access. It's even fully integrated, if you're on a smart phone with Google Voice.

Re:It's the market

[GameboyRMH]

I thought he meant the card type, since prepaid monthly plans do require a contract vs. prepaid cards which you can buy with cash in some places.

Re:It's the market

[hazydave]

Boost is Sprint. So is Virgin Mobile.

Cricket and MetroPCS have their own networks, but they're very small, and you will pay roaming charges when you're off the network. Cricket's "unlimited" plan has a 1GB data cap. MetroPCS's top tier data plan claims to be unlimited, but they block quite a bit of the multimedia web (yeah, they've been called out on net neutrality).

Re:It's the market

[hazydave]

It's much easier to break something than to fix it. George W. Bush's tax cuts helped to destroy the great economy from the Clinton era. Clinton and Bush both enacted policies that nearly destroyed the US banking system.

Under Obama, things go "less bad" than they would have under McCain. But not as good if Obama and the Democrats hadn't been so quick to pre-compromise on nearly everything they did to deal with the many, many problems left by Mr. Bush.

Face it -- taxation in the USA is the lowest it's been in 60 years. If there was some magical economic miracle just waiting to happen from low taxes, it would have happened already. But economies are never supply-side.. the right doesn't understand cause and effect. No big surprise, given that they pretty much reject scientific thought in all areas of human endeavor. But you can't wish customers with money to spend into existence.

And in fact, the historical record shows that higher taxation in the USA has generally lead to prosperity.

Re:It's the market

[iamhassi]

Exactly. AT&T seems to be increasing the price before they've killed their competitors. Verizon and Sprint are still alive and good. You don't survive by chasing your customers away, you survive by dropping your prices lower than everyone and taking their customers until they're out of business and then jack the prices way up. Unless.... unless AT&T is worried they're becoming a monopoly, and they are purposely chasing customers away, but that sounds tinfoil hat to me

Re:It's the market

[iamhassi]

Honestly I think this move is to prepare for iOS 5 and built-in iChat which some are calling "free texting" for iPhone and iPad users. If theres an android app that allows communication thru an API or something then I really dont see why most people would need a text plan since 99% of my text are to people with iOS or android, I'll pay the $1 for the ten text a month to those without iOS/android.

Re:It's the market

[rrohbeck]

You can still get unlimited data/texting plans from T-Mo.

Re:It's the market

[Sporkinum]

I wouldn't call it expensive for everyone.
My wife's phone, an old Blackberry, cost $120 with 2200 minutes and a year of time. In that year, she still has 700 minutes ($35) left. We had to add some more minutes (600/$30) to extend the time out another 6 months. Texts cost 2 cents each. Calls 5 cents a minute, and data is 10 cents a meg.
It obviously doesn't work for everyone, but has worked out well for her.

Re:It's the market

[danbert8]

"And in fact, the historical record shows that higher taxation in the USA has generally lead to prosperity." [Citation Needed]

http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/longterm/longterm.htm

Re:It's the market

[h3]

True, but I'm frequently at a location where I lose my cell signal but have WiFi available, so it can go the other way, too.

Re:It's the market

[Wireless Joe]

Verizon grows in wireless was because they had some of the best plans back in the late 90's. Back when Cell Phones charged you for Local, Long Distance calls, roaming fees.... Verizon was one of the first to give people a plan that allows a call to be a call no matter where you were at or who you were calling... A big deal back then. It opened Cell Phones for being a toy for the rich to an every-man tool.

Actually, that was an AT&T Wireless Services plan, the Digital One Rate, introduced in 1998 (the same year that Bell Atlantic and GTE merged to form Verizon Wireless).

Re:It's the market

[Anonymous Coward]

In theory, you're right.. but in practice completely wrong. Look up Cricket Wireless/Leap Wireless... they offer unlimited plans for $40/mo... they're 7th in the market - 2b in revenue - compared with att's 32b. I remember they declared bankruptcy a few years ago (although wikipedia doesn't mention it). They've been offering that for years.. doesn't seem to have made them "a LOT of money".

Re:It's the market

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon owns FIOS
ATT owns U-Verse

Both of those are ways for them to extract more money from you every month. Sprint is the only company that could do this and in a way they have tried with their everything plan. No tethering though. Verizon will probably buy Sprint soon anyways.

Re:It's the market

[anagama]

No -- the prepaid monthly plans have no contract term. You can quit them anytime you want without penalty or other BS.

Re:It's the market

[JimBobJoe]

do you know how much more expensive prepaid is?

I do. I pay $38/month for unlimited texting and calling. I use H20 wireless which piggybacks on the AT&T network. In fact, you don't even have to unlock your phone to use it it it were already and ATT phone. Just stick the H20 sim card in (which I did on my iPhone.)

That's basically half the cost I was paying when I had ATT. I couldn't be happier.

Re:It's the market

[Anonymous Coward]

> They're thinking that in 5 years time, RIM/Apple/Google will have their own messaging systems that are very popular.

Uh, it arrived 30 years ago and it's called "e-mail".

Why do people insist on using SMS when every phone on the market can connect to SMTP and IMAP?

Re:It's the market

[shentino]

Honesty is overrated in washington these days.

Wasn't there recentishly a blatant conflict of itnerest with an FTC member taking a job with one of the firms she allowed to merge?

Re:It's the market

[shentino]

I always assume corporations are greedy bastards out for all they can get.

Since that's usually the case, I ask myself one simple question of any industry:

Is there enough competition to make sure consumers aren't forced into monopolistic take-it-or-leave-it deals?

If the answer is yes, and going without service isn't the only alternative, then consumers are at fault.

If the answer is no, and the only choices are to pay up and get assraped, or go without, then the industry is at fault.

Re:It's the market

[shentino]

Often times they like pushing a fait accompli down by "assuming" that consumers will keep the old contract, and also making it inconvenient and troublesome for them to actually exercise their rights.

Sometimes their "customer service" department is mysteriously down at the worst possible time, so that when you try to be assertive enough to tell them to stuff it, you just can't get through.

By the time you get a chance to tell them no your contract has already rolled over and the pressure to just swallow it and keep using the service is overwhelming.

Plus since you "didn't" cancel, their accounting records conveniently state that you're still on the contract and the burden of proof is on you to prove that they were the ones pulling shenanigans.

Re:It's the market

[shentino]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-commissioner-meredith-baker-to-join-comcast-nbc/2011/05/11/AFYfl1rG_blog.html

After a stunt like this I really have no faith in government regulation anymore.

Don't hold your breath.

Re:It's the market

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want this done , do it yourself.
Get a kickstarter project running , have people pledge to pay some cash upfront and then 10$ or something monthly (for the cost of licensing the radio spectrum / equipment and electricity).
It will grow the same way home grown internet networks popped up in ghetto's in Bucharest , basically a big LAN of people paying one subscription. They had free connectivity between themselves and cheaper access to the internet.
In a similar way you can connect your initially small network or towers to a VOIP provider and get cheaper outgoing rates than most cellphone companies, and free inbound calls too (that are cheaper to call , since they figure as landlines).
The main issue is licensing the radio spectrum , after that we can have a bunch of cells here and there providing service thorough voip for a small amount of cash.

Re:It's the market

[mea_culpa]

Customers want to get rid of their cable companies. They want their internet plans to allow unrestricted tethering so they can get internet they can use at home or anywhere else.

There is not enough wireless spectrum allocated for this to happen which is why unlimited plans are evaporating. Mobile broadband needs to stay restricted to the mobile device to keep consumption predictable and sustainable. As much as I hate that statement, I know it is currently the only way I will be able to use my smartphone with adequate bandwidth available when I need it. With the continued explosive growth of smartphones the carriers have very little choice.

Re:It's the market

[Yamioni]

And that is the sad reality of it. I wonder if emails, faxes, or registered mail would be admissible in court as proof an attempt to cancel. My guess is probably not, perhaps, and probably so, respectively. I also wonder if you could bring suit against them afterward for tens of thousands of dollars for pulling said shenanigans.

Re:It's the market

[Lanteran]

Trolling, but plain text messages contain (if done properly), at most, less than a kilobyte of information. Perspective: the average floppy disk could carry at least 1440 text messages. Think about how much it costs to send a megabyte and a half of data. It's gouging.

"millions of text messages each day" is a couple gigabytes. There's no excuse for lacking that capacity.

I guess Apple loves this.

[Anonymous Coward]

iMessage ftw!

SMS sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

SMS sucks. Let them raise the prices, and soon we will move to competing technologies (email, instant messaging).

Re:SMS sucks

[janeuner]

I agreed with this in 1996. Now I just think that anyone that pays any price for SMS is retarded.

Whining Little Bitches

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like it, don't buy it or better yet, take your business to Verizon. Simple as that.

It's sickening to read all the self-entitled bitching that's been going on about this change. Everyone knows text messages are a huge money maker, and I applaud every company's decision to milk it for all its worth.

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[alen]

and yet the same people don't think twice about buying a $700 phone where apple's profit margins border on ridiculous

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[Kielistic]

In other words: shut up and take it. And if you insist on not taking it then do so silently. Can't have lowly people talking about scummy business practices interfering with the corporate marketing machine!

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[ffejie]

shut up and take it.

No, the parent gave you an option - move your business to another carrier. You have at least 2 other choices (Sprint, Verizon Wireless) and in some cases many more (Metro PCS, TracFone, U.S. Cellular, Cricket). What's so hard about switching carriers again?

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[jeffmeden]

Verizon is just as bad, make no mistake about it. Despite the claim that "verizon's tiered pricing is better" on verizon you have the option of buying 250 messages for $5 (a good deal, sure) or buying 5000 messages for $20 (overkill in the extreme) and then theres the "unlimited texting" option, which on a family play you can only purchase for *all* the phones even if someone in your family (cough, oldpeople) never ever send a single text...

So yes, ATT just got a little less attractive in my book, but they are still a far stretch beyond Verizon when it comes to plan pricing options.

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[jeffmeden]

shut up and take it.

No, the parent gave you an option - move your business to another carrier. You have at least 2 other choices (Sprint, Verizon Wireless) and in some cases many more (Metro PCS, TracFone, U.S. Cellular, Cricket). What's so hard about switching carriers again?

What's hard is that they ALL abuse text messaging fees, every last one. AT&T was on the fence with a 1000 messages for 10 dollars plan, but they fell to the dark side with this move. No carrier is any better at this, except the MVNOs, but they offer the absolute worst customer service and overall feature set, so basically the options for texting are indeed "shut up and take it, or just don't text".

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[Kielistic]

Lack of carriers makes switching difficult at times. If there is only a couple and all of them are assholes on some level. The title was also "Whining Little Bitches" indicating the GP believes they should not be voicing their opinions. What's so hard about having people express their dislike for a company's actions? Why are people "bitches" for calling out a company's bullshit actions? People have every right, and the obligation, to point out companies acting in bad faith. They do not have to silently take it or hope that they can move on to an alternative.

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[s73v3r]

Buying a new phone? Switching all your accounts over? Imagine if you had a family plan: Now you'd have to move every one on that plan over to the new carrier, and buy phones for all of them. Not exactly cheap.

And remember, this is just for new customers. Meaning that existing customers don't have a large incentive to switch, as they are largely unaffected. So you're asking a bunch of people who really don't have a reason to, to go through a large hassle in order to prove some point to a giant, monolithic company who's probably not going to notice them anyway.

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[eqisow]

T-Mobile is 9.99 for unlimited texts... you know, for now.

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[HarrySquatter]

So I'm supposed to incur a $300 fee for breaking my contract to save less than 10 dollars a month which over the life of my new contract is going to save me less than the price of breaking my contract? Brilliant logic!

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[ffejie]

No carrier is any better at this, except the MVNOs, but they offer the absolute worst customer service and overall feature set

I don't disagree. So it's a $20/month customer service charge. Does that make it better? You stick with AT&T or Verizon Wireless because they provide the best overall package for you. But you've got other options, you've just eliminated them because they don't give you want you want either.

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[gid]

I used to have 250 texts on AT&T for $5 as well. It was a good pricing point. I never used close to 250 texts. I pay $10 for 1000 now, which, ok, it's more, but I'm willing to pay the extra $60/year for the convenience of texts (lets face it, text messages are integrated much nicer in phones than IM clients since you don't have to add anyone, or get them to run an IM client as well). Now it's $20 for unlimited, that equals out to $240/year, fuck that. If they force this upon people I'll just say no thanks and hopefully get them to turn off texts entirely for me and use an IM client instead... in fact the $120/year already seems pretty ridiculous (since it is), but what can I say, money isn't really that tight for me and I'm lazy. :)

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[ffejie]

And remember, this is just for new customers.

Doesn't this negate your point about having to switch all your phones and the family plan?

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[i_b_don]

"Your corporate overlords are you friends. They are innovators and job creators they deserve to make the highly efficient very wealthy. Quit your whining peasants and keep buying lottery tickets and playing cents per byte for SMS and maybe one day you too will become 'highly efficient' . LOL... ok, i'm just kidding about the last part.... now shut up and laugh!"

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[ffejie]

So I'm supposed to incur a $300 fee for breaking my contract...

No, if they change your plan, you can get out of the contract without fee. However, it looks like in this case, they are not modifying existing contracts. As a current customer, you don't have a complaint until your current contract expires. Then you switch, incur no fee and get the pricing plan you want.

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[SunTzuWarmaster]

The grandparent poster is insisting on his right to both complain and move his business. In fact, he does so in the 12 words after your quote: "And if you insist on not taking it then do so silently" (written sarcastically).

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[HarrySquatter]

Yes, but the cost of the new phone, etc is in the end usually going to end up once again obliterating the savings.

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[Albanach]

I'm not sure Apple's profit margin is that crazy compared to many other premium IT products that are marked up > 100% above manufacturing cost.

However, this move by AT&T is intended to increase the cost to the consumer of that phone by $240 over the lifetime of the plan. That is outrageous. Even more so when the company they wish to buy, T-Mobile, offers unlimited text messaging as a $5/month add on, making AT&T's proposed price, $360 more expensive.

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[gabebear]

Having to sign up for multiyear contracts to get a decent price and very few networks being available in some areas make it extremely difficult or impossible for many people.

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[smelch]

There are tons of competing technologies for SMS that do the same thing and are free. Use them instead, it's not a matter of which carriers to text on, it's which carriers, and SMS or IM or email or a billion other ways to send small messages to a specific person.

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[Entrope]

What cost of a new phone? If you like your current phone, keep it or move to something similar. At the end of your current contract, something that has comparable specs is probably going to be available for $50 or less with a new contract. If you pay $200+ for a phone when you contract with a wireless carrier, it's because you want a relatively new and powerful phone.

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[Yamioni]

So don't change phones. Unless you move from a CDMA carrier to a GSM carrier or vice versa, just have your phone unlocked and take it to your new carrier. Most carriers will unlock your phone for free after the end of your contract, and if not you can usually find someone to do it for you for $10-$20. You have options, it just sounds like you need to be informed of them. :-)

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[dbet]

So, you've never complained to a company when you were unhappy with their service? And no company has ever changed a policy due to public outcry?

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[darkshadow88]

T-Mobile and AT&T run their 3G on different frequencies, so unless your device happens to support both, you'll only get 2G data with your old device when you switch.

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[Yamioni]

Ah, yes, I had forgotten about that. I'm guessing if you have a locked phone in the first place it probably isn't one that supports both, just to discourage changing carriers. Now I have become the informed one, thank you. :-)

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[s73v3r]

No, because your point was that everyone should leave. I said that leaving would require all the things I mentioned above, and that most people aren't affected, and thus they probably wouldn't leave. So there really is no feedback loop for that.

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[Anonymous Coward]

I see what you're saying, but if most people aren't affected, why the outrage? Those that are affected should leave, and that tiny feedback loop will hit AT&T in the form of more churn, which in a perfect market would cause them to not do these things. However, if not a noticeable number of people are affected, then does it really matter?

Re:Whining Little Bitches

[Anonymous Coward]

$20*24months = $480 in text messaging fees alone over the life of an AT&T postpaid contract. At least you can sell the phone.

just sign up with a competitor

[alen]

virgin has android phones with totally unlimited plans. and their android phones are only $149

oh wait, someone with an IQ that is higher than everyone here combined has figured out that if you sell a crappy and slow phone it will limit total data usage and that's why they can sell unlimited. or that the usual whiners don't want to pay $700 for a cell phone and then complain why the carriers are charging so much money.

Re:just sign up with a competitor

[Anonymous Coward]

Virgin's coverage is pathetic. Next.

Re:just sign up with a competitor

[AndyAndyAndyAndy]

It's Sprint's network, which roams onto the Verizon network. As a subscriber, I can tell you there's few places I can't get data from.

Re:just sign up with a competitor

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends where you are - around me, there are a lot of Sprint towers, so Virgin is perfect for me. And I haven't had any real issues when traveling on the east coast. Certainly in the boonies Verizon is better, but if I'm in the boonies I'm chillaxin' and not sweating the phone. YMMV.

Re:just sign up with a competitor

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. Verizon has zero coverage at my house, whereas Virgin works. I pay $25 (soon to be $35) for 300 minutes + unlimited texting and data. Best of all: no contract. Like any other carrier, there may be significant dead spots that make it a deal-breaker for some individuals. Not a problem in my case.

For just about any contract that you can find, there is a better non-contract deal to be had. Contracts are for fools.

Re:just sign up with a competitor

[Anonymous Coward]

virgin has android phones with totally unlimited plans. and their android phones are only $149

oh wait, someone with an IQ that is higher than everyone here combined has figured out that if you sell a crappy and slow phone it will limit total data usage and that's why they can sell unlimited. or that the usual whiners don't want to pay $700 for a cell phone and then complain why the carriers are charging so much money.

I have had an android on virgin mobile for a while. It is a great phone and I've never had any problems with coverage.

Re:just sign up with a competitor

[kingbilly]

I make up the difference with Google Voice and a free android app called GrooveIP. This allows me to make calls in my own home where reception is weak using my own wireless network. Otherwise you can't beat the deal:

- Android phone, unsubsidized @ $150.00 (LG Optimus V)
- Plans starting at $25.00/mo for 300 minutes, unlimited text and data
- No need to review your bill.. it is ALWAYS $25.00
- Make up for the low minutes with Google Voice
- No contracts


I've been with VM since 2007 after being tired of high text surcharges, penalties for adjusting plans as family needs changes, and the third-world status AT&T gave to us recently acquired Cingular customers. Couldn't be happier, I really feel like those relaxed stock photo men with their feet on a desk whenever I hear co-workers complaining about bills, service, cancellation fees, unknown text usage, etc.

Re:just sign up with a competitor

[erroneus]

There's more to it than just that. I had a co-worker who absolutely hated what AT&T has been doing... stomping around furiously. Why didn't he just change? "Friends and Family" plans... that and coupled with the fact that some friends and family don't have other options where some of them live.

It's never quite as simple unless you're a hermit or a selfish/self-centered person.

In any case, my T-Mobile plan beats anything AT&T offers on every detail and strangely, I have not seen any mysterious charges on my bill... ever. Also, I was on T-Mobile with friends and family one of my brothers thought he was being screwed by them somehow and went with AT&T and shortly after got the first iPhone. ("It does everything I could want a phone to do! It's the perfect phone!" he said... heh... he keeps buying iGadget after iGadget too... oh well)

I'll miss T-Mobile... Despite the "smoking gun" which proves AT&T has lied to government and investors, no action will be taken to stop them from buying T-Mobile. As we will see, lawmakers and government will ignore their own laws, policies and procedures to enable this to happen. And every time we hear things about how important law is and how no one is above the law, we will have this (among many other things) in our recent memory to remind us it's just not true.

Re:just sign up with a competitor

[froggymana]

Yes, but Virgin doesn't roam onto Verizon's network. There are many places where you won't get service.

Re:just sign up with a competitor

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had a family plan with T-mobile for several years. Money got tight and they shut the phones off. I understand that. I do not understand the $20 PER LINE (I have 4) reconnection fee. I will be abandoning T-Mobile ASAP (2 years to go on contract) and going without contract from now on.

Re:just sign up with a competitor

[h4rr4r]

Name 1 great phone that runs android on virgin mobile. There website shows three lowend android phones. None of them are running 2.3, none of them have more than 512MB of ram, are any of them even supported by CM?

Re:just sign up with a competitor

[AaronMK]

It's never quite as simple unless you're a hermit or a selfish/self-centered person.

Personally, I think the expectation by someone that others always be accessible by whatever form they want (texting, cell, e-mail) is more selfish than not having a text plan simply to accommodate said expectation.

Re:just sign up with a competitor

[omnichad]

I've never looked at VM. Is that $25/mo. plan still available to new people? Can't seem to find any information.

Re:just sign up with a competitor

[Anonymous Coward]

I've gotten one of their Android phones for $70; $25/month unlimited data/texting (even though that's up to $35 for brand new customers), or even a completely unlimited (voice included) plan for less than half of what we had been paying for a single iPhone through AT&T with a "grandfathered" data package. In the six months since my husband switched, we've saved hundreds of dollars and just laugh as my mother-in-law still fights with AT&T for every dime.

Re:just sign up with a competitor

[fatalfury]

VM recently raised the price to $35/mo for 300 mins and unlimited data/texts. Current customers can retain the old price as long as they keep their account active.

Re:just sign up with a competitor

[fatalfury]

I have the LG Optimus. It runs 2.2, which if you look at a lot of current phones on the market, they are still running 2.2. A friend of mine just got an HTC Desire - which I'd say is mid-range - and it's running 2.2. Sure, my Optimus may be "low end" but am I willing to pay 3 times as much per month for a high-end contract phone? No way. I'm happy with my low end phone and it's low end price.

I forget: is tiering good or evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

'The vast majority of our messaging customers prefer unlimited plans and with text messaging growth stronger than ever, that number continues to climb among new customers,' says AT&T.

%s/text messaging/mobile data/g

Re:I forget: is tiering good or evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

This was my thought. This same crowd hates the fact that everyone is moving to tiered data pricing models. Wouldn't you rather just pay for what you use? Not this crowd, since they tend to use more than the average person. Guess what--unlimited costs more. Be careful what you wish for.

Re:I forget: is tiering good or evil?

[janeuner]

Guess what--unlimited SMS costs nothing.

Also, teired data is a far superior model. However, I wish they had a 2G-only teir for email.

Re:I forget: is tiering good or evil?

[Bagels]

The bit that complicates it for me in this case is that this is knowing that I'm paying $20 to piggy-back on packets that are already being sent constantly anyhow. There's no incremental bandwidth usage and no real infrastructure cost associated - charging for texting is close to pure profit.

Re:I forget: is tiering good or evil?

[ffejie]

Right on. I wish they had 2G only modes for my phone to save on battery. When I'm not browsing or watching video - what do I need 3G (or 4G) for?

It's like that stupid "Flash Mob" AT&T commercial. It's not like 4G actually gets the messages to me faster, the latency is probably about the same. Most importantly, the latency from the vibration of my phone, to me getting my phone out of my pocket, unlocking it, etc. - that latency is significantly longer than anything experienced on 2G or 3G. When my phone is in "passive" mode, it makes perfect sense to not be on 4G (or 3G). I'm way off-topic now.

Re:I forget: is tiering good or evil?

[tlhIngan]

The bit that complicates it for me in this case is that this is knowing that I'm paying $20 to piggy-back on packets that are already being sent constantly anyhow. There's no incremental bandwidth usage and no real infrastructure cost associated - charging for texting is close to pure profit.

Actually, there is. It's one of the reasons why the iPhone on AT&T nearly took out AT&T's network. Yes, the AT&T network was nearly disabled because the control channel was too busy (there were plenty of voice/data channels to go around).

The bandwidth of the control channel is shared by everyone, and because it's a control channel, everything is coordinated through it. Making a call? The phone asks for two voice channels through the control channel. Ditto for incoming calls - the cells set up a pair of channels and announce the call over the control channel. Ditto to set up and tear down data connections (which can re-use voice channels).

Problem was, the iPhone was VERY aggressive. Maybe too aggressive - it would request a data channel, then tear it down the instant it went idle. This caused excess control channel traffic (but was good for battery life - holding idle data connections open costs battery).

Toss in many iPhone users, many text users, and heavy calling and the control channel can get congested way before capacity. And this leads to slow network data (it can take forever to set up a channel), dropped calls (if the control channel is full, it's hard for the radio to perform handoff), and other issues.

Europe and Asia didn't suffer because texting was so common that carriers migrated to variable-bandwidth control channels - the control channel bandwidth could expand with need.

T-mobile suffered a similar issue with an IM app - I guess the interaction between the IM app and Android's network handling starting causing the same problems.

That's the technical side, anyhow. But the practical side - texts, like gas, are products sold at market rates - what the market will pay, which have little to do with the real cost of providing the service. And people have said they'd pay heavily for texting.

Re:I forget: is tiering good or evil?

[s73v3r]

Wouldn't you rather just pay for what you use?

Considering that they're charging more for their limited "pay for what you use" plans than for the unlimited ones, no.

Re:I forget: is tiering good or evil?

[s73v3r]

Most Android phones do have a way to only use 2G networks, as opposed to 3G.

Re:I forget: is tiering good or evil?

[eqisow]

I don't know if it's standard for Android, but Cyanogenmod definitely has a 2G only mode in the radio settings.

Re:I forget: is tiering good or evil?

[ffejie]

Thanks for the tip - now the real question - do you actually use that setting ever or am I a crazy person?

Re:I forget: is tiering good or evil?

[Cutting_Crew]

maybe people are willing to pay for it because they are not or they think there isn't another option(which there is if you have a smartphone).

Re:I forget: is tiering good or evil?

[Abreu]

I am on vanilla Froyo and it does allow you to set it to "2G only"

Re:I forget: is tiering good or evil?

[h4rr4r]

I use it all the time if I am in a place with spotty 3G and I need the battery to last. I have it right in my power bar that I see when I drag the status bar down.

Re:I forget: is tiering good or evil?

[s73v3r]

I have a shortcut on one of my homescreens that can toggle it, but admittedly I don't use it that often. I have heard of people using things like Tasker to automatically schedule the phone to go to 2G overnight, while they're sleeping, and then going back to whatever they have in the morning.

Should help kill SMS

[Anonymous Coward]

Paying even a cent for 140 bytes means you're being fleeced. Use the internet instead.

Re:Should help kill SMS

[erroneus]

It's actually worse than "paying for 140 bytes." That 140 bytes is part of normal service packets that go to and from your phone. So whether there is a message in there for the user or from the user is simply irrelevant in terms of usage. Charging for SMS at all is a fraud.

640...text messages

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because 640 text messages is Enough For Anyone

Since text messages cost sooooo much to carry

[Anonymous Coward]

For $20.00, that would require approximately 1.21 giga-texts to use up about 35 cents worth of bandwidth - so roughly 69.141 giga-text messages... happy sore-thumbing...

In other words - unlimited texting should be FREE.
Unlimited data should be about $10.00 a month, this would include unlimited calling as calling is just data.

Re:Since text messages cost sooooo much to carry

[LBArrettAnderson]

Calling is not just data. It does not use the same system (note that often times you can make calls but don't have a data connection) (text messages also do not go through the data connection. You can often text even when you don't have a data connection).

I guarantee you that it costs carriers much more than $10/month/subscriber to transfer their data. There is a very expensive infrastructure involved, using a lot of electricity. Wired bandwidth is the least of their worries as far as cost goes.

Re:Since text messages cost sooooo much to carry

[spudthepotatofreak]

You work from AT&T right?

Re:Since text messages cost sooooo much to carry

[ffejie]

Do you think that companies charge you what things cost to make? Do you think that it costs Fiji Water twice as much as Aquafina to bottle H2O? Newsflash: businesses charge on value, derived from what people are willing to pay, not based on what it costs them to produce such items. In cases of price gouging, competitors come into the market and undercut the original producer. In the case of Mobile Wireless, apparently it's a little bit trickier to upend the market, due to the massive capital infusion it would require to build out a national network.

Re:Since text messages cost sooooo much to carry

[MalleusEBHC]

The marginal cost of texting is next to nothing. Texts get sent over the control channel. Regardless of texting, the control channel is needed for making calls, and it's mostly wasted bandwidth the rest of the time. Text messaging rates are highway robbery. That they cost anything is a product of our lovely cellular service industry.

But don't worry, once AT&T and T-Mobile merge, they won't waste so much money on redundant overhead, so they'll be able to make texting free with the savings. Right? Right?

Re:Since text messages cost sooooo much to carry

[Dracos]

Remember that SMS rides on an allocated but otherwise unused slice of spectrum (I forget the details), so this is pure profit for them.

Re:Since text messages cost sooooo much to carry

[LBArrettAnderson]

Why would you think that? The guy who posted above me seems to believe that their only cost is wired bandwidth, and that $10/month should cover unlimited data. No, I don't work for AT&T, or any telco.

Their profit margins aren't as big as you think. They may overcharge for texting, but so what? They aren't making some ridiculous amount of money off of everyone like Apple does. If they cut their prices in half (the minimum cut it seems the masses believe is fair), they would go out of business. AT&T's net profit margin (as a company) is generally around 10 to 15% (I don't know what it specifically is for wireless, but it isn't 300%, as the OP seems to believe). They aren't screwing you over as much as you want to believe. Nor are the oil companies. Look at Exxon's profit margins.

Re:Since text messages cost sooooo much to carry

[s73v3r]

I guarantee you it doesn't. At least it wouldn't if they actually kept up with their infrastructure.

Re:Since text messages cost sooooo much to carry

[captaindomon]

Wish I had mod points.

Re:Since text messages cost sooooo much to carry

[Anonymous Coward]

Keeping up with their infrastructure costs money. A lot of it.

Re:Since text messages cost sooooo much to carry

[Anonymous Coward]

No it doesn't. They share the same infrastructure to carry the data as the internet service providers use... Common carrier clauses.
They only have to get service brought to the towers, the rest is carried as all other internet data is.

So puh-lease quit standing behind the curtain, come on out and tell the truth.

Re:Since text messages cost sooooo much to carry

[omnichad]

So in terms of sandwiches, they're charging just over cost for meat, but 1000% markup for plain white bread. Still not a good way to sustain a business.

Re:Since text messages cost sooooo much to carry

[Yamioni]

If you run a company that only makes a minimal profit margin while charging a price that the consumers find grossly overpriced then I think you need to deeply examine your infrastructure. It really is sad that enough people go along with it to keep this sort of broken business model alive. Makes me happy that I'm a prepaid user that only feeds these fools about $20 a year.

Re:Since text messages cost sooooo much to carry

[LBArrettAnderson]

How much do you think it costs to run those towers?

Re:Since text messages cost sooooo much to carry

[slyrat]

But don't worry, once AT&T and T-Mobile merge, they won't waste so much money on redundant overhead, so they'll be able to make texting free with the savings. Right? Right?

I seem to remember a document being leaked by a lawyer working for AT&T that pretty much exposed that they were only buying T-mobile to reduce competition. So if that gets out I have my hopes that the merger won't be allowed to happen.

Re:Since text messages cost sooooo much to carry

[Anonymous Coward]

What if their infrastructure is already very optimized? Just because outrage exists doesn't mean they aren't already doing things the right way. The outrage of consumers isn't based on any actual evidence of price gouging. It's based on them wanting something for less money. If you want to spend less money, go with a carrier with a crappy infrastructure and minimal coverage, like cricket.

Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Was it CDMA or GSM that simply inserted SMS messages in their status update packets, essentially making the data transmission free for carriers?

Re:Hmm...

[jo_ham]

GSM. Texts are 99.997% profit for carriers that use GSM.

Re:Hmm...

[rickb928]

GSM was the initial platform for SMS. In fact, Deutsche Telekom was an early collaborator and help design the spec we have now.

SMS was initially designed to use a control channel in GSM, It has, of course, expanded to be used in AMPS (now dead), CDMA, and TDMA. This allowed it to use a service not needed for voice calls (and I assume for data nowadays), but imposed some limitations on the amount of data, both in terms of speed and limiting utilization to avoid interfering with necessary functions. The control channel is also used for call setup, among other things.

While this control/signalling channel is built into the GSM specs, it is used for other things, such as set registration and call setup/teardown, so using it 'for free' isn't as simple as ti seems, and it is limited by the protocl that it uses, 160 characters per 'message'. And SMS does require some 'back office' servers and data systems to function, and exchange with other carriers. SMS isn't free, but it is being sold for up to 400 times the profit margin similar data volumes are sold for as what we thing of as 'data' service. Landline telcos did the same thing, charging hugely for in-state toll calls, even to a neighboring town, and discounting nationwide toll calls dramatically. We might see some action some day by the FCC to more appropriately price SMS, unless they buy the argument that the real costs in SMS are handling the messages as they traverse the system. There is some cost and effort in processing >120 Billion SMS a month in the US alone, or 7-87 Trillion SMS worldwide per year.

Other bits of trivia:

SMS is by design a best-effort delivery system. Delivery is not guaranteed. But when was the last time you lost one? I remember when AT&T TDMA service would lose SMS for a few days, and then I would get them all in a flood. I miss my old Nokia 5150, great phone. The Siemens S46, on the other hand...

A5/1 or A5/2 encryption is used, which is weak enough to be trivially broken. There are open-source GMS implementations that let you force an unencrypted connection and own, presumably, all the data, including SMS. If you're into that sort of thing.

The SMS control channel doesn't need much of a signal to function. You can often get an SMS out even if there is no discernable signal being displayed on your phone, and can't even get an emergency call out.

Before GSM developed GPRS, you could use SMS as a 'bearer' or data packet for WAP. I had a phone that did this, and it was no worse than GPRS, which is bad enough. But WAP didn't really take off like this, since you would be locating your WAP server inside the carrier's network, just not feasible. The control channel back then was adequate for very lightweight WAP. There are plenty of places in rural America where you can be stuck with GPRS speeds, usually 8kb/s. I vacation near one. It's fun. iPhone users on AT&T sometimes get a little crazy there.

Tracfone

[SJHillman]

This is why I stick with Tracfone... I typically use 150-180 minutes per month, including 20-30 text messages (sending and receiving). I'd love to go with Verizon, as they're the only carrier with coverage in most of NY and would settle for ATT... except NONE of the major carriers offer plans that wouldn't be a huge waste of money to me. Even their pre-paid plans are considerably more expensive than Tracfone (I pay about 7 cents per minute, sending or receiving a text counts as 0.3 minutes).

Re:Tracfone

[Tony Isaac]

Tracfone is great as long as you don't need 3G (which I don't). I text and talk all I want to, and my total monthly bill is around $15. They even have QWERTY keyboard and touchscreen phones, and they have coverage EVERYWHERE.

Tracfone is not for everybody, but it at least illustrates the absurdity of 20-cent texts!

Re:Tracfone

[Macrat]

This is why I stick with Tracfone...

Uses AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon networks on their locked down phones.

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

You should just use T-Mobile and cut out the middle man.

Re:Tracfone

[SJHillman]

I don't think you read my post before, so let me summarize:
1) T-Mobile doesn't get signal here
2) Even if T-Mobile did get signal, they're still a lot more expensive than Tracfone regardless of which network its actually on
3) The cost of it all is why I go with Tracfone... I don't give a damn about what network its actually on beyond coverage and nothing is locked down that I would use anyway
4) Relating to the original article, a text costs me about 2 cents, compared to 20 cents if you pay the major carrier (ATT in this case).

Re:Tracfone

[omnichad]

Except that their profit margin on reselling to other carriers is so low in comparison, that middle men actually end up making it cheaper.

iMessage, or whatever it's called

[medcalf]

Since Apple is introducing technology in iOS 5 for an SMS-like service among all iPhones and other iOS devices (and iChat, too, IIRC), AT&T's SMS revenue is about to plummet. And that's one of the easiest ways AT&T has to up the dollars per customer metric. (How many people use tethering? Probably very few.) So AT&T sees this, no doubt, as a way to keep their SMS revenues up. Everyone else will see it as a reason to dump SMS altogether and use an IP-based rather than cell-based messaging service. Now if only Apple and Google could agree on interoperable protocols for stuff like this....

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Anonymous Coward]

SMS like service that is IP based? You mean. . . email?

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Microlith]

No, something that is Apple-exclusive that leaves people without iPhones unable to communicate with iPhone users without using (rape-worthy) text messages.

Remember that Apple loves proprietary things. FaceTime, dock connector, this service...

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if only Apple and Google could agree on interoperable protocols for stuff like this....

There's an iRFC for that

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Anonymous Coward]

So like BlackBerry Messenger then.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[StormReaver]

Everyone else will see it as a reason to dump SMS altogether and use an IP-based rather than cell-based messaging service.

I'd be all for that if not for one little problem: if you don't use the cell towers, and you're not near an open WiFi hotspot, how are you supposed to send your Internet based text messages? The software for sending text messages via IP is a trivial issue. The problem is Internet connectivity without cell service.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Anonymous Coward]

Google does one better: Rather than introducing yet another proprietary system to like Apple that further walls off their garden, with Google Voice you can get actual SMS that is delivered over the data connection. Poof, unlimited SMS, full interoperability with all existing phones, for essentially free (a tiny slice of your data budget.) And it's available now, without

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this magical phone that can send and receive SMS without cell service?

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Anonymous Coward]

So you go from a $10, then $20 month SMS plan, to needing a $30+ data plan. Hmmm...

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[s73v3r]

You mean, exactly like RIM's Blackberry Messenger?

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you near USPS Box ? That may work...

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[marsu_k]

Yes, if only there was a protocol for IM that has been used for like forever, in Google chat for example (Facebook chat also I believe), with publicly available specifications and multiple implementations. Such a shame no such protocol exists. Thank $DEITY for Apple, perhaps we'll have one soon. At least for iDevices.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't have cell service, your text message won't go out either genius.

The real worry is that they will use deep packet inspection and charge you SMS rates for each iMessage.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Artraze]

Uh... So? If you don't have a connection, you can't send anything, including SMS and iOS messages. If anything the iOS messages are more flexible because they work over WiFi too.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[TheRaven64]

Google Talk and iChat both use XMPP, so it seems like they've already got an interoperable protocol...

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[medcalf]

Cellular data service. On an iPhone (and IIRC, on Android as well), that is the last fallback measure for data. On iPhones, it's a little open circle where you would normally see a 3G or E (for EDGE). Slow, but it works, and for small messages like SMS, it should be fine.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Anonymous Coward]

can you tell me how you intend on sending SMS *without* cell service?

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Abreu]

Exactly

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Anonymous Coward]

Cell towers provide internet connectivity today. You send your internet based text messages the same way you send your SMS based text messages. It's an assumption that everyone with a smart phone already has a data plan with their cell provider.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[AaronMK]

While I understand the caveat that texts go directly to the cell phone (ie, purely "push"), what is wrong with using e-mail for IP based messaging? Or Skype?

Since IP is so generic, and you can just download an app for a new protocol (I use the term loosely), isn't it more of an issue of getting your group of friends to agree than it is for there to be a single industry wide standard?

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[omnichad]

If they're being typical Apple, they'd take a BSD-licensed implementation of XMPP, add some proprietary extensions, and hide the details of their work. Now go buy an iPhone.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[omnichad]

At a cost of only double the price of sending a text without an unlimited plan. You might be on to something...

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone else will see it as a reason to dump SMS altogether and use an IP-based rather than cell-based messaging service.

I'd be all for that if not for one little problem: if you don't use the cell towers, and you're not near an open WiFi hotspot, how are you supposed to send your Internet based text messages? The software for sending text messages via IP is a trivial issue. The problem is Internet connectivity without cell service.

With out a cell service you cant do SMS either...but at least you could send IP based messages of a broadband hotspot.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is just implementing what numerous apps like TextFree, TextPlus, whatever already do. Will be nice that it's integrated, esp since most of the people I text have iPhones but this is nothing new, just more convenient.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Dahamma]

The IP-based messages still use the cell towers, they just use the GSM data protocols (GPRS/UMTS/etc) instead of SMS.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[schlachter]

AT&T should offer an option for pay per use tethering.
That would do well as an impulse buy.
Say $5/day with a 1GB max data limit. Standard $10/GB overage charges.
I bet that would sell better than their monthly plan.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Yamioni]

Oh, you mean encrypted email.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Antisyzygy]

As much as I hate Apple fanboys for blowing Apple's horn when other equivalent or superior options exist, I have to admit that Apple products are streamlined. They tend to save you a bit of money over the longer term which this IP based text seems to be doing. They have a significant mark-up when you buy their computers, but offering you 30-40 dollar upgrades on the OS and the other cheap software you can get like iWork sort of makes up for it. The only problem may be iPhone based service will increase in price to make it up. Also, how does this iOS 5 SMS-like service work with plans that are on devices other than Apple products?

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Antisyzygy]

How are you supposed to send SMS messages without cell towers? Its clearly a superior option because you can send text messages over cell towers using the data connection (NOT SMS) and also over wifi.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[_0xd0ad]

Never heard of an e-mail-to-SMS gateway, I presume?

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[GameboyRMH]

The fact that Apple's as bad as RIM doesn't make Apple good.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[medcalf]

True. I don't know if the mobile chat service is going to use XMPP though. If it does, yay. If not, well, back to my comment about interoperable protocols.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Anonymous Coward]

SMS with Google Voice... no cell signal required. On a side note, Google and Sprint have integrated some services more than Goolge has integrated with the other carriers. You have a choice to use your GV number as your cell phone number (or swap your GV number to your Sprint cell phone number). It is integrated into GV voice mail and all calls and texts sent from your phone appear as coming from your Google voice number. I have that setup and I and anyone I talk or message to never sees my real cell phone number ever. You can still send SMS and call my real number but GV still gets it. It is a great merging of systems for those that really like and use GV.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[s73v3r]

Except it doesn't really illustrate that RIM is bad, and neither is Apple.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[The Good Reverend]

The messaging system is apparently smart. If you send a message to your wife who's got an iPhone too, it uses Apple's service/network. If you send it to your dad who's got some other kind of phone, it sends it SMS.

I'm really looking forward to this feature, since the majority of people I text with use iPhones.Right now I'm in the "use more than 25 texts a month, so the $5/200 plan is worth it" club, but that'll change once ios5 comes out.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Antisyzygy]

If that's true; Well, the majority of people I text use Android phones through no fault of my own. I guess I won't buy Apple mobile products because they do not care to take the upper road and do whats right by placing the greedy cell services SMS scam straight. They could have had a great opportunity to try to be consumer friendly but they just proved they really don't give a shit since assholes keep buying their products no matter what they do.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[sonicmerlin]

He's talking about data service, not cell service. If you have a 2G connection, which is far more prevalent than 3G or 4G connections, you'll be able to send txt messages. But if you're using an IP solution you're out of luck.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Apple is introducing technology in iOS 5 for an SMS-like service among all iPhones and other iOS devices (and iChat, too, IIRC), AT&T's SMS revenue is about to plummet. And that's one of the easiest ways AT&T has to up the dollars per customer metric. (How many people use tethering? Probably very few.) So AT&T sees this, no doubt, as a way to keep their SMS revenues up. Everyone else will see it as a reason to dump SMS altogether and use an IP-based rather than cell-based messaging service. Now if only Apple and Google could agree on interoperable protocols for stuff like this....

I believe there are already one or two messenger applications ('WhatsApp' comes to mind) that let you message between Blackberry and Android. Something as open as that probably wouldn't fly with Steve though.

Re:iMessage, or whatever it's called

[medcalf]

This is functionally equivalent to saying: "Apple is making things better for what it controls, but not better for what it does not control, and therefore they are horrible and I won't use their stuff." There are good reasons not to use Apple's stuff. This isn't one of them.

So the question is

[mdarksbane]

Why is this more outrageous than offering only unlimited internet access, instead of tiered with data caps?

Re:So the question is

[Anonymous Coward]

Because at the rate they charge for data, assuming all text messages are the maximum possible length, the bandwidth used to transfer the messages costs $0.01 per 5,000 messages, which is 10,000,000 messages to equal $20, at $0.20 for each message out of plan, they're charging 1,000,000,000 times what the bandwidth costs are for them. Something that no free market would allow if there was competition.

I got this information from Gizmodo

Re:So the question is

[Vegemeister]

Because the marginal cost of transmitting a text message is, within measurement error, zero.

Re:So the question is

[mdarksbane]

I understand this argument, but I'm not sure I entirely accept it. Text messages are free if you consider them as a rider on voice messaging. However, give that texting is as much of a use of cell phones as voice messaging is, we should rather divide the cost of the infrastructure between the uses.

It isn't the cost to send a message, it is the cost to build the towers and connections to begin with.

That said, the rate is still ridiculous. It's just not as ridiculous as the "they get the text line for free" or "cost per KB" analysis makes it seem.

Perfectly reasonable...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure 20 cents a text is a great value. It certainly costs a lot to support that much infrastructure to send a few bytes of data. I hope they are able to merge with T-mobile, I'm sure it will be great for consumers.

Re:Perfectly reasonable...

[Wingfat]

are you kidding? ATT and Apple are the root of all Evil in the world. I am sure if ATT did get T-mobile you'd be paying more in the long run. less competition of lower prices meas they can charge more with out worry of lossing cutomers.

Re:Perfectly reasonable...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarcasm fail.

Re:Perfectly reasonable...

[Ross R. Smith]

Whoosh.

(I'm hoping so - either than or I'm going to lose all hope for humanity)

Re:Perfectly reasonable...

[kilodelta]

There have been numerous studies that prove the cost to send texts between networks is negligible at best. Significantly lower than the 10 cents per text that at&t was charging, or the 20 cents a minute they want to charge. It hasn't gotten more expensive to carry the traffic, in essence with the march of technology it has gotten LESS expensive over time. Basically texting takes advantage of the pre existing data channel. It was there when cell phones first started, and is still there in one form or another today. And we have paid for it over and over again.

Facebook messenger to the rescue

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds like the last gasps of a dying revenue stream. Both the google+ and facebook messenger phone apps have great alternatives to text messaging, including group chat features, and they're only as expensive as the data plan you already have.
-www.awkwardengineer.com

Circular logic FTW

[Alyred]

'The vast majority of our messaging customers prefer unlimited plans and with text messaging growth stronger than ever, that number continues to climb among new customers,' says AT&T.

Well, yeah... if their only choices are unlimited or nothing...

Re:Circular logic FTW

[nine-times]

Well also, if the customers already prefer unlimited plans, then there's no need to force them into it, right?

Re:Circular logic FTW

[GameboyRMH]

In other news, increasing numbers of random people on the street are willing to give me their money and valuables.*

*I've started robbing them at gunpoint

Re:Circular logic FTW

[uigrad_2000]

My brother sends more than 1000 texts per month, and he has the $240/yr unlimited plan for his iphone.

I don't like paying much, so I bought a textfree account ($7 up front + ongoing ads), and have unlimited texts for free.

Seems like people fit in one of 2 categories. Either they know about textfree, or they don't. Those that don't pay an extra $240 a year.

How is text messages different than data ???????

[Cutting_Crew]

If someone has a data plan for $30 that is used to get data from the internet, from your computer via wifi(or tethering)..etc etc....how in the hell is this different than a text message...or better yet i would assume that this is WAY more expensive than sending a measly text message. I want to know how they continually get away with this disregarding the fact that customers have not woken up to this. The FCC, congress someone needs to pry deep to find out why we are paying $30 a month for data then pay $20 a month for a different type of data. Data is data.

Henry Mencken was right

[grimmjeeper]

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

It's amazing how people line up in droves to pay for a service that costs the person providing it basically nothing. Sure, the phone and data network cost to implement and maintain. But SMS messages use so little bandwidth, their incremental cost is basically zero. Yet people pay every month for the privilege of using that service. It's pure profit for the phone company.

Now, if the phone companies were to use the text message profits to offset the cost of the phone and data plans, making my service cheaper, I'd be happy to see them charge incredible amounts for the service. But they don't so I'm out of luck. But at least I don't have to pay extra for all of the text messages I don't send.

I think for my first Android software project I'm going to come up with a text message like program that uses your data plan. I could make a killing on something like that if it took off. Although I'll probably get my ass sued off by patent trolls so I may not bother.

Re:Henry Mencken was right

[Anonymous Coward]

I think for my first Android software project I'm going to come up with a text message like program that uses your data plan. I could make a killing on something like that if it took off. Although I'll probably get my ass sued off by patent trolls so I may not bother.

So kind of like e-mail or instant messaging? You, sir, are an innovative thinker.

Re:Henry Mencken was right

[TheAlmightyQ]

I think for my first Android software project I'm going to come up with a text message like program that uses your data plan. I could make a killing on something like that if it took off. Although I'll probably get my ass sued off by patent trolls so I may not bother.

Right after you build your time machine to go back in time 4 years before the 100+ other people already made apps that do just that for Android / iOS.

Re:Henry Mencken was right

[RobinEggs]

But SMS messages use so little bandwidth, their incremental cost is basically zero.

From what I understand, the incremental cost actually is zero. SMS hides in the spare bandwidth of maintenance packets used to check for reception and synchronize with towers. I've always heard that the 140 bytes for a text was simply wasted before they figured out how to monetize it (at four-figures a megabyte, no less).

Re:Henry Mencken was right

[RobertB-DC]

I think for my first Android software project I'm going to come up with a text message like program that uses your data plan. I could make a killing on something like that if it took off. Although I'll probably get my ass sued off by patent trolls so I may not bother.

Right after you build your time machine to go back in time 4 years before the 100+ other people already made apps that do just that for Android / iOS.

Yeah, but he'll still have a niche, in the 45 minutes between when his app hits the Market and when the process server brings the patent lawsuit papers.

Re:Henry Mencken was right

[Voyager529]

I think for my first Android software project I'm going to come up with a text message like program that uses your data plan. I could make a killing on something like that if it took off. Although I'll probably get my ass sued off by patent trolls so I may not bother.

Pingchat.
Kik Messenger.
LiveProfile.
WhatsApp.
eBuddy.
BBM (in the case of Blackberry).
iMessage (in the case of iOS).

And that's the ones I know off the top of my head, that are cross platform (unless otherwise stated), and doesn't even include dedicated IM clients like AIM, MSN, or Yahoo.

You're a bit late to the party, dude. The single biggest problem is the lack of uniformity. BBM had a massive following; they could have leveraged that and for $2 a month given iOS and Android customers a BBM pin and made a mint...but instead there's a bunch of different IP-based BBM clones. In my case, the de facto standard among my friends is PingChat, but that's only because we all basically agreed upon it and for no other reason.

Re:Henry Mencken was right

[grimmjeeper]

Yeah, I figured I was already late to that party. I suppose that if people were smarter, one of those apps would have already caught on and replaced the expensive text messages.

Re:Henry Mencken was right

[Anonymous Coward]

a text messaging program that uses your data plan

It's called Google Voice.

Want free texting?

[macraig]

Get Google Voice. It's free... at least for the time being. If Google ever dares charge even a thin dime for them, they'll probably face a mutiny.

Re:Want free texting?

[swan5566]

Ummm... what about us that don't have a smartphone and don't want one? The data plan is much more than any texting plan (thought not by as much now).

Re:Want free texting?

[macraig]

That is a small problem, I guess. ;-)

I don't even own a cellphone - destitute Luddite here - so I only use the SMS service via a laptop or desktop or Pocket PC. I recently dumped my old D-Link Skype-to-POTS device and got an Obihai ATA that works with Google Voice, but I can't yet text from my house cordless phones; some expert ATA hacker may yet figger a way to make the Obihai boxes handle that, too.

Re:Want free texting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it will cost those you send the texts to.

The funny part is when I had att about 13 years ago, to receive a text was free (as it should be since you can't control or block who sends texts to you)... and 2 cents to send.

Re:Want free texting?

[drago177]

[Googlefanboi] There are other features you could benefit from. One phone number for the rest of your life (probably), keep contacts in one place for same time span (and it shares the same contacts with other services you might use - gmail, google+, picasa, etc.), add/remove contacts and send/recieve text message from the computer (hello fast/easy typing). I think there's an option for when you receive a text message or call to GV, it can forward that message/call to your cell phone that has no data plan. Ya, it makes things a little more complicated, but if you ever move to using Google services in the future, starting now will allow you to start entering your contacts and getting used to the service with no penalty. Try to honestly make the statement "Oh, I will never own a smartphone." Then get back to us in 10, or even 3 years and let us know how it worked out. [/Googlefanboi]

Re:Want free texting?

[macraig]

Seriously... they're charging people for SMS both coming AND going? And people are actually so ignorant they tolerate it? I don't often resort to txtspeak, but OMG....

Re:Want free texting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously... they're charging people for SMS both coming AND going? And people are actually so ignorant they tolerate it? I don't often resort to txtspeak, but OMG....

Ignorant? There is no choice. Everyone charges for both. The best I can do is vote for the party that at least says they believe cartels should be regulated.

Re:Want free texting?

[macraig]

What happened to the free market where SMS is concerned? If consumers aren't ignorant, they would have said no to using SMS until the pricing stopped being so extortionate and at least vaguely proportional to the actual cost of service (i.e. nil). That is the only way a free market can work. Consumers have to know how to operate in the market in their best long-term interest. Consumers have to know and care about things like cost-to-produce. They don't, do they? That's why free markets aren't free, just playgrounds for a tug-of-war between unfairness and regulation.

Re:Want free texting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get Google Voice. It's free... at least for the time being. If Google ever dares charge even a thin dime for them, they'll probably face a mutiny.

Google Voice +1

( I hate text messaging charges. When does it become cheaper to get an alpanumeric 2-way pager?)

Re:Want free texting?

[slyrat]

Well you can still use it with a dumb phone for the voice calls. If people send you a text to that number you can get to it via the voice website.

Re:Want free texting?

[swan5566]

But that requires going to a computer to get it. Once you're at computer, you've got email, internet, etc.., and this whole discussion is moot.

Re:Want free texting?

[drago177]

No, when your Google Voice gets a reply text message, you can have it set to automatically send a real text message to your non-data plan phone.

More advantages:
- One phone number for the rest of your life (probably)
- Keep contacts in one place (and it shares this same contact list with other services you might use - gmail, google+, picasa, etc.)
- Add/remove contacts and send/recieve text messages from the computer (hello fast/easy typing)

Re:Want free texting?

[LanMan04]

Ummm... what about us that don't have a smartphone and don't want one? The data plan is much more than any texting plan (thought not by as much now).

You don't need one. I got a GV number before I had a smartphone and did a ton of texting from the browser on my computer. I do most of my texting via full keyboard/computer even though I have an Android phone now.

Just pretend it's IM. :)

Re:How is text messages different than data ??????

[DragonWriter]

If someone has a data plan for $30 that is used to get data from the internet, from your computer via wifi(or tethering)..etc etc....how in the hell is this different than a text message...

It isn't fundamentally, from a user-experience perspective, for smartphones: in fact, if you have a smartphone, there's any number of apps and services that will let you use the data connection to send and receive text messages for free [including sending to and receiving from people who have only SMS service on their devices], e.g., Google Voice.

Re:How is text messages different than data ??????

[DanTheManMS]

To give a technical answer, in GSM systems (like AT&Ts), text messages go over the voice channel, not the data channel. It's similar to data going over a 56k modem (aka, modulated onto the analog phone line) vs data going over a broadband connection (digital end-to-end).

Boycott Fees!

[Wingfat]

It doesn't cost ATT or any cell company more for them to pass text messages between phones.. actually it is cheaper for them if you text than making a call. So why do they charge for a service that should be free in the first place? I don't know, but i do know i have had Text BLOCKED on my cell and Internet disabled on my cell. A lot of my tech friends all say, "your an IT professional and you dont have a smart phone" I tell them. I can do it all on my Super Lap Top and i don't mind pulling it out to check the internet or send an email. If you care at all about your bills and having to pay well over $100 for a family plan, then boycott Apple, boycott data usage.. dont use it and they will drop the price.. any one ever hear of Supply and Demand. i mean really now. Unplug for a month, cancel your text and data for a month, lets all see what happens when ATT cant give the upper ups their thousands of dollars bonuses.

Stop with the FUD

[WankersRevenge]

Jeez ... I'm tired of reading comments from people who have no clue how the system actually works. If you did, you'd realize how AT&T actually loses money per text.

Here's the breakdown ...

You send a text message which transmits the data in digital format (ones and zeros, to the layman). The message is received in a central building where the message is repeated by flashing lightbulbs. One pulse for zero. Two pulses for one. Workers transcribe the texts then pass them off to their editorial department who double checks the transcription. Then it's passed to another department (whom I'm not at liberty say who or what it does*cough*NSA*cough) before it is passed to the encoding department where workers hand encode the messages into paper rolls that are fed into the central dispatch unit to where it is communicated to your phone.

And you complain that it costs twenty bucks a month? .

Re:How is text messages different than data ??????

[Wingfat]

exactly. your points are valid. data is data, you already pay up the wahzoo for something that barely works in the first place (darn ATT)

Google Voice

[Chris453]

The Google Voice app is capable of sending/receiving messages using your phone's data plan already. If you and the people you message have Google Voice you might be able to reduce the amount of actual SMS messages you use per month. Plus it has other useful features too...

Re:Google Voice

[adisakp]

The Google Voice app is capable of sending/receiving messages using your phone's data plan already. If you and the people you message have Google Voice you might be able to reduce the amount of actual SMS messages you use per month. Plus it has other useful features too...

I tried using Google Voice for texts but the app is absolutely horrid on iPhone. If you get a message or update while you are typing, you lose the entire message you are typing. Plus message updates take a while and it's clunky. It's a good idea but it's 100X more frustrating to use for having a conversation because you have a big delay on receiving data and you lose work in progress when your inputs are discarded as new messages come in.

Re:Google Voice

[adisakp]

The Google Voice app is capable of sending/receiving messages using your phone's data plan already. If you and the people you message have Google Voice you might be able to reduce the amount of actual SMS messages you use per month. Plus it has other useful features too...

I tried using Google Voice for texts but the app is absolutely horrid on iPhone. If you get a message or update while you are typing, you lose the entire message you are typing. Plus message updates take a while and it's clunky. It's a good idea but it's 100X more frustrating to use for having a conversation because you have a big delay on receiving data and you lose work in progress when your inputs are discarded as new messages come in.

I'm guessing whoever works on the iPhone app would be quick to change it though if they were forced to only use that app for messaging. Either that or Google is trying to deliberately keep the iPhone app sub-par to the Android experience with Google Voice.

Re:Google Voice

[yourbuddypal]

Use GV Mobile+. In my experience, far better than google's app.

The real real for buying Tmobile

[Anonymous Coward]

Its to create a monopoly and force users to pay more for the same service.

Why not change carriers?

[sl4shd0rk]

Are iphones really worth all this strife? Just sayin.. if it sucks, put your money into the competition. It's really the only way to change it.

Re:Why not change carriers?

[Dahamma]

Not that the iPhone matters any more, AT&T's only real competitor has them now, anyway.

Everything is cheaper in the US

[quenda]

Whenever I get annoyed about how everything is so much cheaper in the US (houses, food, clothes, computers, cable internet, ...) it helps to remember how at least you folks are screwed over on telephones, both fixed and mobile. By cost and service.
- "What, you must pay to *receive* calls!? A phone plan costs *how* much? pay extra for tethering, really?" Ah, schadenfreude.

Re:Everything is cheaper in the US

[Glendale2x]

We're also screwed on broadband availability, and if you have a choice in providers you're one of the lucky ones.

Re:Everything is cheaper in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

You also pay to receive calls, it's just that the cost is shifted to whoever is doing the calling...to call my brother's cell phone in Munich can cost multiple dollars per minute no matter what my long distance plan is here at home.

Don't worry - we're ALL getting screwed over for cellular phone service.

Re:Everything is cheaper in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

I just moved to the US from Germany. Can't say that food or cable is cheaper here at all. But yeah, phone contracts are *way* more expensive and I can't get my head around paying for receiving calls/SMSs. The first week on AT&T, I kept getting non-sense SMS that each cost me $0.X0.

Re:How is text messages different than data ??????

[Anonymous Coward]

The main difference is that they aren't data at all, they're just padding that fills a gap in an existing signalling protocol that your phone uses constantly to keep in touch with towers. The crime is that we are charged ANY rate for text messages - those signals happen whether you are sending them (and putting data in that gap) or not.

Quite yer bitchin'!!

[HarrySquatter]

Don't worry citizen! In unrelated news, the Ministry of Plenty has released a statement that they will be increasing the chocolate ration to 15g tomorrow.

Re:Quite yer bitchin'!!

[Osgeld]

sold!

The new Swoopoo Texting plan

[goombah99]

Under the my new plan for texting, each text costs only 1 penny and you don't have to pay that till your conversation with a friend is finished. moreover only the person that sends the second to last text has to pay. As long as you are the last person to send a text withing 15 seconds of the previous one you don't pay!

Texting prices are a total rip off. it costs at&t almost zip to do this, so I figure why not make it as big a scam as humanly possible?

moreover if you have a data plan texting ought to be free.

Re:The new Swoopoo Texting plan

[goombah99]

I have another texting plan called "party line". This is texting group that is open to everyone to join. each text you post costs 1$. the person that posts the very last text (15 second closeout window) get $1000 cash!

Re:The new Swoopoo Texting plan

[pnewhook]

I have unlimited send and receive texting messaging and chat on my blackberry..

Re:The new Swoopoo Texting plan

[Anonymous Coward]

I have unlimited send and receive texting messaging to all carriers
I have unlimited send and receive multimedia messaging to all carriers
I have unlimited calls to all carriers and landlines
I have unlimited internet access.

And I have blackberries only in my milkshake.

Re:The new Swoopoo Texting plan

[Creepy]

I have a data plan, and texting IS free. Not through those bloodsuckers at Verizon, though, who want $30/month for a family plan or $1 per text, but rather through a downloaded app that uses email and sends through my data plan. I also set up a number on the internet that is used to receive texts and convert them to email (which pings on my phone, just like a text message - hopefully I won't get spammers on that email acct... - works great as long as people send to that number and not my cell number). The downside is I need to know if my friends have ported their numbers, but I only have about 8 friends I would even send or receive a text to or from, so that wasn't hard to do.

Unfortunately my phone service choices are limited pretty much to Verizon and Sprint (can't get AT&T or T-Mobile at home - no or 1 bar reception when people on those networks visit - my stucco house probably has a very interfering wire mesh), and I had Sprint for 2 years and can't stand them (spotty service, dropped calls, BAD customer support... but note this was 10 years ago or maybe a bit more - I nicknamed my phone services US Worst and Splint at the time, and then Qworst when Qwest bought US West).

Re:The new Swoopoo Texting plan

[pnewhook]

Except for unlimited internet access, so do I

Re:The new Swoopoo Texting plan

[Nithin Philips]

T-Mobile has pretty bad coverage. But if you don't mind paying a little extra for a smartphone (I believe even some non-smartphones support this) you can get one with UMA support, like Bold 9700, and wherever you have wifi (even abroad), you have cell coverage. You don't have to pay anything extra with T-Mobile. Some AT&T phones support this too, but I don't know if they'll bleed you dry for it.

thanks for the subsidy

[drago177]

Until consumers realize how cheap text messages really are, I'm perfectly happy watching other people subsidize my bill while I text away on the Google Voice app. I want to guess this will finally make the app more popular, but the average consumer has been this slow for so long about it, this will be interesting to watch.

Not dead yet

[nobodynoone]

After reading this, I decided to go check my ATT account, and I was able to downgrade just fine from the 1500 text plan for $15 to the 1000 text plan for $10. So...if you want it, better go and get it before they update their site. iMessage is about to dramatically lower my billed texts anyway.

Re:Not dead yet

[HarrySquatter]

No one said they scrapped it right this very second.

Re:Not dead yet

[nobodynoone]

True, but it's ATT. I've grown to be a little gun-shy.

Re:How is text messages different than data ??????

[Osgeld]

sounds like a ATT understructure problem

Re:How is text messages different than data ??????

[Cutting_Crew]

then why are they charging for the use of text messages when the signals are already being sent out among the towers? I know the answer is greed but how come someone with enough power has not taken care of this problem?

Texting is free on all carrieres

[RobinEggs]

Don't forget that text message costs are exclusively determined by lying to you and constant bullshit experiments in "what the market will bear".

Texting is almost completely free for carriers. The messages piggyback to and from your phone in the spare bandwidth of the tower synchronization signals the phone uses to check reception and select towers for voice/data transmission. The only infinitesimal cost that might exist to the carrier is transmitting 140 lousy bytes from one tower to another tower; the capacity on the towers themselves is free.

Now this might have changed somewhat in recent years; I'm not a communications engineer. But I don't think it has. And I'd bet my life that even if it has, texts still don't cost the carriers more than 0.1 cents.

This is the very picture of evil corporate overlords plotting in a dark tower to see how much money they can squeeze out of you for nothing and avoid advancing technology as long as possible. Real technology entrepreneurs like George Eastman struggled constantly against themselves, trying to make things cheaper and better for the consumer. Eastman in particular tried desperately to obsolete his own products in favor of offering consumers even better, years before the prior product would otherwise have dropped in sales; today we call that cannibalism, and most tech companies struggle like hell to avoid a whit of it. (People acted like Apple was batshit crazy for not better managing their product line when iphones started to cannibalize ipods. Nevermind that iphones cost hundreds more, so even that cannibalism is pure profit.)

When's the last time you saw a company that put out everything they had, every time, and didn't hold something back for upgrade cycles or a magical September festival of worship?

Re:Texting is free on all carrieres

[fireball74]

IIR the 140bytes is bandwidth already used by the carriers, but the messages do require store-and-forward servers. By now the servers have to have been paid for, so the carriers are making almost pure profit, except for maybe a little upkeep on the hardware. Sales strategies aside, I see no reason why texting is still so expensive or even charged for at all. The technology is mature and in maintenance mode. Carriers seem to be milking as much profit as possible before they have to compete with the data versions. Of course, if they have their way they won't have to really compete. By capping data plans to point it's not worth it, they can still keep some control. What happened to the days when "unlimited" meant unlimited and not "unlimited but only as far as we so"?

Re:Texting is free on all carrieres

[Anonymous Coward]

George Eastman? Had to go to wikipedia for that - he must be real famous. There I learned he made cameras in 1900. Not exactly comparing the same generations here - you think product cycles might have been different then?

Re:Texting is free on all carrieres

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but you know Jack.

Yes it uses the SS7 signal channel, but this is in sparse demand and SS7 costs a lot. It's not like IP you know.
But you ignore the costs of licensing for the SMSCs (the systems that send + receive texts) as well as the IN platforms used to route and bill texts.
Now that stuff isn't cheap.
I do agree that a text is much cheaper than a voice call as it doesn't tie up an E1 channel for the duration of the call like voice does in GSM, but it is far from free.
Carriers have got themselves into a major pickle with all you can eat services and I don't blame AT&T for trying to claw money back.
Next time you post, please be educated and not troll bate.

Re:Texting is free on all carrieres

[Anonymous Coward]

It has changed - that was in the original GSM spec. 3G (edge?) & CDMA actually use data IIRC to transfer the SMS. The actual better argument - why is 140bytes of SMS more expensive than 10 MB of data (assuming $40/mo for 2 GB which is a pretty bad over-pricing in and of itself).

Re:Texting is free on all carrieres

[omnichad]

Never heard of the Eastman-Kodak company???

Re:Texting is free on all carrieres

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds great, except your wrong. Text represents a HUGE volume of traffic for carriers (to be clear, I am an engineer working on this type of technology). For example, in 2G systems, most towers have to have multiple dedicated control channels to handle the volume of messaging that occurs (its slightly different in 3G systems, but still consumes spectrum). To be clear, text messaging does cost carriers money. If, for example, I have to have multiple control channels per cell to handle all of the texting, that eliminates channels that I can dedicated to voice and data traffic. Spectrum is finite, and when I have to use part of the spectrum for one thing, it eliminates the other things I use it for.

Yes, the carrier is in it to make money. That's a given. But you speak with authority that the infrastructure for texting (spectrum, radio equipment, backhaul, smsc's, intercarrier transport) is free. It's not. Of course you don't know that as you admit you're not a communications engineer. So why do you make claims to the contrary?

Plain and simple, texting has a higher overhead than most people know. It's not about the bytes, it's about the spectrum that carries those bytes and the way the system is designed. It's not free. It's not "almost completely free". It costs money. Carriers pay licenses on every piece of gear that transports those messages. Do they mark up their costs? Sure - why would they give it to you at cost?

ramble ramble ramble ramble.

Re:Texting is free on all carrieres

[Anonymous Coward]

When's the last time you saw a company that put out everything they had, every time, and didn't hold something back for upgrade cycles or a magical September festival of worship?

When was the last time you didn't see a corporation try to maximize profits for its shareholders?

Re:Texting is free on all carrieres

[Ichijo]

Texting is almost completely free for carriers.

The vendor's price is mostly irrelevant when choosing the selling price. It's mainly used for deciding how much product to put on the market. If you price above the market because your costs are so high, then you won't sell any. If you price significantly below the market because your costs are low, you'll be throwing away money.

Don't blame the "evil overlords" for the high prices. Price gouging isn't a market failure—a monopoly is.

Re:Texting is free on all carrieres

[Anonymous Coward]

Why I agree that carriers are over charging...you can not say that SMS messages do not cost a carrier anything. They have to add capacity in the MSC as well as the core infrastructure(SMSC) as usage increases. These things cost money.

Re:Texting is free on all carrieres

[Anonymous Coward]

I do agree that a text is much cheaper than a voice call

Then maybe it shouldn't cost absurdly more. But please, continue. I'm sure you can further spin your own words.

Re:Texting is free on all carrieres

[RobinEggs]

I did say quite plainly that I'm not a communications engineer and that things could have changed. I'm absolutely certain that text messages began as something that cost the carriers nothing more than they already paid; your claims that it does in fact, cost serious money today don't make me a liar or cancel out my original admissions of partial ignorance.

You also haven't disputed my - admittedly ass-pulled - number of 0.1 cents per text as a maximum actual cost. Are you claiming texts aren't making profits of more than ten fold, or a hundred fold, or a thousand fold? What percentage are the profits? We never expected to get it for *free* just because it is or was free to the carrier; we do sure as hell expect to get it for less than 100,000% of what landline bandwidth costs, however.

Absolutely nothing justifies the current price of SMS or data plans, no matter how many licenses and servers and different spectrum costs you throw out to challenge my claim. You're full of shit and you know it. They wouldn't have built that much infrastructure at all if it was so expensive they had to charge this much to make a profit; the risk they'd be taking on would get such a plan laughed out of any American boardroom within fifteen seconds.

Re:Texting is free on all carrieres

[RobinEggs]

Trolling is something said exclusively to piss people off. You, and every moderator on slashdot, *really* need to review the definitions of trolling and flaming.

Just because it's weird, controversial, or outright wrong doesn't make it trolling.

Now, for the topic at hand, please examine this quote

Now this might have changed somewhat in recent years; I'm not a communications engineer. But I don't think it has. And I'd bet my life that even if it has, texts still don't cost the carriers more than 0.1 cents.

I openly admitted that everything could have changed since I was last informed on the topic. Not one of you assholes who spouts off about the XYZ spectrum and control channels and new hardware has contested that profits are patently absurd or that carriers are lying their asses off.

That's the underlying concern. Now get off my damn back about things I already admitted I could be wrong about.

Re:Texting is free on all carrieres

[shipofgold]

No, SMS is not free, and they don't piggyback on spare bandwidth.

Each Mobile Originated SMS requires the similar signaling channel setup as a voice call including mobile authentication, encryption key exchanges and connection state messaging. A Mobile Terminated SMS also requires paging channel to find the Mobile in a similar fashion to a Mobile Terminated voice call.

In addition, all the back end processing of the messaging (store and forward, billing, etc.) need to be maintained as well.

The major advantage of SMS over something like an IM data app is that your phone doesn't need to maintain constant data session in order to receive messaging. Big savings on battery life.

That being said, $0.20 per message is a huge ripoff...when my 12 year old first discovered messaging, I learned it the hard way with a $150 bill...

Its amazing that: "Hi", "Hi", "Whatcha doin", "nothin", "kewl" cost me $1.....but T-Mobiles $10 per month unlimited SMS on a family plan solved that problem.

Re:Texting is free on all carrieres

[ColoradoAuthor]

S. Keshav, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Tetherless Computing at the University of Waterloo, calculates that the marginal cost of an SMS message is about 0.3 cents (testimony before the US Congress, June 2009). His calculation includes channel costs and billing costs, but assumes negligible additional paging costs because "once a mobile has been located, either for a call or an SMS, it no longer needs to be paged." But as someone pointed out, this is the same industry that gives us $3 MP3s.

Re:Texting is free on all carrieres

[Anonymous Coward]

To understand this, you have to think like an economist and not an engineer.

The real costs of SMS don't relate to the network capacity or other engineering considerations, they relate to the costs of that voice call that didn't get made because the customer sent a text instead.

Jacking up the price is a natural and legitimate response to the free messaging offered by BBM and whatever the iPhone 5 has. They can't compete with free for those customers (who will stop using SMS), so they may as well charge the Willing To Pay price of the remaining customers. These people have been benefiting from lower pricing due to the more techno-savvy; now that they've been cut free the optimal price point jumps up.

Re:How is text messages different than data ??????

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought SMS was actually something originally developed to waste less bandwidth. If I recall correctly, SMS was only transferred in part of the "wasted space" of a voice call(not just from your number).

I remember back when SMS became a big craze and carriers charged out the ass for it. It pissed me off because it cost them literally nothing to transfer SMS messages

Re:How is text messages different than data ??????

[Cutting_Crew]

well I have verizon and they are CDMA - so are text messages sent differently than data? I have an android incredible 2.

I still have my option to spend less

[Anonymous Coward]

1. I'm on T-Mobile, and if it gets gobbled I can switch.

2. I only send a few texts a month. Hello! A few years ago this didn't even exits. It's not air, water or food. It's texting.

3. Just from the description it sounds like you can chose the $0.20/text option and once again, QUIT TEXTING SO DAMN MUCH.

In other words: tempest. teapot.

Disclosure: I currently own shares in T and VZ, (more precicely, I'll own them when options expire today)

Re:How is text messages different than data ??????

[Not_Wiggins]

And to add to your answer: in GSM systems, SMS piggy-backs on existing required signaling that is needed for identifying when a cell phone comes into a cell tower's signal reach.

So, how much does it cost a GSM provider to provide SMS service on top of cellular? $0.

They expand the radio capability as they get new subscribers, sure... but that's to handle additional phone calls.

There is no such thing as a separate cost to expand SMS capability.

Messaging is darn near *pure profit* for a telecom company.

Whether I send 0 messages, 10 messages, or 1000 messages... it is opportunistic sending (meaning, if all the channels capable of transmitting that data are currently occupied, then my phone waits until the next round of signaling.) This is why messaging isn't guaranteed to be instantaneous.
Most users assume the other person is a little slower to respond, but that isn't always the case.

My personal hope is that, with this type of revenue/cost disparity, these companies are at least using the extra money to subsidize other services (eg, making phone minutes cheaper because, frankly, those *are* tied directly to equipment/operational costs).
Guess that's part of the "secret formula" for how to be a profitable telecom company. ;)

Re:How is text messages different than data ??????

[Cutting_Crew]

ok i downloaded google voice for my android. i have it linked up with my phone number after going through the wizard. However i do not need to use to make calls - i never go over my minutes. i just need to use it to send and receive text messages. i can go to "Labels" and then hit "Text" but i am not sure how to send people text messages or how to make sure i receive them via google voice and not through the VZ service.

Whatsapp

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is whatsapp, an IP based messaging system that uses the phone number in the contact list of the phone to create a list of users, and works on almost all smartphones.

Other alternatives or perhaps propping up RIM?

[Fencepost]

Maybe AT&T decided that they needed to get more people to buy Blackberries for Blackberry Messenger.

I can't help but feel that moves like this will accelerate the adoption of other messaging systems. AT&T may see a miniscule bottom-line improvement, but they don't even have the iPhone exclusivity to draw in the hipster crowd - now if you "need" an iPhone and use perhaps a few hundred messages a month you'll go to Verizon, and some people will just decide that the iPhone isn't worth the extra hundred dollars (or more) a year.

GroupMe, Beluga/Facebook, improved Twitter clients with DM, IM clients, Google Voice (if they ever come out with an API for SMS, though they lack MMS & some short-code ability), even a rumored porting of BBM to Android/iOS. Over time Android with C2DM should reduce the battery cost of non-SMS messaging clients, and you're left with only "feature-phone" users needing SMS because they don't have data plans. That's a losing bet for AT&T, because the feature-phone users are the ones most likely to be using prepaid phones instead of contracts.

Re:How is text messages different than data ??????

[Cutting_Crew]

i went to the help in the google voice app and it says that if i want to send a txt i have to go to the inbox then press the menu key then press "Compose" but that option doesn't come up in the menu options. All i have is Refresh, Labels, Balance, Search, Settings and Help. Anyone got any pointers?

Misleading....

[Lumpy]

They charge $0.20US per INCOMING OR OUTGOING TEXT if you dont have a package. They intentionally price it to "encourage" you to do what is best and buy a plan.

They are knowingly ripping everyone off. and laughing while petting their evil lap cat....

Re:Misleading....

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality is they'd rather like to tell investors We had X subscribers at $20 per month, not X subscribers that sometimes give us $0 and sometimes $30. And if they are good, they can say, we have X subscribers at $20 per month and most likely will stay with us for at least 2 years, so thats $480 we'll be making, not possibly making $0 and or they may leave before then.

Why is it that you guys pay for incoming texts?

[mehrotra.akash]

Atleast in India, though Mobile tech is somewhat behind US tech, all we pay for sending a SMS is either Rs 50/month for 500msgs/day , or Rs 6 per month, with unlimited messages @ Rs 0.01/msg

Rs 45 is approx $1

How come rates arent cheaper there (considering that a higher no. of people would be using the phones anyways)

Re:Why is it that you guys pay for incoming texts?

[IMightB]

Because phone companies like making boatloads of cash. They are taking advantage of the American public's apathy towards educating themselves. They don't realize that phone companies charging extras for SMS is like car companies charging extra every time you use the gas pedal.

Re:Why is it that you guys pay for incoming texts?

[mehrotra.akash]

Out of curiosity, how many independant operators do you have in most areas?

Depending on the area, India has between 5-10 operators in a circle(1-2 CDMA, rest GSM) .. Is the competition there less or more?

Re:Why is it that you guys pay for incoming texts?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US effectively has one serious GSM carrier (AT&T) and one serious CDMA carrier (Verizon). There's also T-Mobile (GSM, in the process of getting bought out by AT&T) and Sprint (CDMA, but coverage is so awful that if you don't spend all of your time in major cities, it's not practical). That's it.

Use that phone and ... uh ... call support?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure if people actually use a phone to call customer/account support (rather than whining about it or only using chat) they will set you up with a $10 plan. They want your money. I am still on the $5 texting plan... which is no longer openly offered, but is accessible. When you say "I want the cheap plan, or nothing", they will find a way to take your money.

Damn that's expensive

[myrdos2]

An SMS message has a maximum of 120 characters, which is packed into 140 bytes. $10 per 1000 messages works out to 1 cent per message, or 1 cent per 140 bytes. That gives us 7.31 cents per kilobyte, or 73.1 dollars per megabyte. Of course it's actually a lot higher, since you don't always send exactly 160 characters per message. If the average message is only half the maximum length, we get a whopping 146.2 dollars per meg. I don't know how many texts people send a month on average, but if it's less than 2000 the new plan is no better.

So I guess SMS is still on par with the cost of communicating with the Hubble space telescope: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/14/txts_r_v_pricey/

Re:Damn that's expensive

[myrdos2]

Oops, should have been 160 characters.

It's a market failing

[interkin3tic]

When a company is charging 10,000,000 Percent more for something than they evidently need to, I would say that's an indication that the free market, competition, and or consumers are failing miserably, and some type of legislative action is needed to correct it.

"The market will bear it" seems like a pretty shitty justification to allow such excesses to continue. The market is creating monsters here. Excessive profits aren't leading to more jobs, they're leading to buying off the government, which leads to less competition, leading to more excessive profits, a feedback loop. I don't see how this ends well for the rest of us if we don't stop it. "The new Iphone 27! $5999! The difference between it and the Iphone 26 is that the iphone 26, released three months ago, is not going to work when we upgrade our network to 47932G technology!"

There's a reason they are always on...

[Anonymous Coward]

the "Worst Companies" list.

Our customers want unlimited text messages, so we're going to remove the lower cost option for people who average less than 35 messages a DAY and only give them a higher priced option.

Our customers don't want unlimited data, so we're going to remove the unlimited options and give them limited data for similar prices.

Re:How is text messages different than data ??????

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about Android, but on the iPhone app for GV, you press the "Dialer" button at the bottom, then the "Text" button.

Unlimited 'til it's not

[Cut]

Their release about how customers want unlimited plans (irony there, considering their bandwidth throttling) is all roses for now, but once folks are converted over, I don't expect the "unlimited" wording to stay around long. At some point soon after, releases will come out about how abusers of the system are using more than their fair share of texts so they will redefine their unlimited plan to be good for up to, say, 1000 messages a month. Yay - twice the profit! The cycle of "Customers want unlimited! The sky is falling; customers are using what we sold them!" is completely predictable at this point.

Re:Unlimited 'til it's not

[time$lice]

Took a while but I found the contradicting statements (I'm sure there are plenty more). I quit AT&T U-verse because of the data caps. I was happy with the service and didn't mind paying a bit more for stability versus cable. And yet every time I read about their shenanigans, I get that much more fired up!

So what do customers like again AT&T? Or is the next infallible survey going to be that we would prefer to sign over all bank accounts, stock, and even our first born to you as well? Mark my words AT&T, your time of corruption is coming to a close. Someone will leap frog you before you know it... and I will be first in line to greet them with open arms. In the meantime, raise some hell and file a complaint with the FCC.

Unlimited texts
AT&T: "The vast majority of our messaging customers prefer unlimited plans and with text messaging growth stronger than ever, that number continues to climb among new customers," AT&T said in a statement today as explanation.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9219298/AT_T_to_kill_10_month_texting_plan?taxonomyId=75

Broadband caps
AT&T: Our new plan addresses another concern: customers strongly believe that only those who use the most bandwidth should pay more than those who don't use as much.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/13/atandt-will-cap-dsl-u-verse-internet-and-impose-overage-fees/

It's ok

[Xacid]

It's ok - this is the kind of treatment that recently initiated my move to Virgin Mobile for less than half what I was paying before and receiving exponentially more.

That company is T-Mobile

[scottbomb]

Unfortunately, they are about to be owned by AT&T. As a T-Mobile customer, I likely won't be renewing my next contract.

Insurance...

[Anonymous Coward]

They also just hiked the price for phone insurance too. While they were at it they created another bundle that futher scams you from your money.

Insurance going from 5 -> 7 a monther per phone and they hiked the replacement price for several phones from 129 to 199.

AT&T, you suck.

in other words

[thetoadwarrior]

1,000 texts is 'unlimited' for most people so they're removing the cheaper plan that goes ignored.

Re:in other words

[danlip]

Did they already get rid of the $5/200 plan? That's what I've been using, but I've been considering going up to the $10/1000 plan since I come close to my limits. Looks like I can still do that this week.

Re:How is text messages different than data ??????

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, that 140 character limit comes from the header used to negotiate between cell towers. SMS messaging costs nothing since it is part of the cell negotiation process.

Request AT&T Logo change

[Anonymous Coward]

...should be a AT&T Globe that looks like the Death Star..

Texting saves bandwidth...and you're charging me ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Texting plans are the ultimate proof that bandwidth is not as much of a consideration as these companies make it out to be. It's cheaper for me to call someone and talk for 30 minutes than to send a couple of lines of text which would use up 1 /1000th of the total data. If Bandwidth was even moderately expensive, they'd be offering unlimited texting free with every phone plan and offering incentives to text rather than talk.

I refuse to use texting as long as they insist on charging ridiculous prices for something that ends up saving them resources.

Got a complaint?

[PPH]

Just text AT&T with your input at .... Oh crap. Went over my limit with that one.

Re:First!

[oddaddresstrap]

Second!

FTFY

Garbage Garbage Garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T is selling you 140 Byte transmissions for $0.20 a pop is wrong. Their lowest data plan is $15 for 200MB.

Comparing apples to apples here you get :
$0.075/MB for data and
$1,428.57/MB for text data

That must be some damn good data you're getting, dear God. That's only 20,000 x's the markup.

Thank you, AT&T, for giving us alternatives!

[Just Some Guy]

If AT&T's texting wasn't so butt-rapingly expensive, iPhones wouldn't have about 100 free texting applications. I used TextFree for a while (and still have it on the kids' iPods). Twitter replaced texting for a lot of my friends. Most recently I've started using Google Plus "huddles" for several people.

I'm on Verizon but benefit from AT&T's shortsightedness. Thanks, Ma Bell, for getting developers to come up with a bunch of solutions that work better (for free!) than your crappy service. I know that a lot of people don't have smartphones yet, but that problem will fix itself over time.

Blatant Price hike

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know what happens to unlimited plans these days. First they take away the $10 plan and leave the $20 unlimited. Next they change the $20 unlimited to $20 for texts. Profit!!!!

In other news....

[Anonymous Coward]

...everyone who can afford a $20 texting plan has a smartphone and is using email instead.

this is not going to last long...

[schlachter]

The market will squeeze this out. People will start using alternatives to txt msgs or they will migrate to other carriers.

I'm locked in with the $5/200msg plan; but if they force the $20/unlimited plan on me; I'm turning off txt msgs on my iPhone.

Quit Whining

[Anonymous Coward]

Cricket Android plan, unlimited everything, $55/month. Virgin Mobile, unlimited everything, $60/month. Yes, 3G is on the slow side, but it's fast enough for all but HD data streaming. Voice quality is not great, but it's passable. Sure, the phone is slow, but passable. Texting is texting. At some point, we all need to remember these things are supposed to be communication devices, not portable computers. If you want the device and service to act like a portable computer, then don't complain about what it costs. That's just whining.

Hey you want texting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just pay a small $20 fee. If you prefer, you can pay more. We won't ever take your choice away.

texting

[Anonymous Coward]

really guys they are still against us in providing offers what u said was rig

stock tips

Not necessarily

[fuzznutz]

It all depends upon your usage patterns. If you do not desire text and have low usage, there is no "plan" that suits your needs. A simple, double minutesTracfone can be purchased for $10, and 1000 minutes can be purchased for $100. If you want to spend $150, you can get 3000 minutes. You have a year to use them. Good luck finding any "plan" that offers minimal service for less than $10 per month. Back in the early days of cell phones, they used to have minimum minute plans, but carriers want that big monthly payment these days.

I know two people right now that go that route and are tickled to not have to pay the $40 per month for the minimum bare bones plan the big carriers offer.

Change carriers

[Anonymous Coward]

Change carriers if you are dissatisfied.

I looked around and found that Cricket had the cheapest service in my area. I use 2000 minutes a month of talk time and a couple of dozen text messages a week. I browse the web occasionally but don't use my phone for email. I can live with the limited coverage area, which actually covers 98% of the places I would want to use a phone regularly, the Cricket provides. So, for around $40 a month their unlimited calling (including national long distance), unlimited texting, and "unlimited" web access suites me just fine. Event their phone prices aren't bad and I've purchased an upgraded phone every couple of years for only $50 because they offer discounts to existing customers.

If you are dissatisfied with your carrier first look at what features you really need and then see what the competition has to offer.

$15 Minumum Data Plans

[wanzeo]

I admit this is offtopic, but I recently tried to activate a nexus s with ATT which I bought off ebay. It's my first smartphone, and in my excitement I simply assumed that a pay-as-ou-go data plan would be available (I really only need the phone and wifi). To my disappointment, Att REQUIRES a $15/mo minimum data plan to activate the phone. They refuse to activate the voice and text capabilities only.

I looked around at other carriers and slowly realized that this is standard industry practice. I of course am seriously pissed. Does anyone on slashdot have a similar experience, and have any solution been found?

Re:$15 Minumum Data Plans

[kaleth]

Assuming it's unlocked, T-Mobile will sell plans with just a sim card. I've never actually done it, so I don't know if they will require you to have a data plan once they find out what you've put the sim card in.

This is not about new customers

[NoviceSDot]

I think this is about subscriber retention and the upcoming iPhone 5. "Oh no, I can't switch. If I need to switch back, I'll lose unlimited data, sane SMS, ..." What do you want to bet this policy is revised sometime in the winter?

Re:How is text messages different than data ??????

[skr95062]

Because the people that do have the power to stop this royal screwing of the consumer can't. They are already owned by AT&T.

Industry Description

[DarthVain]

Would you like to be shot, or tortured and shot?

Um... shot?

Re:How is text messages different than data ??????

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like a data plan, unless you're sending a picture over text. SMS messages use the channel that locates your phone so they can route calls to it. It is in use whether you're sending a text or not, and unlike a data plan, doesn't use up data bandwith or really cost the phone companies anything. The fact that they charge for texts at all is a rip off, when all the companies doubled their prices at the same time a few years back it should have resulted in heavy fines from the FCC and/or SEC, but the campaign contributions unfortunately worked well for them. This just continues that trend.

Customer Service calls

[jklovanc]

I was a customer service rep for a US cellular company and a number of times I had similar calls from irate parents.
"Why is my bill that high? There is no way by daughter could have sent those messages. She was in school at the time. Some are being sent at 2AM. She was asleep."
When shown evidence that the numbers texted to were common on her phone and a suggestion made that they talk to the daughter they never call back. Unlimited plans are there to eliminate the overages and subsequent CS calls cause by users who do not pay the bills over using their device and don't keep track of their usage.

AT&T has a new TXTing plan

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called "50 texts for $10". It replaces the previous "1,000 texts for $10" plan.

SMS text is obsolte

[BlueCoder]

Sure it's universally accepted on all phones but so is email now. Seriously who really needs to text when they have email? How many people out there have phones without a data plan that need to text?

AT&T Mobility CEO Contact Information.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you dislike this kind of behaviour, you could always contact Ralph De La Vega:

DE LA VEGA, RALPH (ATTCINW)
RD9444-at-att.com
1025 LENOX PARK BLVD NE
ATLANTA
GA
30319-5309

People want home broadband + cell service one bill

[BlueCoder]

The slick thing for a cell company to do would be to merge with an internet broadband company. Each cable modem or optical terminal could then become a mini cell transceiver on the carriers allotted frequencies. Maybe require external antennas. The customers also then pay the power bill. Great for congested cities, apartment, and office buildings. A semi mesh network controlled and configured by the phone company.

So $100 for everything. And most likely the person with the cell phone is only going to connect wirelessly to an extended range WiFi type device.

Sum 10 Wong Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep supporting ATnT OR NoT!

too late to the party

[Anonymous Coward]

Does AT&T really thing they can make a business of this with Facebook and Google driving texting off of SMS.

Going down the drain...

Hey, AT&T!

[umbrellasd]

Fuck you and the text plan you rode in on. Not that any of the other carriers are better. Texts are folded into a header that is pure overhead on voice data. They pay for it whether you use it or not, just to transmit voice. So you're paying for nothing from all of them.

Free market ftw!

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe pays 0,04 USD per text, on average. Strong government regulation 3