Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Is Killing Text Messaging

Posted by timothy on from the funeral-will-be-awesome dept.

An anonymous reader writes "We've heard many times and from multiple sources that text messaging is declining. There are multiple reasons for this (BlackBerry Messenger, Apple's iMessage, and even WhatsApp), but the biggest one is Facebook (Messenger). Facebook is slowly but surely killing the text message. As a result, the social networking giant is eating into the traffic carriers receive from text messaging, and thus a huge chunk of their revenues."

63 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. Good by dontbgay · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe carriers would reduce their crazy pricing models for SMS messages!

    --
    Sig not found.
    1. Re:Good by olsmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, it's hard to compete with free. But (if I were in the carriers' position) I would stress the privacy/advertising/data mining issues, and try to appeal to people who have no facebook account an no interest in getting one. And lower the prices ... I think the gravy train for them is nearing the end for SMS messages. So at least facebook is a positive in that regard. Anyway, wouldn't Twitter be more along the lines of direct competition?

    2. Re:Good by GuldKalle · · Score: 2

      A thought occurs: If the prices of sms were extremely cheap (about $ 0.001), would the increased sms usage eat into voice usage to the point where some of the US capacity issues disappeared?

      --
      What?
    3. Re:Good by aliquis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah. Because no-one listen to your SMS messages ...

    4. Re:Good by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But that's ok you are being mined other ways. Well you can compete with free, if you couldn't then how did Apple rise from near bankruptcy. When you had Linux growing, during that same time. I would argue we never really had privacy. Back in the pre-internet age if you were to go to the store and buy embarrassing products, the clerk could have been the town gossip, and by the end of the week you are an outcast because of some odd purchase. While now we are collecting more information, the advertisers are smart enough not to abuse the information, because if you make Jane embarrassed because she bought a product or has an issue which a product can help, you risk loosing a customer.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Good by EggyToast · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe that is the point -- people are choosing to use other forms of messaging and finding that they're as good, if not better, among their contacts compared to SMS. As such, they are saving themselves the unlimited texting fees.

      An unlimited texting plan on AT&T is $20/mo, and on Verizon, the $5/mo tier only gets you 250 messages. The $10/mo plan gets you mostly unlimited texting. So, people are deciding "hey, everyone I text is on FB, and I can ping them on their phone the same way. Plus I can ping people who don't even have phones and are sitting at home."

      So, it's more flexible, and it's cheaper. People then drop their unlimited data plans (which are add-ons and not part of the contract structure), which eats into the planned revenue for the carriers. What's worse, the carriers have no plan to recoup this fee once it's gone. They'll need to make up the shortfall by increasing data plan costs.

    6. Re:Good by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You mean like when Target told a dad his daughter was pregnant?

      Also, you loose nothing. If something is loose you should tighten it as not to lose it. Although I guess in this case you sort of did lose a loose customer.

    7. Re:Good by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

      An unlimited texting plan on AT&T is $20/mo, and on Verizon, the $5/mo tier only gets you 250 messages. The $10/mo plan gets you mostly unlimited texting. So, people are deciding "hey, everyone I text is on FB, and I can ping them on their phone the same way. Plus I can ping people who don't even have phones and are sitting at home."

      Depends on the carrier, I suppose. There are some US carriers (think Boost, for example) who offer unlimited texting included in the base package.

      In the rest of the world, it's almost a given that your texting will be that low. I pay $5/mo for unlimited international texting on my plan. And I have European friends who think that I'm being gouged at that rate.

    8. Re:Good by gstrickler · · Score: 4, Informative

      $5/mo for unlimited texting? Not from Verizon, AT&T, Sprint or T-Mobile. It's a $20/mo add-on from VZ, AT&T and Sprint, or a $10/mo higher plan from T-Mobile.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    9. Re:Good by oztiks · · Score: 2

      Carriers are a dying business model. It's no coincidence that Skype on iPhone was clipped to ensure it didn't operate on 3G. It's merely a matter of time before the carrier model either changes or gets pushed out and with microsofts acquisition of Skype I'd imagine within a few years all that carriers would charge for is data usage. All hail 4g!!!

    10. Re:Good by Time_Ngler · · Score: 2

      Tell him to sign up for Google Voice. It'll convert SMS to email and its free. He can also send SMS for free, too, then.

    11. Re:Good by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      Listening != data mining

      You're right. Listening is worse.

      --

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

    12. Re:Good by wealthychef · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Actually, the article you quote makes jellomizer's point.

      But Target didn't stop the creepy target marketing -- it just got sneakier about it.

      "With the pregnancy products, though, we learned that some women react badly," the executive said. "Then we started mixing in all these ads for things we knew pregnant women would never buy, so the baby ads looked random. We'd put an ad for a lawn mower next to diapers. We'd put a coupon for wineglasses next to infant clothes. That way, it looked like all the products were chosen by chance.

      "And we found out that as long as a pregnant woman thinks she hasn't been spied on, she'll use the coupons. She just assumes that everyone else on her block got the same mailer for diapers and cribs. As long as we don't spook her, it works."

      The author of the article says it's creepy, but actually I think it's clever and discreet.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    13. Re:Good by realityimpaired · · Score: 2, Informative

      Really? Where are those data?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#2010s

      Are you being intentionally oblivious?

      The murder rate in the USA is more than 3x as high as Canada, 4x as high as the UK or Australia, and even more than that for most of Europe. The numbers from Japan included attempted (unsuccessful murders), and the rate in the US is still 5x as high as it is there.

      Russia is the only G8 country with a higher murder rate than the US, and there's no gun control there, either. Of the other 6 countries in the G8, all of them have gun control.

      Because in the US multiple efforts at gun control have done nothing to impact homicide rates involving firearms. Not the NFA in 1934, not the FFA in 38, not the CGA in 68, not the creation of the ATF, neither the Brady bill nor the 1994 Crime Bill. Looking at correlation in the other direction, what scant major court decision there are that have upheld more progressive readings of the 2nd Amendement, have not caused an upward swing in the statistics either. Didn't see it when SCOTUS said firearms needed military applications to qualify. Didn't see it when the AWB section of the above 1994 Crime Bill expired. Didn't see it when the DC handgun ban was repealed.

      Once the weapons are in peoples' hands, controlling who can buy them doesn't really do a lot of good, now, does it? They're already out there. No phrase in human history has been more misinterpreted than "the right to keep and bear arms", btw.

      That still has nothing to do with my point, which was quite plainly that it takes a more vested effort to kill somebody with a knife than it does a gun. With a knife you have to really mean it. With a gun, you can point and click, and the person is dead before you've really realized what's happening. How is this lost on you?

    14. Re:Good by wealthychef · · Score: 2

      The more I look at this, the more confused I am at what Target supposedly did wrong. The OP claimed "Target told a man his daughter was pregnant." Um, no, Target sent the man's daughter mail, which he opened and found coupons for. If there was any invasion of privacy, it was the man reading his daughter's mail. I would argue a father has the right to do so, precisely in order to find out these kind of things, since the father is probably going to end up helping to raise this baby at least financially and probably more so, but that's not my call. The point is, target sent private mail to the girl and it was intercepted. Even if it was a big postcard that says "congratulations on your teenage pregnancy," I would think they did nothing wrong.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    15. Re:Good by quacking+duck · · Score: 2

      No phrase in human history has been more misinterpreted than "the right to keep and bear arms", btw.

      Agree with the rest of your post, but not this.

      The most mis-interpreted phrases in human history are any where people preface with "The Bible says..." or "The Koran says..." Using the 2nd Amendment of the USA to suit various agendas is nothing compared to that.

    16. Re:Good by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I keep hearing people say that SMS messages are effectively free for the carriers, but such statements don't present the whole picture, and as a result, are highly misleading.

      Yes, text messages are sent using junk parts of packets that aren't used for anything else. However, there are a limited number of time slots per frequency, and a limited number of frequency slots. Therefore, it is a scarce resource. If text messages were free or nearly so, there is the danger that your text messages would be delayed by hours because of the backlog, making them early useless.

      When a backlog does occur, there are only three ways to fix it: add more bandwidth (which costs money), change phones so that they can deliver text messages using data traffic (which effectively takes bandwidth from other things, eventually resulting in the need to add bandwidth, which costs money), or charge a fee so that fewer people send text messages, thus avoiding the tragedy of the commons.

      So it is no more "nearly free" than biodiesel made from restaurant grease is nearly free; initially it may seem that way, but as soon as demand builds up, suddenly there's not enough to go around, and the cost of increasing the supply makes it largely infeasible to do so.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    17. Re:Good by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      With a gun, you can point and click, and the person is dead before you've really realized what's happening.

      Unless it's a shotgun, if you "point and click", you're likely to wound and incapacitate a person, but not kill them. The idea that people drop dead as soon as a small piece of lead comes in contact with them is BS that mostly stems from the movies. In reality, unless you shoot them in the head (and sometimes not even then), it takes several bullets to kill a person, and even then it's not a certainty.

    18. Re:Good by torkus · · Score: 2

      You have a valid point - to a limited degree.

      I use SMS heavily at times. Multiple conversations, outage reports, server health monitoring, etc. and I can use several hundered a day easily. Even if each ~160 character message takes 50 times more bandwidth as data traffic than it's actual size and I'm looking at a few MB for the day. Yet if I paid individually they'd charge me ~$50 or more.

      So yes, it's possible carriers have had to expand or change how they handle SMS to manage the increased number sent, but the overall impact on their available bandwidth is negligable - especially compared to the cost.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    19. Re:Good by AndrewX · · Score: 2

      Also based on the homicide rate chart from Wikipedia that you hold in such high regard:

      Czech Republic: very liberal gun laws, 1/3 the homicide rate of the US

      Germany: only requires you be 18 and fill out an application. 1/5 the homicide rate of the US.

      Italy: fairly painless to obtain a pistol, and one can apply for a concealed permit. 1/5 the homicide rate of the US.

      Japan: Licensing is little more than a formality, strict gun laws are not enforced. It's very easy to get guns. Also, one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.

      Mexico: has extremely strict gun laws that are heavily enforced, yet the murder rate is almost 4x that of the US! Hmm... Interesting, eh?

      Honduras: tops off your coveted list with the highest homicide rate in the world being 18X higher than here in the US, and the laws are substantially more restrictive (can own at most 5, assault weapons banned, etc)...

      We could go on and on, but the evidence to support your claims is not there. Period. There is no causality between firearm availability and homicide rates.

  2. Nope by blahbooboo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not for me. Facebook sucks for messaging compared to iMessage or plain old texts.

    At best, facebook is an email supplement

    1. Re:Nope by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At best, facebook is an email supplement

      How can Facebook messaging even be compared with email? Can you exchange messages with people who do not use one company's services? Can you run your own Facebook message server?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Nope by GuldKalle · · Score: 5, Informative

      yes
      https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=224049364288051

      --
      What?
    3. Re:Nope by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      ...apparently I am behind the times on these things.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:Nope by poetmatt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. This article is attributing to facebook what is a result of a: general market shift away from ridiculously overpriced messaging, and b: a result of simply better services that are out there, such as anything that does text messages over data, including google voice and that apple messenger thing.

      Facebook's total influence on text messaging is probably neutral entirely, due to enabling people to get notifications via text messaging.

    5. Re:Nope by Dan541 · · Score: 2

      Also a lot of people, such as myself don't check Facebook very regularly. I actually find facebook to be an inconvenient form of communication most of the time. I think of it more as a self maintaining address book.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  3. Wasn't that the plan? by MarioMax · · Score: 2

    I seem to recall something along the lines of Facebook buying out certain companies for the explicit purpose of killing SMS text messaging.

  4. What a choice... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On the one hand, a cartel that charges ridiculous prices for messaging. On the other, a service which will not allow you to send messages to users of other services.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:What a choice... by bemymonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Facebook IM is just the gateway drug... As soon as people realize that text messaging should essentially be free, they're just seconds away from installing another IM client on their phone. Most people won't, because they don't need to communicate with anyone outside their Facebook friend list... But the idea should be planted :-)

  5. Rediculous markup by neokushan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    SMS has a ridiculous markup, in the thousands of percent - sorry, telcos, but the gig is up. You've had your free lunch and it's over, how about instead you give us better data options so you can at least make some money out of all these free services?
    Face it - SMS and phone calls are a dying business, data is the future so invest in your infrastructure, encourage its use and profit from the fact that nobody's likely to offer free universal data any time soon.

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    1. Re:Rediculous markup by contrapunctus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      actually it's infinity percent markup since SMS costs telcos nothing at all...

    2. Re:Rediculous markup by crafty.munchkin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Couldn't agree more, the cash cow of SMS messaging is dying. Now if we can just convince the majority of ISPs that excess data downloads shouldn't be its replacement, that'll be fantastic. My boss just received a $8000 excess data usage bill for his home account... *shakes head*

      --
      ... wait, what?
    3. Re:Rediculous markup by fa2k · · Score: 5, Funny

      actually it's infinity percent markup since SMS costs telcos nothing at all...

      Great, now let's tunnel IP over SMS and get infinite, free data bandwidth

    4. Re:Rediculous markup by fragMasterFlash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because SMS piggybacks parts of the cellular network protocol to get from the tower to your device that does not make it free. While I agree it is a cash cow given current pricing in the US you cannot completely ignore the backend and administrative costs of maintaining any large scale, reliable communications protocol. And don't forget the cost storing all those messages for our law enforcement overlords to keep us safe from ourselves.

    5. Re:Rediculous markup by xyzzyman · · Score: 2

      Already done: http://www.techspot.com/news/45432-smozzy-android-app-lets-you-surf-the-web-via-sms.html

  6. Don't worry about the mobile carriers by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They're getting paid. Facebook replaces messaging because people are using it through their smart phone. So they're paying for data plans.

    They should get worried if people stop buying data plans.

    1. Re:Don't worry about the mobile carriers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      With the fact that the data plans are so small for phones (just doing a round of Windows updates and application updates on a laptop will put me over cap if I had a phone plan dating from 2010 or newer.), the carriers are making in the money even with people that have unlimited texting.

      Before I picked up an iPhone, I paid $75 a month. With the iPhone, I easily pay $200/month.

      Texting isn't where you will end up being robbed, it is the data plans and the paltry bandwidth quotas.

    2. Re:Don't worry about the mobile carriers by the_enigma_1983 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A facebook message consisting of 160 characters would be less than 1kB (amortised). The usual cost of an SMS is between 10c and 25c. 10c per kB equates to $100 per MB.

      In other words, telco profit margins on SMS when compared to FB messages are orders of magnitude smaller. It might be even worse, I've heard that SMS messages are sent in some form of "control" packet hence the 160 char limit, meaning that SMS overheads are (somewhat) essential to running the mobile network.

    3. Re:Don't worry about the mobile carriers by Paco103 · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the US you do. It was accepted on phone calls when cell phones first came out, because the caller does not pay extra to place the call as they do in some countries (if I understand correctly). This was more acceptable since I have the option to not answer a call. With text messages, however, I don't have the option to not get one. In the US, I don't know of any company that doesn't charge for incoming texts, but some do charge less for incoming texts than outgoing.

    4. Re:Don't worry about the mobile carriers by quacking+duck · · Score: 2

      My iPhone 4S has a monthly plan of 250 daytime minutes, unlimited evening/weekends, free calls to other local phones on the same carrier, visual voice mail, call display, 2000 outgoing text messages, and 6 GB data.

      It costs $65 a month, $10 less than your pre-iPhone bill. And this is in Canada, a country considered one of the worst when it comes to rip-off level cell phone plans.

      What country are you in, and what the heck do you have on your plan that it costs $200/month, and will put you over cap for a single round of Windows and program updates (usually a few tens of megabytes at most, if you're not updating a newly-rebuilt system)?

  7. Earnings from sms? by Ries · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Even the most basic plan (12 dollar/mo, 3 GB data, unlimited sms) in Denmark includes unlimited text messaging.

  8. What? by sureshot007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, if you have a phone plan that includes unlimited text messages, but don't use them as much now, wouldn't that be ADDING to the teleco's revenue?

    Further more, how would a data driven app displace a cellular function??? Text messaging uses less power and resources on my phone. I can text all day long but if have to be connected to the internet to use facebook, I get far less life out of my battery. I don't get why people would prefer a data app over a native cell feature...but that's just me.

    1. Re:What? by bondsbw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      SMS messages are routed over control channels, which in most cases means that there is practically zero additional cost for the carrier.

      So, no, the failure to use text messages doesn't change carrier revenue. The failure to extract money makes a lot of difference for carrier revenue... which is what happens if you no longer get a texting plan, or if like me, never had one and stop sending the ~10 messages per month I have been doing.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    2. Re:What? by Paco103 · · Score: 2

      Because it's free. I use Google Voice as my primary number now. Texting would cost me $10/month extra. With Google Voice, I can text all day long for "free" on my included data plan. I get by on the 200MB plan and rarely pass 150MB, even with Trillian for Android on MSN, AOL, Facebook, and Google Talk, Google Voice, and e-mail connected 24/7. Cell phone cost on texting is RIDICULOUS! I have a 900Minute family plan with about 3000 roll over minutes banked, unlimited mobile to mobile, and 200MB data. . . . but they still charge me 10 cents per text message or $10/month, which is outrageous. There should at LEAST be some kind of conversion factor, like 10 text messages per minute, and deduct it from what I'm already paying for. THAT I would accept.

  9. Cutting traffic? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Exactly how is facebook cutting traffic for the carriers? If I send a text message via FB versus the sms application in my phone, are not the same amount of bytes being transferred? Actually, the FB transfer probably uses more traffic.

    What is true, though, is that SMS is a private service that the carriers gouge the public on in pricing and they haven't found a way to exploit the user who uses FB for their texting. At least not yet.

    1. Re:Cutting traffic? by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly how is facebook cutting traffic for the carriers? If I send a text message via FB versus the sms application in my phone, are not the same amount of bytes being transferred? Actually, the FB transfer probably uses more traffic.

      You got that right. SMS uses virtually no traffic for the carrier, it is well above 99% profit. Facebook isn't hurting their traffic - it is actually increasing their traffic. Rather, it is hurting their bottom line because they can't get away with marking up data rates to the degree they can mark up text rates. This "story" is basically just the carriers whining that their profit margins are decreasing because they got too comfortable with the obscene returns they were getting from text messages.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  10. No huge chunks in Europe by Mirvnillith · · Score: 4, Informative

    In Sweden text messages tend to be free (but only the first 5000 each month) with plans at about $21 a month (this example with 3GB data as well). I know the US is different (recipient paying for text message and such), but there are operators surviving without this huge chunk of revenue ...

    1. Re:No huge chunks in Europe by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      When I was in high school (a decade ago), I had a friend who managed to send/receive 14000 text messages in a single month. I have no idea how that is possible, but his parents took away his phone privileges after that.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:No huge chunks in Europe by I_am_Jack · · Score: 4, Informative

      Then you weren't a teenage girl with a cell phone. My daughter averages 5200 a month .

    3. Re:No huge chunks in Europe by Paco103 · · Score: 2

      I'm guessing in Sweden, you also buy your own phones? In my opinion, the biggest problem with the US market is that phones are included with all your plans (at least from the 4 major carriers). I bought my last phone outright. It was the Google Dev Phone 1 (Unlocked TMobile G1). Did I get a discount for providing my own phone? Nope. Should I have, since I didn't have them pay for it for me? Absolutely.

      TMobile I believe finally offers a bring-your-own-phone discounted rate, but they also have weaker coverage than AT&T or Verizon. Since carriers mostly provide the phones (even if you buy them outright from them), they control what's on them. They control whether data tethering is enabled (in my opinion, valid when we had unlimited smart phone data plans, but NOT when I have 200MB or 2GB fixed plans. . . then I get to use it how I want). They control what features are available. (My old Motorola Razr had IMAP e-mail disabled by AT&T, even though the phone was fully capable of it). AND they fill your phone with bloatware crap that you can't remove without voiding the warranty.

      I wish they'd be split up. Carriers sell service. They have absolutely no control in the phones. THIS would be better for consumers. They can finance a phone to you, but it has a separate, line item charge for a fixed amount of time. It can be included in the same monthly bill, but it needs to be clear on the bill what is for your service and what is for your phone. My mom is now using my old G1, and my dad is using the same Razr he got 5 years ago, shouldn't they be getting discounts since they haven't taken a new phone from the carrier in 5 years?

      Imagine if your ISP had deals like this. If you want a computer that can play all the cool games your friends are playing and share pictures with them, you HAVE to go to Windstream, even though they are terrible. Of course, Windstream may not have service in your area, but that's really not their problem is it? You can buy the computer that Windstream sells used on e-bay, or you can buy it directly from Windstream without a contract by paying full price, but it won't work on any other ISP unless you void the warranty and have some technical skills.

    4. Re:No huge chunks in Europe by tirefire · · Score: 2

      Wow, that's roughly one text message every 5-6 minutes, assuming 8 hours' sleep per day, along with a 31-day month.

      I'm in my early twenties and I feel like I'm getting old. I miss the '90s when people actually spoke to other people in the same room as them. It seems like everyone was more relaxed, or maybe that's just the economy these days, I don't know. But back in the day, if the conversation lulled, someone would change the subject instead of everyone folding their hands in iphone/android prayer until someone found a meme to share.

  11. Facebook = by FudRucker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    developed by a narcissist for narcissists

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  12. wait for may 19 / your xmpp day by rzr · · Score: 2

    Let me remind about may 19 : http://www.opendiscussionday.org/# Time to leave facebook, msn for a open protocol with decentralized network etc -- http://rzr.online.fr/q/xmpp

    --
    -- http://rzr.online.fr/
  13. Board meeting at carrier by danielcolchete · · Score: 2

    CEO: Listen everyone, today we will create a service that will charge a hundred times more to send only a few bytes, less than 200 bytes.
    Board: But anyone can do it almost for free through the Internet!
    CEO: So our true cost here will be to keep the internet from the users as much as possible. We have to use every weapon available: charge too much, give them horrible smartphones, have phone makers in our hands, etc.
    Board: Hey, Apple and Google released smartphones allowing anyone to write an app for it.
    CEO: Crap! Well, at least we could hold the world on our hands for almost ten years... Shame we lost it...

  14. Jack up the price of a data plan by tepples · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, it's hard to compete with free.

    Of course you can. You can jack up the minimum price for a smartphone data plan so that it's more expensive than unlimited texting, forcing cost-conscious customers onto dumbphones.

  15. Moving texts between cell sites by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    SMS costs telcos nothing at all

    ...to transmit, as text messages are stored in an otherwise unused field of the GSM keep-alive packet. But maintaining the software and backhaul network for moving these 160-byte packets around from one cell site to the next does cost greater than zero.

    1. Re:Moving texts between cell sites by allo · · Score: 4, Funny

      let epsilon be greater than zero

  16. Wired has a lot more spectrum by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    Your DSL, cable, or fiber ISP has a lot more spectrum available to it than any cellular carrier because copper and fiber act as waveguides. Therefore, such a wired ISP can provide far more last-mile throughput.

  17. and nothing of value... by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously, the profits the carriers were getting from text messaging were artificial anyway. Surely they realized that. Text messaging uses otherwise unused bandwidth at the cell site and is *way* overpriced for the value received. It was a glitch in the wireless revenue stream that any savvy provider would realize will go away at some point.

    Facebook on a wireless device does use up data plan, which can also be expensive, but is orders of magnitude cheaper than texting. It's evolution in action.

    I wait with bated breath for the carriers to lobby for protectionist legislation. Perhaps a surcharge on data plans to cover the lost revenue from people abandoning texting.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  18. Too much junk on Facebook by Animats · · Score: 2

    A friend of mine with an active social life used to be heavily into Facebook, and the way to reach her was to send to her Facebook account. Then she got an iPhone. After a month or so, she started checking Facebook only once a day, and told me to use SMS or email if I needed a quick response.

    You can't pull out your smartphone for every Facebook update. Most of them are effectively spam.

  19. I have $5 unlimited texting on Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have a $5 unlimited texting package from Verizon and I'm always paranoid when I interact with a rep that they will delete it from my account. Like unlimited data plans, these things were offered once and as time goes by fewer and fewer people remain grandfathered into them.

    1. Re:I have $5 unlimited texting on Verizon by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 2

      If you buy your new phone at a Verizon store (not some discounter) they will grandfather your existing plan. I have unlimited data on my Galaxy Nexus :).

  20. Cough.... by way2trivial · · Score: 2

    http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050811/41139012.html

    The law in Russia is extremely conservative compared with that in the United States. Russians can only buy smoothbore hunting rifles of minimum 80 centimeters, gas pistols, or revolvers shooting rubber bullets. Safe use of this arsenal for five years allows purchase of a twin rifle or carbine. Stub-barreled firearms are a taboo for Russian citizens.

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random