backtop


Print 62 comment(s) - last by innest.. on Jun 25 at 3:56 PM

Major cell phone service providers under even more government scrutiny

Shortly after four lawmakers decided to request the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) look into cell phone exclusivity, service providers are being accused of text message price-fixing.

Representatives from Verizon Wireless and AT&T testified in front of the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, saying the two largest U.S. providers aren't in collusion to increase text message prices.

Last November, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisconsin) called out Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint Nextel on why text message rates have increased 100 percent in less than four years.  Furthermore, each company raised prices after one company bumped up prices, and the cost of texting continues to rise if a subscriber avoids a text messaging plan.

Phone providers are focusing less on marketing voice plans, instead choosing to focus on convincing subscribers to pick up data and text message plans.

"Especially in light of this litigation firestorm, we want to make it perfectly clear that AT&T sets the prices for all of its products on a unilateral basis," said AT&T's general counsel, Wayne Watts.  "The allegations in the complaints are patently false."

The 20 cent per message sent and received clearly doesn't match any major increases in the infrastructure of phone carriers.

Verizon and AT&T will likely be able to walk away from this matter unscathed -- but getting called to Washington D.C. is a sign that the government is indeed watching the companies.  Verizon defended itself in D.C. by noting most subscribers pay for a monthly texting plan, which means subscribers reportedly pay less than one cent for each message.

Each company said there is new competition than collusion between Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile.

There is a lack of competition in the mobile phone market at the moment, industry critics fire back at the big four companies.  The number of exclusivity contracts -- each major company has sole access to at least one phone -- and the issue isn't going to go away any time soon.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

SMS is data, repackaged and obscenely overpriced
By RolfSchewe on 6/17/2009 8:56:40 AM , Rating: 5
It's all data. The price we pay per bit is criminal. I think some IM services offer free outgoing SMS. I may try that out. I'm sick of the SMS scam. I chopped that unlimited SMS plan off my bill a long time ago.




RE: SMS is data, repackaged and obscenely overpriced
By acase on 6/17/2009 11:33:24 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Selling drugs is criminal.


I knew my pharmacist was a shady asshole!


By FITCamaro on 6/17/2009 11:54:05 AM , Rating: 1
My mom is a pharmacist.


By mattclary on 6/17/2009 12:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
She's hot. ;)


By FITCamaro on 6/17/2009 1:30:39 PM , Rating: 2
If you say so.


By mattclary on 6/17/2009 3:52:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's a joke carried over from a thread a few days ago. ;)


By RolfSchewe on 6/17/2009 12:48:10 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah. Everyone reads fine print too. Of corse people pay for the service and want it. That doesn't make it right. I standby what I said. SMS is data. Consumers are getting robbed relative to what the data costs the carriers vs. what they charge. There is business and then there is abuse. This is the latter.


RE: SMS is data, repackaged and obscenely overpriced
By DM0407 on 6/17/2009 12:54:51 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Selling drugs is criminal.


quote:
Offering a service and people volunteering to pay for it because they want it is not criminal.


Please explain to me who is buying drugs that doesn't volunteer to pay for them. Crimes become crimes cuz people in congress make them that way. Which they are doing here.

P.S. Running a red light in a misdemeanor and not a criminal act... Thank god.


RE: SMS is data, repackaged and obscenely overpriced
By croc on 6/17/2009 5:46:42 PM , Rating: 1
You do not know how a cellular system really works, do you... SMS is carried over a seperate channel entirely to voice / data, known as a signalling system channel. There are two per cell, and one is usually unused. So outside of the datacenter hardware for the SMS, there is no real cost to an SMS. Yet they are billing you yanks .40c per message (.20c send, .20c recieve)? THAT'S criminal. Change carriers, that'll fix the problem. But wait, they all charge the same? That's COLLUSION...

Glad I don't live in a third-world backwater...


By Yawgm0th on 6/19/2009 4:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
P.S. Running a red light in a misdemeanor and not a criminal act... Thank god.
A semaphore violation is a petty misdemeanor. Misdemeanor's are criminal acts.


By smegz on 6/17/2009 3:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Offering a service and people volunteering to pay for it because they want it is not criminal.

They double-dip on text messages. If you have a 1000 message plan any outgoing or incoming are counted against that plan. This is wrong. That means that sending a text in network earns them not $.20, but $.40 (with no plan) because they charge the sender and receiver. I leave my IM app running and encourage my friends and colleagues to message me that way. I will not pay for double-dipping.


RE: SMS is data, repackaged and obscenely overpriced
By DM0407 on 6/17/2009 1:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Verizon defended itself in D.C. by noting most subscribers pay for a monthly texting plan, which means subscribers reportedly pay less than one cent for each message.


$5.00 for 250 messages = 2 cents per sent message.

$10.00 for 500 messages = 2 cents per.

Actually, when you think that the other person is also getting charged for the said txt, it becomes 4 cents per message.

I would like to see a profit percent limit on fees. 500%. If a text cost the company .00001 of a cent to transmit, then I'm willing to pay .005 cents per. At 20 cents per, or 10 bucks a month, I better be getting crazy formatting options and the ability to add video etc.

Fuck, even AOL in 1994 allowed you to do more with less accumulated fees.


By icanhascpu on 6/17/2009 2:25:36 PM , Rating: 4
Seeing as how most people aren't paid based on how far they drove to get to work, i would say your point is retarded.


What really chafes my a$$
By eetnoyer on 6/17/2009 10:16:07 AM , Rating: 5
Is that even though we don't have (and never had) a text messaging plan, it is still possible for us to receive text message spam. We only get probably 1-3/month, but still, why should I have to pay for it? I'll make it simple. If a subscriber doesn't have a plan, don't allow them to receive text messages....




RE: What really chafes my a$$
By SuperFly03 on 6/17/2009 10:23:11 AM , Rating: 2
I agree.

Though why do you get spam txts? Begs a question about which kind of sites have your cell number :p


RE: What really chafes my a$$
By eetnoyer on 6/17/2009 11:10:10 AM , Rating: 2
Haven't got a clue. We only have one cell phone, and it "belongs" to my wife. We've never given our cell number to anyone but friends and family, and with 4 kids at home, I sincerely doubt she surfing a whole lot of pron. Maybe we got somebody else's old number? We never had any text spam with our old plan. We've called a few times to dispute the charges, but they've never blocked the texts. I guess we'll have to request that specifically.


RE: What really chafes my a$$
By Solandri on 6/18/2009 4:47:14 AM , Rating: 2
Most of the text spam I got came from my cell phone company, advertising new features and products. They didn't charge for them, but I suspect this is why you're not allowed to disable receipt of text messages.


RE: What really chafes my a$$
By Funksultan on 6/17/2009 10:38:53 AM , Rating: 2
Call your carrier. They can completely block all text messages to a phone, and thus, you'll avoid any charges.

(Have this on several of my phones for that same reason)


RE: What really chafes my a$$
By FITCamaro on 6/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: What really chafes my a$$
By icanhascpu on 6/17/2009 2:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
The point is we shouldn't have to call them to turn it off. Its a damned scam that they just leave it on by default giggling all the while in the thought that the doughbags around the globe will be racking up 30c per text!

And guess what, those douchbags arn't paying a dime because they are all using SMS services online. They dont even need a cell let alone a cellplan. Its criminal on both sides.

This would be like if Microsoft was the only company allowed to make AntiVirus for its OS, and it charged you 30c for every virus it cough. The thing is, MS will turn off all firewall and never patch holes, thus allowing you to get 10+ random viruses a year . Multiply that by a few dozen million that dont call in to stop this. What the hell would you call that? If its not a scam I dont know what is.


Text should be INCLUDED in data
By CZroe on 6/17/2009 11:12:04 AM , Rating: 2
I will NEVER pay for a text messaging plan because I am fundamentally opposed to it. At one time, text & data were considered the same by some carriers, where purchasing unlimited data would include unlimited text (example: Sprint PCS Vision circa 2002). Because every phone with data could just as easily send an email to any other phone with data, there is no reason for this arbitrary system to remain in place.




By FITCamaro on 6/17/2009 11:59:07 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that it should come as part of a data plan. But consumers need to make that choice by calling for a carrier to offer it that way and then moving to that carrier. Now granted if AT&T offered it that way, I still wouldn't switch to AT&T because I don't think their network is as good.


By RolfSchewe on 6/17/2009 12:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. You stated it better than me.


fake sms
By JoshuaBuss on 6/17/2009 9:23:27 AM , Rating: 2
i'm surprised fake sms messaging isn't more popular with so many clients available..

free isms lets you 'text' over your standard data plan.. pretty nice.




and no rollover
By mattclary on 6/17/2009 12:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
AT&T prides themselves on rollover minutes. I am puzzled why they don't offer rollover texts.




AIM
By icanhascpu on 6/17/2009 2:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
I just use AIM to text my gf when im at home.

In other news I think the people in charge of the decisions to charge this much for texting should be tossed in jail and the companies fined.

Actually fuck being fined. They should be forced to refund every last cent they charged people for going over their texting "package". Same with going over their MB data limits. Seriously what a fucking scam. They give extremely little in the way of tools to watch how much you've used for the vast majority of people. Honestly, Im with AT&T and they do not make it clear how to check! I found out myself by registering on the site, but you know what? They fuck you there too with all the BS about "we are unable to receive your X data at this time" and "all info is X days out of date so you cant blame us lol, but dont worry your bill will be there early!" Motherfuckers.

Instead of people going over their allotment with little in the way of tools to know when they do, how about they simply stop letting us use the service when we do. Oh wait, then they their scam wouldn't work!




really a big deal?
By jeff834 on 6/18/2009 1:19:31 AM , Rating: 2
I have Sprint, I pay $50/month for 450 anytime minutes, free nights and weekends (nights start at 7), and unlimited texting in or out of network. I use in the vicinity of 2000 texts per month and the difference in price between my plan and the one without texting is $10, so I guess that means I pay about .005 per text. Texts are .20 each and data is .03/kb so that you'll switch to a texting or data plan. If you don't want to use text or data on your phone don't, if you do and you think it's worth the money then pay for it. You can whine all you want about contracts, but legally they can't force you to change or keep your plan (except for a select few phones like blackberries and iphones), so it's not such a huge deal. If you use 10 text messages a month then obviously you don't really need to text at all, and if you use 1000 then $10 is reasonable. Personally I wish they would offer a text only plan for like $20 because I only use about 20 of my minutes in a month.




i'm fedup with these high fees!
By gladman9 on 6/23/2009 10:31:56 PM , Rating: 2
i think everyone is getting a little fed up with text messages being so expensive. I use http://www.smstextnow.com to send text messages for free. I also can set it up to send to groups which is handy for work, group meetings and for sports teams. this way I don't have to worry about the cost of sending these messages and it's much easier to manage. I will continue to use sites such as this until the pricing gets back in line with what's fair.




It looks like collusion
By innest on 6/25/2009 3:56:45 PM , Rating: 2
It does seem like there is some collusion between the big four carriers, doesn't it? I think the rise in texting prices is a calculated move by the big carriers to 'persuade' (read: force) people into signing up for texting plans. Most people will opt for a higher plan than they need in order to avoid overage charges. So the carriers laugh all the way to the bank.
Plus, last time I checked, my carrier seemed to think any alteration to the contract, like signing up for a new texting plan, extended the contract period again...
Just yesterday I saw an interesting thing, though. I noticed a new prepaid plan by the Tracfone folks which if I remember correctly translated into 2c a minute and 1c per text. I think it was called StraightTalk. Prepaid, mind you, not a contract. So if they can give it at that price what is the excuse of the others? Anyway, this might be the future for those unhappy with the way the big four are going. It seems Tracfone is rocking the boat here. Good for them.




Maybe a bit overboard on this issue?
By mdogs444 on 6/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Maybe a bit overboard on this issue?
By Bender 123 on 6/17/2009 9:01:31 AM , Rating: 5
I believe, if you do the actual math on pricing, the cost per MB (YES MB!!!! NOT GB) is in the area of $1300...Tell me how that is reasonable? Since text messages are built into the normal check in signals (being simplistic) of cell service, there is data going out regardless.


RE: Maybe a bit overboard on this issue?
By mdogs444 on 6/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Maybe a bit overboard on this issue?
By Screwballl on 6/17/2009 10:17:28 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
What is better business practice - selling 10 cars at $10,000 profit each, or 100 cars at $1,000 profit each?


the way many of these greedy companies and buyout rescued companies, they expect to sell 100 cars at $10,000 profit even when the market will not bear it.
The same goes for cell phone companies. No one has given customer any alternative or better pricing structure so this is what "appears" to be the market price saturation point. As soon as a major provider (like Verizon for example) comes up with an unlimited text + limited minutes voice cell phone service (no strings like "unlimited = 200 text messages monthly" or some other dumb limitation) for $40 per month and markets it, people that use pretty much any amount of texting will switch.
I use Verizon and actually piggy-backed onto my parents cell plan (something they agreed to of course, to help their son that is 2000 miles away and has their grandkids lol) so I pay $20/month for 500 in-peak minutes, unlimited off-peak minutes and 250 text messages per month.


RE: Maybe a bit overboard on this issue?
By FITCamaro on 6/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Maybe a bit overboard on this issue?
By Suntan on 6/17/2009 11:26:17 AM , Rating: 2
I believe that a company should be allowed to make a buck too, but at the same time, constantly upping the price for something that does not require additional investment on their part is a blatant screw to their customers.

I send maybe 10 texts a month max. In the last couple years the price for that has gone from $.50 to $2.50. Not really enough to make me want to pay $5 a month for 200 or so texts, and not really enough to make me lose sleep over, but enough to make me mad at them for jacking rates without really providing better/additional service.

Come on, a 5x increase on the cost is not correlated to paying for their infrastructure improvements, as the actual cost of my monthly voice contracts haven’t changed a cent in that period. It is just nickel-and-dime tactics that they can get away with because all their competitors do it too.

-Suntan


RE: Maybe a bit overboard on this issue?
By FITCamaro on 6/17/09, Rating: -1
By Suntan on 6/17/2009 1:25:11 PM , Rating: 3
Gee thanks. Never could have guessed those were some options without you pointing them out for me.

I believe I specifically said its not a big enough deal to warrant losing sleep over, but it is just another sleezy tactic used.

I have more dislike for it because mobile phone companies (like internet providers and cable companies) use overly complex pricing structures and convoluted contract incentives to "stupify" the average J6P consumer into doing business with them, instead of just straight up offering them the best solution. As this works on the vast majority of their customers, the rest of us are too small in number to force them into changing their business model. I don't like it, even though I acknowledge that they have a right to do it... ...within reason.

-Suntan


RE: Maybe a bit overboard on this issue?
By Screwballl on 6/17/2009 1:10:48 PM , Rating: 2
The high prices are not for the reasons you explained, but because each of the companies inched up their prices around the same time frame and this is just a cash cow for them. Even millions of small text messages only costs them fractions of a penny each to transfer which is the whole reasoning behind this lawsuit.

What is greedy is charging more for a service that does not cost them any more now (and actually probably less) than it did even a year ago. They need to include 200 texts with even the most basic voice plans. Messages with "pix and flix" I can see why they may need to charge more, as comparing a 1KB text file to a 200-800KB file is a big difference, especially when compounded across millions of users.


RE: Maybe a bit overboard on this issue?
By FITCamaro on 6/17/2009 1:45:41 PM , Rating: 1
So people need to petition cell phone companies to provide that.

But companies do not have to do anything unless it makes good business sense to do so. I do think that would be a great incentive for a company to offer to draw customers to their service. Especially considering it doesn't really cost them anything. But that's up to them.

I pay $10 ($8 after discount) for 500 out-of-network text messages and unlimited in-network text, picture, and video messaging. I think that's reasonable.


By Yawgm0th on 6/19/2009 4:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I pay $10 ($8 after discount) for 500 out-of-network text messages and unlimited in-network text, picture, and video messaging. I think that's reasonable.
If you send 1,500 SMS messages and 100 MMS messages in one month, assuming 160-byte max SMS and 300-KiB max MMS, that would amount to about 30 MiB with overhead.

30Mib. That's about 251megabits. A $10/mo dial-up Internet connection would take a little over an hour to utilize that kind of data.

It costs the wireless provider maybe $1 to provide that. Maybe less. And that's heavy usage.

The real issue is why should you pay that $10 if you are already paying $20 - $40 for "unlimited" data? Browsing the web on a 3G data package will consume more bandwidth in a matter of minutes. The additional bandwidth used for SMS and MMS is negligible no matter how much you use it.

Another anecdote: I use more bandwidth on a monthly basis using my BlackBerry for Pandora than for MMS and SMS combined yearly -- and I am I heavy texter, ranging from 20 to 100 texts a day.

Given this fact, one would expect a provider to say "hey, can't I provide this service at little to no cost thereby attracting a high volume of consumers at negligible damage to existing profit margins?"

Instead, it is not unreasonable to surmise that, as a group, they can maintain the same profit margins on SMS and MMS service plans as long as they all charge the same ridiculous amounts. Hence the accusation of collusion. They can maintain superprofits and avoid the price-based competition the free market is supposed to encourage them to do.


RE: Maybe a bit overboard on this issue?
By lotharamious on 6/17/2009 1:57:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
as comparing a 1KB text file to a 200-800KB file is a big difference

This warrants some analysis to realize how little data a text message really is. A WHOLE 1KB... That's 1024 bytes. I'm pretty sure you can only send ASCII characters in text messages, and there's only 256 of those, which just so happens to be 2^8. There's 8 bits in a byte. That means that every ASCII character is exactly 1 byte of data. I can only send 450 characters per text message. That's 450 bytes. With all of the ECC, parity, encryption, and other miscellaneous command data, we're probably pushing a whole 1KB of data... for $0.20 a text . Of course, this isn't a revelation.

A 56K modem can transfer at 56Kbits per second, or 7168 bytes per second, theoretically. That means on dialup, you should be able to send a text message in ~0.143 seconds. To you and me, that's instantaneous... on dialup . I'm going to take a guess and say that it's just as fast as if you were using your phone. And if you're on 1Mbit upload internet (~128Kbytes per second), it happens a thousand times faster than instantaneous.

This law suit is all about why prices for texts have gone up over the last 3 years, even though correct handling of sending and receiving a text message is no different than making a phone call.

In short, fuck 'em. Though it won't happen, I hope they slam them into bankruptcy.


By Yawgm0th on 6/20/2009 1:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm pretty sure you can only send ASCII characters in text messages, and there's only 256 of those, which just so happens to be 2^8. There's 8 bits in a byte. That means that every ASCII character is exactly 1 byte of data. I can only send 450 characters per text message. That's 450 bytes.
Not quite...

ASCII is seven-bit, UTF-8 is eight-bit.

SMS messages use 160 characters only. If your phone is allowing 450 characters then is is some sort of limitation of your phone. Those 160 characters are indeed ASCII, which means an SMS text message is 140-bytes long, contrary to my own post in which I neglected to consider that SMS uses ASCII.

With overhead, text message is most likely under 200 bytes.


By Avatar28 on 6/17/2009 11:23:57 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, you mean like Cricket Wireless which offers unlimited minutes and unlimited messaging for $40/mo or the same thing with unlimited (read 5 GB) data for $50/mo with no contract required? The only problem with them is that their coverage isn't as good and voice quality is slightly subpar compared to other providers, or at least it used to be. The only reason I don't use them is that their coverage area isn't as good as the big four. That and their phones aren't as cool, probably because they don't subsidize the phones as much.

Still, though, they are proof that you can lower prices and not lock people into 2 years contracts with massive ETFs and still make money.

They do a LOT of business around here. I'm not sure their exact market share numbers but, anecdotally, I believe that it is pretty good, especially among the younger crowd.


By icanhascpu on 6/17/2009 2:45:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Verizon defended itself in D.C. by noting most subscribers pay for a monthly texting plan, which means subscribers reportedly pay less than one cent for each message.


Obviously they look at it that way. Funny how they fail to mention how much 1 M B worth of texting is costing users without a plan. They are pieces of shit and you know it.


By tdawg on 6/17/2009 3:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
What sucks is that the price for text messages, either pay as you go, or a monthly package, is the same across the providers in the market, so there's no service provider that offers the feature for less. The phone plans are pretty much the same too, which leads to this collusionary pricing practice among the 4. They don't meet and talk about pricing, so they don't get attacked for collusion.

There's no incentive for competition between the 4 providers; they just lock people into a phone and a service for 2 years and there's nothing the consumer can do about it. And the phones are always crippled; there's no reason why there need to be three versions of Blackberry Curves so that one provider gets GPS, another gets Wi-Fi, and the third gets 3g, but no one version of the phone just includes all the features available. I'm all for these companies in making money, but they should be winning customers and making money by offering better options, not through handcuffs. All 4 just offer the same features under a different name and different network.

This anti-competitiveness also fractures the hope of a unified cellular network across the country because no one service provider's network is directly compatible with the others (at least the phones aren't open to talking to others) and there's no incentive for them to be compatible or even transparent. Free market competition, true competition, would hopefully spur innovation, price competitiveness, and a single, universal set of cellular network frequencies across the entire United States on which any provider can operate.

How much easier would it be to deliver 4g and other next-generation communication standards if we didn't have to worry about 18 different frequencies and people didn't have to worry about their 3g phone only working on one frequency but not the other?

Oh and sms plans should be the low end of data plans. You can start with a $5 per month sms/mms only data plan to tie on with your call minutes and then later upgrade to the unlimited data plan that includes unlimited text in addition to the unlimited data (it's all data anyways).


RE: Maybe a bit overboard on this issue?
By Hiawa23 on 6/17/2009 9:08:38 AM , Rating: 2
I don't have a texting plan on my phone, as texting just doesn't interest me. Ii would rather call the person I need to talk to.


RE: Maybe a bit overboard on this issue?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/17/2009 9:24:53 AM , Rating: 3
Or use email.

I pre-ordered an iPhone 3G S, but there's no way in hell that I was going to pay for texting if I'm going to have unlimited internet (I don't pay for texting on my current phone either).

If you can't answer your phone to talk or check your email, then you're useless to me anyway ;-)


RE: Maybe a bit overboard on this issue?
By Bender 123 on 6/17/2009 9:35:53 AM , Rating: 3
Get a Pre and use the Everything Data Plan...Same price as iPhone, but all you can text is included. Despite what people say about Sprint, they seem to be the only company that is bothering to compete on price.


By AmbroseAthan on 6/17/2009 10:21:01 AM , Rating: 2
I was wondering who else might point this out. Personally I am on a HTC Diamond from Sprint.

For $30 a month I have unlimited Data, Texting, Push Email, Video, GPS, TV & Radio (in a Family Plan, so that is the addition for my phone to have it, before my discount which brings it to $23)... If it is on Sprint's network, I am allowed to use an unlimited amount of it. I looked into pricing at other places when the iPhone came around, and was shocked how much of a deal Sprint offers compared to the others. (And yes, I have discounts at the others too).


RE: Maybe a bit overboard on this issue?
By SuperFly03 on 6/17/2009 10:22:08 AM , Rating: 2
Only reason they have to is because subscribers are leaving in droves. Their customer base is dwindling.


RE: Maybe a bit overboard on this issue?
By FITCamaro on 6/17/2009 10:41:02 AM , Rating: 2
I think that's largely due to negative public stigma than a bad network at this point. I'd switch back to Sprint if my entire family wanted to. But right now everyone I know practically is on Verizon so I stay there since it saves me money. I don't need tons of minutes because nearly everyone I call is in-network.


RE: Maybe a bit overboard on this issue?
By Bender 123 on 6/17/2009 10:52:04 AM , Rating: 2
I have had Sprint for several years. They were awful, until about 18 months ago. all of a sudden, they have English speaking CS reps, tech support that follows up and calls you back a few days later to ensure everything is still working, and there network has been fast and bulletproof in Central Wisconsin. We even have 3G around here, which is funny to watch, as the ATT/Apple set, sits and waits 5 minutes to load a web page over edge.


By FITCamaro on 6/17/2009 11:43:40 AM , Rating: 2
Me and my family had Sprint from 2003-2005. Worked great except for some reason no reception in my parents home. Got it in elevators and elsewhere, just for some reason not my parents house.


RE: Maybe a bit overboard on this issue?
By mydogfarted on 6/17/2009 10:39:50 AM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind, some of us remember paying $50-$60 a month for virtually no minutes of air time (my first plan was $50 for 60 minutes a month and no long distance).

There are other things that contribute to cost increases, like employee costs - insurance, benefits, etc. As their costs rise, these companies are looking at ways to keep their profit margins the same at minimum.

I do agree with the previous statement about spam texts with a no text plan - no texts allowed if you're not paying for it.


By Bender 123 on 6/17/2009 11:36:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are other things that contribute to cost increases, like employee costs - insurance, benefits, etc. As their costs rise, these companies are looking at ways to keep their profit margins the same at minimum.


Granted, companies can charge whatever they want, but texting is just wrong on so many levels. If you know the tech of texting, the data stream that caries the message is open and communicating, whether you are writing or not. The reason for the character limit, is due to the amount of open space in the GSM standards that keep a phone connected to the network when there is no active telephony going on. So, regardless of whether you are writing or not, your phone is, essentially, communicating the same amount of data, anyways.

This is akin to the mail service charging extra for writing on a piece of paper and then mailing it vs. mailing a blank piece of paper.


RE: Maybe a bit overboard on this issue?
By BigPeen on 6/17/2009 12:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
Ever heard of competitive markets? Econ 101, absent of anticompetitive behavior, or monopolistic practices, increases in demand with a constant cost (or zero cost in this case?) good shouldn't increase prices.


By Chadsig06 on 6/18/2009 9:57:47 AM , Rating: 2
The problem here is that Congress is actually right! Weird huh? I agree that the carriers should be able to charge whatever they want and the market should dictate who wins consumers. In a truly competitive market, the company with the best service and lowest rates would win all the consumers.
The problem is that this is a blatant case of market failure. The carriers all RAISED rates together. If they truly wanted to compete, they would have let their competitors price themselves out of the market. Instead, they have continually raised rates in an industry that is characterized by declining costs. All of the carriers are paying less for bandwidth now than they did 10 years ago. Sure, their overall bill may be more, but their cost per TB is dramatically lower. Any old telecom guys like me remember when a T1 was really something to brag about? Nowadays if you're not connected with at least an OC3, you're nobody.
The previous poster was correct, SMS uses the Signaling System 7 dial scheme to transfer the data. Calling a phone number and hanging up before someone answers uses just as much bandwidth as a text does, but noone gets charged for that! (Oops! I hope AT$T isn't reading this!) Bottom line: You can't switch carriers and vote with your dollars because all carriers are guilty!


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki