The obvious truth about text messaging: you're getting ripped off
By Darren Murph 
posted Dec 28th 2008 9:58PM
posted Dec 28th 2008 9:58PM
C'mon folks, does it really take an in-depth research study to figure this one out? On the whole, per-use SMS rates have doubled from $0.10 to $0.20 in the span of three years, and carriers have shown no shame in pushing messaging packs (the "unlimited" one in particular) in an effort to snag more revenue per user. We already knew that Senator Herb Kohl was looking into the matter, and a new piece in The New York Times clearly explains just how lucrative these bite-sized messages are for carriers. We're told that most consumers simply assume that it's costing operators more each year as the volume of texts sent increases; according to University of Waterloo professor Srinivasan Keshav, "it doesn't cost the carrier much more to transmit a hundred million messages than a million." You see, SMS messages are elusively hidden within the so-called "control channel," which is space already reserved for the operation of the wireless network. So long as messages are kept concise (say, 160 characters or less), they can be sent without any real implication on the channel. Will this epiphany somehow change the way we're being gouged? Tough to say, but don't think for a second that carriers won't figure out another way to nickle-and-dime you if the hand is forced.[Thanks, Jeevan]
it is kinda crazy. i know att's product very well. and when you break it down... its mind boggling. so lets use their formula. the charge one penny per kb. they charge .20 cent per text message. a single text message is 160 characters... which breaks down to 160 bytes... sooo with 1024 bytes in a kb. a text really cost 0.0009765625 of a penny...so, technically, for a penny you SHOULD be able to send 1,048,576 text messages... so unless your sending 2,097,152,000 text messages a month with the unlimited plan like that one iphone girl... youre kinda just sorta maybe getting the company to stick it to ya.... hard. so should these rates be decreased? absolutely. will anyone do anything about it? ... most likely not. this also bring up another question... isnt this considered price fixing?
and this is only talking about text messages... think about these companies internet price fixing... (or inflating, with those nice new iptv services)
Except data and text messaging isn't the same thing at all. SMS uses the control channel which is far more restricted than the main data/voice channels, plus all SMS go into a central storage database (consider how huge this computer has to be to handle the billions of text messages) to be forwarded to the recipient (and stored for days if his phone is off or on, etc). Add to this inter-operator fees when you send a message from AT&T to Verizon and verizon wants a cut of what AT&T charge you, and you get costs that far exceed the raw data cost.
Where the heck are your figures coming from?
1 cent per kb = 1024 bytes.
Ok.
1 SMS = at most 160 characters = 160 bytes.
Ok.
That means you could fit just under 6 1/2 text messages for a penny (6.4 if you pop it into the calculator, to be exact) not that ridiculously inflated and unrealistic calculation!
But, again, that's assuming data rates and not taking other factors into consideration.
This is the way I look at it...
If you dont like the text message rates - simply get a DEAF USER plan, like the one on Sprint - offers UNLIMITED EVERYTHING (even PAM) but no voice plan for $29 a month. Then rape the hell out of the text usage, and send a bunch of data.
OR.....
DONT USE TEXTS AND HAVE THE COMPANY DISABLE IT!
Or sign up for Sprint Sero (30 dollars) 5 months ago and get unlimited texts on top of all the other goodies :D
The owners of the infrastructure are going to get reimbursed for their investments, one way or another. Each owns a proprietary means to channel what we want or need through their platforms - we have no alternative. We can't prove collusion - it's just like gas stations across a street from one another: same product, price matching (they'll call it competition), different competitor - but no collusion despite the price matching.
Our Federal Government knows about the price matching, cost of providing data, and limited choices given a particular market - but the practice goes on unabated.
The price of TMing goes down, the price of something else will go up - the carriers have a fixed cost of doing business, and TMing is one of the unregulated products going over the airwaves. And, our alternative is...? We don't have one.
with companies spending 5 and 6 billion dollars a year on their networks you cant blame them for trying to increase profits, this is america after all. its a capitalistic society, businesses are in it to make money.
Wise words. The only reason companies don't punch you in the face and take your money is because it's illegal. The government says they have to give you something first, *and then* they can take your money.
The first three commenters all had intelligent insight. It was nice to read. I use 6,000 text messages a month...I'm addicted now just like we are all addicted to oil.
I remember back when text was free. Then Incoming text was free. Then they gave so many incoming free. Then they started charging both ways for 5cents, then 10, now 20.
One important thing to keep in mind is both sides are getting charged. So in reality when I get a text message from chomsky, it's not a 20 cent text message, it's a 40 cent text message because both sides get charged. So when chomsky sends message (A) saying he's bar hopping with some chicks before his talk and wants me to come down, and I then send message (B) replying that he gets to crazy when he drinks and I don't want to be arrested again. The phone company just charged 80 cents for 2 text messages.
Go read your phone bill. If it's itemized, it will show you how many text messages you used, and how much you're paying for your text messaging plan.
I checked mine. I'm paying an effective rate of less than $0.0385 per message, but I only send a few texts. If I sent more, it would cost less per message.
So how's your effective rate? Good. If not, you're a sucker and you should have switched to a cheaper plan.
As for the professor at the University of Waterloo, maybe he's a professor of comparative literature or something. Certainly he's never tried to size a system for an expected peak load, because he'd have the sense to know that sizing for 100x the traffic costs a lot more money.
Hah! You don't say. The operators in Sweden are now saying they've prepared with the capacity needed for 12 o'clock new year's. The bulk of that capacity is going to sit unused the rest of the year.
This is going to be an unpopular thing to say, but there's one thing to note that tends to get ignored with the "OMG! I'm being ripped off because it's only 160 bytes!" argument.
All SMS messages are routed through a control channel that's also used to set up and tear down phone calls. That control channel has somewhat limited bandwidth. If people were to flood the network with text messages, then the overall affect would be to prevent many text messages from getting out, and to prevent people from being able to make or receive calls.
Yes, it's true that once taken off the air, the transportation cost for an SMS message is peanuts, but the part where it travels from the phone to the tower isn't "cheap" (that is, there is a limited amount of bandwidth, and overuse can cause problems for other subscribers.)
That said, most operators these days seem to offer unlimited messages for a fixed monthly fee, so one assumes either the operators aren't overstrained at the moment, or else they're trying to ensure everyone can use the feature but that large groups are discouraged for cost reasons.
You people have too much free time if you can sit around and JUSTIFY telephone companies charging you more for a text message. Even if I was paying a fair price I would want to pay less.
If you compare a text to voice usage then you can truly see how badly you are getting ripped off. For example, when making a call, the phone company needs to make a real-time point-to-point circuit connection with the other party, which utilizes roughly 64Kb/second of network bandwidth. A text message is magnitudes smaller than even one second of voice communication, and does not require a real-time connection. It can sit in a queue till the resources free up for delivery. Add in the fact that most messages will be delivered using leftover resources on an already there system overhead channel, and you realize that they should be giving free messaging away for the reduction in bandwidth utilization that it provides.
It's actually not 64kbs...
Depending on the codec it's 13kb/s or 8kb/s.
And the sending is still a real-time resource. Has it ever taken more time than usual to "send" a message? That's more than likely due to latency or congestion on the control channel. The sending and receipt of the sent confirmation utilizes that path.
What it boils down to is, people want something for nothing. Fine...
Want free text? Pay more for voice access.
Want free voice access? Pay more for wireless data.
Want free data? Pay more for text.
It costs money to build and maintain a network. Where do you think the carriers get their money to do that?
what??! a company charging more for their products/services than it costs to make or run them? Shame on them...
wait.. umm...
i always get a kick out of people thinking that at&t, verizon, sprint, etc. aren't business designed to make money... they aren't "public services" that are designed to provide you will cell phone service for free or at the "break even" point...