  tmh
@verizon.net | A sham Just like when gas prices were skyrocketing, Congress held hearings to "grill" the oil companies about it.
Bottom line, nothing happened. | |
|
 | | | Re: A sham Nothing official, no, but it raises awareness in the general public. I think that, for many years, many people have taken the view that whatever is good for Big Business is good for America. Many of us have known that these companies will screw anyone they have to in search of bigger profits, but I don't think that perception was as widespread in the population at large. Anything that can show people how they're being taken advantage of is, IMHO, a good thing. | |
|
| | | Just like the sham of the suppressed Broadband over power lines.
In Indonesia the Gov is letting all homes have almost free broadband over the powerlines.
Guess who is stopping it here!!!! | |
|
| |  CoronaIt's cool, I'm takin it backPremium
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX | Re: A sham HAM Radio operators? | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Stupid Don't we have real problems that need to be dealt with? If someone doesn't like paying "high" prices for SMS they can block it and not pay those prices anymore.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
|
| | | Re: Stupid said by pnh102:Don't we have real problems that need to be dealt with? If someone doesn't like paying "high" prices for SMS they can block it and not pay those prices anymore. Yes, we have real problems but don't want to fix those that are financially beneficial to the members of government.
 | |
|
| |
| |  gigahurtzPremium
join:2001-10-20
Palm Coast, FL | Re: Stupid said by aztecnology:I remember when SMS was free for just about everyone, ah, the good old days... Those days were great. For me, it was the early days of Bellsouth Mobility rocking a Nokia 5160 phone. Anyone want to trade face plates? | |
|
| |
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Stupid said by djrobx:With a population of over 300 million people in the US, there's no reason we can't work in parallel to address several issues at the same time. You may not agree, but I definitely feel this is an issue that needs attention. There's already a solution though. Cancel it.
If everyone is happily paying the price for a non-essential good or service then by definition it is not "high." It is just the free market at work.
If texting is that important to someone for work, then that person's employer should pay for it.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
|
| | | | | Re: Stupid Agreed. I don't like knowing the essentially non-existent marginal cost of SMS, but I continue to pay the bill. If you truly want to drive down the cost, then innovate and sell me a better/cheaper alternative. | |
|
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by pnh102:Don't we have real problems that need to be dealt with? If someone doesn't like paying "high" prices for SMS they can block it and not pay those prices anymore. Yes and if people paid the TRUE cost of these mesageages that would save people BILLIONS of $$$. Don't you think pumping BILLIONS of $$$ into the economy is a good idea? | |
|
| | | | Re: Stupid But, we ARE pumping BILLIONS into the economy! It's just that it all goes to the greedy fat cat executives. Let's be honest, they are MUCH smarter than the average american, thus, they will use the money much better.
I for one, refuse to use SMS. I KNOW the cost is far less than $.001 cent per message, yet they charge over $.10 cents per message. If you local gas station could make margins like THAT, you would end up paying $4,800.00 per gallon.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
|
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Stupid said by karlmarx:But, we ARE pumping BILLIONS into the economy! It's just that it all goes to the greedy fat cat executives. Let's be honest, they are MUCH smarter than the average american, thus, they will use the money much better. I for one, refuse to use SMS. I KNOW the cost is far less than $.001 cent per message, yet they charge over $.10 cents per message. If you local gas station could make margins like THAT, you would end up paying $4,800.00 per gallon. And you'd be calling on the government to investigate that now wouldn't you? It's called price gouging and it's illegal. | |
|
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by karlmarx:I for one, refuse to use SMS. I take the same route with my personal phone as well.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by BF69:Yes and if people paid the TRUE cost of these mesageages that would save people BILLIONS of $$$. Don't you think pumping BILLIONS of $$$ into the economy is a good idea? And again, if someone (like me) believes that SMS messaging is too pricey, one is perfectly free to opt out of paying for this service and said person is free to pump all that money into the economy in a different way.
Why should the difference between the cost and selling price of a luxury item be subject to government scrutiny? Heck, the price of gas has gone up a a dollar a gallon or more since January, where are the hearings on that?
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
|
| | | The real problem is that Congress is full of self-serving, greedy lawyers (multiple redundancies there!) who don't represent the interests of their constituencies. The first prerequisite for a legislator should be that he/she doesn't really want to hold office at all... of course, how do you find such a person. Catch-22 all over again. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by pnh102:Don't we have real problems that need to be dealt with? If someone doesn't like paying "high" prices for SMS they can block it and not pay those prices anymore. I agree!
This, people, is dangerous! I don't care about the so-called "high price" of texting.. people text more than they talk just about. There is still something called supply and demand.. this service has a perceived value that people want and demand and for that, there is a price.
The government needs to stay out of the business world. If $15 is too much for people to pay to text ungodly amounts of nothing to each other all day, and basically "chat" on their cell phones, then I think the top end $15 a month package is perfectly reasonable. Spending $15 usually nets people a smaller phone bill. With smaller phone bills, maybe that "cash cow" (nice term Karl) is a revenue stream that the companies need in order to bring those next gen services. I suppose no one ever thinks of that, do they?
If cellular service, texting, etc. is too expensive for people to purchase, may I suggest land lines? If the cell phone is something people can't live with out, then it's worth something.
Let me tell you where this will go.. they will be called in to talk, tell their story, congress will say "okay".. hundreds of thousands or millions of tax payer dollars will be spent, company jets will be expended out for the trips, and in the end, nothing will be done anyway.
If you wanna play, you gotta pay.. this endless whining about how Internet, Phone, and Television needs to be rock bottom priced is getting really old.
And what's next for congress.. ? are they going to attack bottled water at $1.69 a bottle? Why not attack Caller ID on POTS service at $8 per month? When does the whining end and people realize THEY need to prioritize their life's habits? If texting is too expensive, then use the air time and call people.. oh, wait.. that would make using the cell phone more expensive too and result in high overage charges... right? So maybe those texting bills aren't so bad eh?
To be honest, I'd love to see texting slow down a little.. I can apply the same argument to the "I don't want people yapping on the air plane on their phone" nonsense and say that I'm getting tired of hearing those text message alert tones go off over and over and over and over.. but I won't.
Plain and simple.. $10-$15 per month for unlimited text service is not a bad price to pay considering the use that people get. JUST becuase the carrier doesn't have a high cost associated with it doesn't mean it don't have value.. just try to turn off the text service on Americans and see how loudly people bitch! ... THERE is your value! | |
|
| | | Well ever since the baseball steroid issue has been resolved with the revelation of fat deposits on Roger Clemens buttocks, Congress has been searching high and low for more substantive issues. Glad they found one! | |
|
| | | | Re: Stupid Speaking of steroids... we all know that was about the "purity of the game"... well, OK, really about the purity of the spread--I mean, how can you make a good wager if you don't know that so-and-so players are using and other so-and-so players aren't? (It's right up there with the injury list.)
Purity of the game? One word: 61* | |
|
| | | | | Re: Stupid I agree with *61....Mr Maris' record still stands.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! | |
|
|  cchhat01Dr. Zoidberg
join:2001-05-01
Elmhurst, NY | said by pnh102:Don't we have real problems that need to be dealt with? If someone doesn't like paying "high" prices for SMS they can block it and not pay those prices anymore. You mean to tell me that because the senate is looking at this issue **in addition to other issues** that it has nothing better to do. Then why don't you try running for senate, win and try to do their job to see how many issues you will actually look at.
Its easier said than done. Yes I agree this is a second class issue in comparison to poverty, healthcare, social security and other more immediate issues.
I am sick and tired of everyone just brushing it off as "oh don't they have anything else to look at." The fact of the matter is that this is an issue. It just to makes sense to popularize this issue because we are a tech related forum. If you're going to argue why this isn't important, then I'm going to argue that broadband deployment is a non-issue as well (and watch myself get shot down trying).
Relating to this issue, there is a fine line between profitability and robber-baronism. And at the moment, cell phone service providers are milking the proverbial cow when it comes to texting. When enough people believed it was too much, it reached the legislation and now people our elected officials are doing what is expected of them. Don't discount them for doing their job.
Just because I take this stance, does not mean I'm particularly happy with the job they're doing.
--
Chirag's Website | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Stupid said by cchhat01:You mean to tell me that because the senate is looking at this issue **in addition to other issues** that it has nothing better to do. The fact that the US Senate has time to waste on this issue shows that the other "issues" are not that important. Again, the price of gas has gone up $1 or more a gallon since January. This is an issue that is far more important than the "high" price of SMS. Where are the hearings on this? If the US Senate has so much time to kill, then why doesn't it tackle an actual issue that impacts real people instead?
said by cchhat01:The fact of the matter is that this is an issue. How? No one is forced to pay "high" prices for SMS. If people do not like it, then they can block it. I agree that SMS is a ripoff, and I blocked it as a result. It did not take an act of Congress for me to do this, or for anyone else who agrees with me to do so.
said by cchhat01:Relating to this issue, there is a fine line between profitability and robber-baronism. Why is it wrong for a company to make an obscene profit on a product or service, especially one that is a luxury?
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
|
| | | cchhat01Dr. Zoidberg
join:2001-05-01
Elmhurst, NY | Re: Stupid What a load of crap.
About the gas prices, do you know anything about market trends? If not, go and get yourself educated on market trends or give yourself a good lesson in finance 101. You will notice that the arrival of summer generally marks an increase in the price of gas. Why? because more people are on the road driving (to the beach for example). If this is news to you, then where were you when you had to pay $4.50 for it just a year ago. If this that much more disheartening, get yourself a hybrid like I did. Oil is not something the US govt has any immediate control over. Its a market driven commodity. On top of that, betting on the price of gas makes it that much more volatile. If you want it socialized, be my guest, just ask uncle sam to dig an oil well under your property and from your own tax revenue, not everyone else's.
About high prices of SMS. It is something a govt can say something about. The companies who provide this service are not having to dig an oil rig to provide the infrastructure for sending an SMS. The fact that something that once used to cost almost nothing is now inflated to ludicrous levels of profitability.
When there is competition it drives the market and eventually things settle at a fair price. When the market makers decide together to raise the cost of the service (all at once) this isn't really capitalistic model anymore. Instead, its sounds more and more like a socialistic model where the companies are just filling their pockets without providing any added value.
Just because you decided to block it as a result of high prices, doesn't mean everyone has to follow suit. If electricity costs 10 times as much as it costs today, would you go amish and run yourself a furnace just because its a ripoff.
A service provided to the public (regardless who the provider... govt or corporations) needs to be priced fairly. I don't see anything wrong with the Senate taking this up.
--
Chirag's Website | |
|
| | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Stupid said by cchhat01:About the gas prices, do you know anything about market trends? Ahhh... I see. Since gas prices are not important to you you don't believe Congress should investigate. Furthermore, you clearly do not know about how summer and winter blends of gasoline differ, along with the fact that individual states impose their own blending requirements for gas. If you did know these things, you would know that they too impact the price of gas, and as they are government mandates, they are something the government could address if it chose to do so.
said by cchhat01:About high prices of SMS. It is something a govt can say something about. And again, how can you say the price is high? More people text every year and they are not deterred by the price. By definition the price is not high. Unlike gas prices (which by the way subsidize the subway you probably ride), demand for text has not gone down with increases in price. If the price of SMS were to double and demand did not proportionally fall off, then the price is still below the market equilibrium price.
said by cchhat01:Just because you decided to block it as a result of high prices, doesn't mean everyone has to follow suit. If electricity costs 10 times as much as it costs today, would you go amish and run yourself a furnace just because its a ripoff. Uh, in case you hadn't noticed, the price of electricity has been going up. Where are the hearings on this? Oh I'm sorry, I guess SMS must be more important. And yes, a lot of people do cut back in response to higher prices for electricity. But again, this is not the case with SMS.
said by cchhat01:A service provided to the public (regardless who the provider... govt or corporations) needs to be priced fairly. I don't see anything wrong with the Senate taking this up. Why? Where does it is say in the Constitution that we are entitled to government-set prices for things? And again, why is it wrong for companies to make obscene profits on anything they sell? No one is being screwed by SMS prices so why is it an issue that government should deal with?
As for oil and electricity prices, I do not agree that the government should set prices, but the increasing prices of these products impact people and the economy far more broadly than the price of SMS. If the government were to have hearings over a particular issue, energy prices are far more important than SMS any day of the week.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
|
| | Whew! I am glad they have solved everything else. Now if they can get that pesky SMS situation sorted out we will be in great shape! | |
|
|  MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Whew! said by battleop:I am glad they have solved everything else. Now if they can get that pesky SMS situation sorted out we will be in great shape! While I understand what you're going for and even got a chuckle out of it, I am glad someone is holding them accountable. As the article says, history has shown that if one provider raises rates they all follow suit, which results in absolutely zero competition or choice.
While I think hell will freeze over before we see price reductions, this could discourage future price increases for a product that while in high demand, is priced in the absurd. | |
|
| | | | Re: Whew! Text messaging is a luxury and not a necessity just like cell phones. Congress should not waste our money on such hearings. If people think that the cost of texting is too high then don't subscribe and vote with your pocketbook. The only thing that should be mandated is the ability to block incoming messages so you are not charged for them. | |
|
| | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Whew! said by battleop:Text messaging is a luxury and not a necessity just like cell phones. Congress should not waste our money on such hearings. If people think that the cost of texting is too high then don't subscribe and vote with your pocketbook. The only thing that should be mandated is the ability to block incoming messages so you are not charged for them. That is where we disagree. I think a cell phone is an absolute necessity and don't let my loved ones go anywhere without theirs. Txt messaging is not necessary, but as evidenced by the enormous usage, it has become commonplace and therefore should be subject to scrutiny. I think what people should take away form this is not "Why are we wasting time debating text messaging in Congress?" but rather, "Congress is finally holding cell phone providers accountable for their draconian pricing, contracts, and anti-consumer behavior."
I for one am happy to see Congress take an interest in this. It demonstrates that the pro-corporate/anti-consumer government days, at least for now, are over. | |
|
| | | | cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | Re: Whew! This is not the role of congress. What other luxury add on should congress be looking at? Spinners on rims,cheese on a burgers.
Congress job is not to decide what price point a product should go to market at.
This is a joke.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil | |
|
| | | | |
1 edit | Re: Whew! Preventing cartels and anti-competitive behavior from developing is EXACTLY the government's job. The government is supposed to protect the consumer from being taken advantage of by people who have the power to control the markets.
The government isn't setting the price point. They're preventing a cartel from setting it. | |
|
| | | | | |
See 11 replies to this post |
|
| | | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by caco:This is not the role of congress. What other luxury add on should congress be looking at? Spinners on rims,cheese on a burgers. Congress job is not to decide what price point a product should go to market at. This is a joke. Please read the purpose of Congress:
»www.centeroncongress.org/learn_a···ole.html
Specifically this section:
Congress has power over commerce. Article 1, clause 8, of the Constitution grants Congress authority over interstate commerce, which covers all movement of people and things across state lines, and which includes regulation over every form of communication and transportation. | |
|
| | | | | |
See 7 replies to this post |
|
| | | | | | | Ever since FDR was in office it has been the job of government to police the free market whenever there was unhealthy competition(read up on Andrew Carnegie and the Pinkertons). They strictly regulate the pricing of utilities to the price per gallon of your local gas station. Imagine if a utility, or your local gas station, had a monopoly which often they do they might be inclined to raise prices to whatever they think is reasonable. You take into consideration the human nature to be greedy and self centered at times and you see what happens.
In most industries there is healthy free market competition, retail, fast food, and personal computers.
Communications companies oftentimes operate as monopolies within their own areas due to the fact no matter how much competition their is they pay for the same last mile infrastructure. Oftentimes this infrastructure was built out on the taxpayer dollar and some of the more rural areas are being offloaded from larger carriers onto smaller carriers due to the lack of profitability. You take these all into consideration; its a disaster waiting to happen and its understandable for the increased calls to regulate them. | |
|
| | | | | | Popularity does not make something a necessity. Cell phones are convenient but not a necessity. Things like running water and electricity are more of a necessity than being able to yack yack yack while driving down the road. | |
|
| | | | |
See 8 replies to this post |
| | | | | So, in your mind everything that's not a necessity shouldn't be policed and regulated, is that it? So it's A-ok if cable companies gouge us with insanely high monthly bills for cable TV service. It's A-ok if ISP providers cap and throttle our bandwidth b/c high-speed internet services aren't a necessity.
It's A-ok if our wireless bills are multiple times higher than what people pay in Europe and Asia, and our caps multiple times lower. It's A-ok if Intel engages in anti-competitive behavior against AMD. It's A-ok if LCD manufacturers hold "crystal meetings" in order to set LCD prices artificially high, knowing full well that what they're doing is entirely illegal.
So here's the rebuttal.
Why should greedy corporations be allowed to take advantage of the unassuming masses? Why should they be able to charge insanely high markups because a service isn't a "necessity"? How does that benefit society or anyone other than the already rich greedy executives?
We live in an advanced and modern age. Our focus shouldn't be on merely the "necessities" of life. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Whew! As long as the cowsumers eat it the meanie corporations will feed it. | |
|
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Yea... lets be like Europe.. retarded business models, forced mandated 1 month vacations, people not having the option or ability to really make it big if they want to and work for it.. extremely slow growth, oh, and still, a few people at the top with the money calling the shots...
So in other words, what you want is for America to slow down and become a no/slow growth nation.. that's dreaming big.
Who is taking advantage of the unassuming masses? ... and how.. BE SPECIFIC.
If you want to know how it benefits society when business makes money, take a LONG HARD STUDY in economics.. and get off the "rich greedy executives" bs argument.. with out those so called greedy people, you'd not have a cell phone in your hand to bitch about in the first place! It was those "rich greedy bastards" who had the money to invest and bring these things to the people/public and unassuming masses in the first place. So, yea, lets keep attacking those with money, becuase, you know, they're greedy, and see what happens.. lets give it all to the government so they can spread the wealth (like that would even happen too) and make sure everyone has an equal share of the pie.. and then see what kind of a world we live in.. and for what.. so you have save $10 a month on your texting bill? Get real.
There is a reason why we have classes in a society.. EVERY nation has them.. and they exist for a reason..
Our focus IS and SHOULD REMAIN on NECESSITY of life.. to say that we shouldn't means one thing.. it means you believe that you have rights to "have things"... and you don't.. if you believe you have the right to have anything over those deemed necessary, PLEASE show me ONE documented piece of information that says you do..
Let me tell you what you DO have...
..you have the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of happiness.. that's it! you don't even have the right TO happiness.. just to pursue it. However, your desire to see that everyone is GIVEN equal access at a fair price only does one thing.. it knocks out LIBERTY and the ability for people to pursue that happiness because, well, we're all equal now..
Go ahead.. tell me how wrong and stupid and everything else I am..  | |
|
| | | | | said by battleop:Text messaging is a luxury and not a necessity just like cell phones. Congress should not waste our money on such hearings. If people think that the cost of texting is too high then don't subscribe and vote with your pocketbook. The only thing that should be mandated is the ability to block incoming messages so you are not charged for them. This made me laugh. You think America is a free market? Even if people don't subscribe to it, the prices will still rise because in our "free market" companies have introduced what's called "industry standard" so each company can charge what everyone else is charging and just say "we are just adhering to the industry standard". Text messaging will still be .30 regardless if 1 person or a million people subscribe.
I think Congress should investigate ALL service providers and make sure that they are on the up and up. Especially monopoly and duopolies ISPs. Unless of course you don't like choice, and paying high prices for all your services? I don't know about you but I like having a choice of who I can go to, and paying less for more...not more for less. It's called competition and that is EXACTLY what the wireless providers are not doing with so called "industry standards". Each provider should have different prices and different rates and "compete" for customers. At least as far as data and text rates are concerned, they are pretty much the same across the board. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Whew! "You think America is a free market?"
Not much of one anymore, but who allowed it to get that way? The consumers want things as cheap as they can get them while they want as much pay as they can get. They don't care that they helped to run their choices out of business, they just care about today's bill. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Whew! said by battleop:"You think America is a free market?" Not much of one anymore, but who allowed it to get that way? The consumers want things as cheap as they can get them while they want as much pay as they can get. They don't care that they helped to run their choices out of business, they just care about today's bill. Partly true, but it wasn't the individual person's fault. Examine community towns, from what I hear they sign exclusive contracts with ISPs to provide HSI to the town yet eliminating any competition. | |
|
| | |  C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And PolicePremium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL | Then you have apparently been fortunate enough to never have had other people try to text you something and get charged the insane overage default fee for each message sent and received even after telling these same people not to text message you on repeated occasions. Friends, family, they all do it. And I end up paying for it. 
--
Front Line Force Fortress Forever | |
|
| | | | said by Matt:said by battleop:I am glad they have solved everything else. Now if they can get that pesky SMS situation sorted out we will be in great shape! While I understand what you're going for and even got a chuckle out of it, I am glad someone is holding them accountable. As the article says, history has shown that if one provider raises rates they all follow suit, which results in absolutely zero competition or choice. While I think hell will freeze over before we see price reductions, this could discourage future price increases for a product that while in high demand, is priced in the absurd. Nothing will come of this just like when they tried to sue the airlines for price collusion when they raised and lower fares within minutes of each other. | |
|
| |  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by Matt:said by battleop:I am glad they have solved everything else. Now if they can get that pesky SMS situation sorted out we will be in great shape! While I understand what you're going for and even got a chuckle out of it, I am glad someone is holding them accountable. As the article says, history has shown that if one provider raises rates they all follow suit, which results in absolutely zero competition or choice. While I think hell will freeze over before we see price reductions, this could discourage future price increases for a product that while in high demand, is priced in the absurd. I dont even know a single person who pays for text messages anymore, which further proves what a waste of time/money/effort this is. Even prepaid typically includes either unlimited or a large bundle of text messages these days. If this is meant to only address the people who send/receive a few messages per month (and therefore DO pay for them), they should simply turn off text messages if they dont want to pay extra.
But hey, what another couple million dollars being thrown away these days right? Its not like we actually need that money....oh wait.... 
--
D-Day; If you can read this thank a soldier
-The United States of America-
| |
|
| | |
See 15 replies to this post |
| | Waste of time The best way to deal with this is to educate people on just how much they are being ripped off. When they stop texting, prices will drop.
--
OASAASLLS | |
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK
1 edit | High price of Porche automobiles Dear Congress ,
Please investigate ASAP.
Sincerely,
distracted citizen
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil | |
|
| wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: High price of Porche automobiles said by caco:Dear Congress , Please investigate ASAP. Sincerely, distracted citizen You have it all wrong! The REAL concern here is the high price of Rolls Royce automobiles. Perhaps congress will spend a few million (why not!) on investigating that. I personally think it should be the right of every American citizen to own a RR, and we need to demand congress launch a full investigation into why more people cant afford them.....
--
D-Day; If you can read this thank a soldier
-The United States of America-
| |
|
| | | said by caco:Dear Congress , Please investigate ASAP. Sincerely, distracted citizen You're comparing a Porche to texting? That doesn't make sense. | |
|
| | Tired of this BS Wonder what would happen if these execs said "F You" and refused to submit to the "grilling" by Congress? It's absolutely ridiculous that every time someone whines about some pointless BS they get "Grilled by Congress".
Congress, focus on the real issues or find yourselves voted out. | |
|
| | Only reason they are exploring is to add another tax US Gov. Critters want to add an additional tax to SMS. This is the only reason why they are looking into it.
What they should be looking at are the closed networks these carriers are running & should force the carriers to open up. That way phones & such can't be locked into a particular carrier.
Peace | |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | When.. When is someone going to grill Congress? | |
|
| | | Re: When.. said by Rob:When is someone going to grill Congress? I will if my new iPhone doesn't arrive from China by Friday.
--
dream your dreams with open eyes and make them come true... | |
|
| | Simple solution - dont txt I don't text. It's useless and I can use google talk or messenger on my blackberry.
Sure, I can only txt a limited set of people, but so do many txt users. | |
|
|  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| Re: Simple solution - dont txt My solution was to have T-Mobile turn it off on my account. I do not use it enough to justify paying for a monthly bucket of messages yet at $.20 for each message sent and received, the few that I might have gotten would add up in price real fast. I do not like the idea of having to "pay for protection" in the form of a messaging add-on so getting rid of it altogether made sense.
While I am not in favor of Congress controlling the charges, I do agree that they should be looking in to possible collusion between the various companies. As soon as one company raises the price, probably to $.25 in the next few months, they all jump on board in a monopolistic way. At this rate, expect to see it at $.50 for each message sent and received by 2012.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| |  tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| Re: Simple solution - dont txt Slightly off topic but I think it is interesting people don't think anything about spending $.20 for SMS but complain how inefficient Post Office is charging $.44 to deliver a physical envelop cross country.
My family runs an Office Supplies retail store. One if the things my father said that I will always remember is "it is much easier to charge a high price on something new then raise the price on an existing product." SMS is a classic case of this effect.
/tom | |
|
| | if anything it'll just mean we have to end up paying a new txt message surcharge thats added to everyones bill. | |
|
 kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | Dear Congress Critter ...it's not your job to investigate "high prices" ...the free market is supposed to take care of that.
It is, however, your job to ensure we have a free market...and that boat sailed a LONG time ago.
Don't want high SMS prices?
Should have stopped mergers and consolidations that lead to 7 national carriers merging into half as many.
Should have derailed lobbyists' attempts to gut the telecom act of 1996.
Should have supported strong state-level regulation of telcos instead of essentially neutering the state regulatory agencies.
Should have, long ago, split the telecom infrastructure into 2 separate entities....one that controls the physical plant and leases it to service providers...and the other into another competing service provider that is on the same footing as other competitors.
Should have invested in a next-gen broadband network build-out that is owned by the public, recognizing it as a critical piece of our strategy as we compete with India, China and the EU in this new global economic reality.
Should have asked for real stats, instead of fake numbers.
Should have reigned in USF and the sham ILECs have turned it into.
What you should not be doing is....investigating high SMS prices. Because, dear senators, that's like beating the wife and then asking if it hurts...rubbing salt on the wound.
Oh, also, I'm holding up my middle finger...please sit on it and spin for fucking the country you inept, incompetent assholes!
--
»www.Digium.com | |
|
|  Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA | Re: Dear Congress Critter ^5 | |
|
| me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | You make some good points. | |
|
 GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | Death of Old School Capitalism and Economics Wow, the present government is really into regulating/controlling everything now it seems.
Thank goodness they are going to look into SMS pricing. I'm sure that will offset the coming income tax increase and taxed health care benefits.  | |
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
| | What a waste of time I fail to see how Congress needs to get involved on this one. This is your classic "we'll ask questions to make our constituents feel good and so we look good, but it's not like we're going to do anything about it" type of scenario. And frankly they shouldn't do anything about it. It's called private enterprise and the wireless companies can price text messaging on whatever price point they want.
Waste of time and money from our government. | |
|
|
| eakenn
join:2005-02-20
Apopka, FL Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| Re: It is time to break the wireless trust! said by Mr Matt: Consider this; most wireless customers in Europe do not pay for incoming calls. Do not expect that to happen in the US until the wireless industry is regulated. It is the norm in Europe and several other countries around the globe that persons do not pay for incoming calls, you are correct. However, the person calling them pays for that call and rates to call mobile phones are higher vs calling landlines.
The same is true for text messages. Incoming messages are free, but outgoing cost and it can vary in price depending on which network the message is sent to, unless they subscribe to some sort of specific txt messaging plan that allows them to pay a flat monthly fee to send to other networks.
If this were to ever happen in the US, that means everyone would most likely be given a new cell phone number because specific area codes would need to be assigned only to mobile carriers so that way people know they're calling a mobile phone and not a landline (this is how it works in the EU and other countries)
example:
AT&T subscribers would have area codes 123 ~ 126
Verizon subscribers would have area codes 127 ~ 130
Sprint subscribers would have area codes 131 ~ 134
So on and so forth.....
To be honest, I prefer our system. | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: It is time to break the wireless trust! Yea... and with that, you could say "bye bye" to number portability!! | |
|
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| in Europe the person called doesn't pay for incoming calls, but the caller does. ever looked at an international long distance pricing chart I rest my case.
I'll take unlimited incoming AND outgoing calls for $50/month, thanks. Don't think they have that in Euro-land. | |
|
| | | | Re: It is time to break the wireless trust! said by iansltx:in Europe the person called doesn't pay for incoming calls, but the caller does. ever looked at an international long distance pricing chart I rest my case. I'll take unlimited incoming AND outgoing calls for $50/month, thanks. Don't think they have that in Euro-land. Those inflated rates to call cell phones overseas are what the
phone companies charge from North America.
Within Europe, calling a cell phone from a landline is cheap
(not that its needed, since everyone from a kid to a Grandparent, has a mobile phone - not to mention excellent service and excellent voice quality and clarity)
Can kids or the elderly have a cheap pay as u go phone here and not be double dinged for making aswell as receive calls. ?
Paying for anything incoming is ridiculous | |
|
| | Whos Spectrum it it? There is a point where companies that use the public airwaves for profit must be responsive to the public. Originally the FCC gave spectrum for free to companies such as Verizon, to build networks that provided cell service and returned a profit to the company. Then Congress woke up to the money and started to auction the spectrum for dollars into the Treasury. The highest bidder got the spectrum, but that results in higher cost to the public. Congress should use a reverse auction. The company who proposes to serve the public at the least cost should get the spectrum. This would not only control the SMS, but also the basic rate cost.
The problem, the Treasury would not get the windfall to be used for pet projects.
| |
|
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Whos Spectrum it it? No kidding. Free spectrum in exchange for regulated rates. Sounds good to me.
Would also increase the number of players in the field. Here we have the four big carriers plus one local, who has crappy data speeds but amazing voice coverage and decent rate plans. $50month with them will buy you a prepaid phone with unlimited local, long distance, text messaging and calling features. Then again we're looking at a co-op style mentalityprovide high-quality service that's price-competitive with the other stuff out there. | |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | $30 = over 10 BILLION txt messages So unless your family is sending out nearly 4000 texts every SECOND you are being fucked over even on a unlimited family plan. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: $30 = over 10 BILLION txt messages said by BF69:So unless your family is sending out nearly 4000 texts every SECOND you are being fucked over even on a unlimited family plan. How are those cheaper air time plans working for you? ... good, I hope, right? | |
|
| | how much does it really cost? So let's see the math?
unlimited data plan = $30 (5 GB cap)
single direction text message = 0.20 cents
One text message effective cost is:
1 message (140 bytes) x 2 directions (send/receive) x cost 0.20 per message = 0.40 cents (280 bytes)
If 2 messages are about $1 (560 bytes) x 60 text messages = almost $30
So, 60 text messages (60 mesgs x 560 bytes = 32kb) = the same cost of a $30 unlimited (5GB caped) data plan????
BUT WAIT! Are SMS message transmissions free to the phone carrier (attached to unused space in the control channel):
»communication.howstuffworks.com/sms.htm | |
|
gigahurtzPremium
join:2001-10-20
Palm Coast, FL | It's not necessary... I agree with some of the comments stating that SMS is not necessary therefore if you don't like how much it costs than don't pay for it... but the fact of the matter is that companies lured in customers to SMS and then began over charging after it became a part of their lives.
Do I feel SMS should be free? Absolutely not.
Do I feel SMS could be cheaper? Absolutely!
To charge $0.10 for a text message is absurd. To charge $20.00 for unlimited messages is absurd as well. If wireless companies would just simply bundle the SMS and data I think alot of people would be happier (for example: instead of charging $30 for data and $20 for SMS, include SMS in the $30). Yes, I know. I don't NEED it. The truth is, I have come to rely on it and don't feel that I should be "ripped off" because of it. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: It's not necessary... said by gigahurtz:I If wireless companies would just simply bundle the SMS and data I think alot of people would be happier (for example: instead of charging $30 for data and $20 for SMS, include SMS in the $30). You mean like Sprint does? | |
|
| | gigahurtzPremium
join:2001-10-20
Palm Coast, FL | Re: It's not necessary... said by fiberguy:said by gigahurtz:I If wireless companies would just simply bundle the SMS and data I think alot of people would be happier (for example: instead of charging $30 for data and $20 for SMS, include SMS in the $30). You mean like Sprint does? Yea, exactly. When my contract is up with AT&T I will be gone. I am not happy with their service anymore and the prices are just flat out ridiculous. My girlfriend has T-Mobile and my service would be much cheaper with them. I'll simply unlock my iPhone or get another phone in general. Articles like this make me realize how much I dislike AT&T. | |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Sprint/T-Mobile sprint does unlimited messaging (text + pix) for $10 extra per mnth over a normal voice plan. $20 on family plans with no extra charge on add-a-line. T-Mobile is $15 per month for unlimited messaging. Many local carriers are less.
So you're only getting screwed if you're using Verizon or AT&T, who charge a full $20 for unlimited messaging. Which is a ripoff when you're already paying for voice and/or data... | |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | Ceteris Paribus Marginal costs being equal, and with absolutely no product differentiation, all that is missing is a general idea of the industry-wide SMS usage statistics and a company's own residual customer usage, and it's simple to tacitly develop a cartel-like collusion with monopolistic pricing. The prices are high because there is effectively no competition anymore.
Something is fishy, and it certainly warrants an investigation. I'm sure nothing will come of it, at least nothing that will ever help the consumers. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
|
·
·
·
It is time to break the wireless trust!
Anyone that thinks there is price competition in the wireless industry must be on another planet. Here on Earth the wireless trust has done their back door deals to maintain artificially high prices. The wireless industry needs a shakedown like AT&T received in the mid 1930's. AT&T bought up many financially failing telephone companies during the depression and then used their monopoly position to charge subscribers outrageous prices. The Feds declared the Bell System a Monopoly and regulated their prices. Until there is true competition or regulation in the wireless market consumers will continue to pay artificially high prices. Consider this; most wireless customers in Europe do not pay for incoming calls. Do not expect that to happen in the US until the wireless industry is regulated.