|
to FFH5
Re: It's the market, unfortunatelyalso don't forget, "there's a sucker born every minute". |
|
djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV |
to jhboricua
Re: One reason they fear opening the apps on the phonesBingo! Assuming you can get "real" data-based IM chats loaded onto a phone, they currently work, at least on AT&T's network. I'm surprised they haven't filtered that traffic yet.
I think it's not really a problem yet, mostly due to the convenience factor. |
|
|
High demandI still believe that cellphones are the best profitable of all communication. I mean, everyone wants a cellphone because everyone has one. So, companies are pretty happy to charge for anything on your cellphone since it's in high demand. |
|
B04 Premium Member join:2000-10-28 |
to celeritypc
Re: SMS and "Ringtones" - A Civilization in DeclineOh, I do all those things. I just don't want to get ripped off while doing them. -- B |
|
93388818 (banned)It's cool, I'm takin it back join:2000-03-14 Dallas, TX |
to PToN
Re: No way outI believe you can do it on AT&T Wireless as well.
Who is your carrier? |
|
|
Why can incomeing be free?why do you have to pay for incoming SMS / text spam?
I have SMS / text turned off on my phone. |
|
en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA |
to jhboricua
Re: It's the market, unfortunatelyBusiness and morality do not go hand in hand.
Businesses are out there to make money/profit. Morality requires a conscience. Businesses require keeping an eye on the bottom line - conscience can get in the way. |
|
|
|
factchecker to bogey7806
Anon
2008-Jan-29 12:11 pm
to bogey7806
said by bogey7806:Soon they'll expose that Caller ID is making criminal profits too. Actually, that Kushnick (sp?) guy has been doing that for several years now, talking about the true cost of CallerID and how much people are charged. |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to jhboricua
said by jhboricua:But do you consider this a moral thing to do? The capitalist system, so far, has been the best at optimizing scarce resources. And a system that is efficient returns the most to society. So, yes, I find that moral. |
|
FFH5 1 edit |
to factchecker
said by factchecker :said by bogey7806:Soon they'll expose that Caller ID is making criminal profits too. Actually, that Kushnick (sp?) guy has been doing that for several years now, talking about the true cost of CallerID and how much people are charged. But Caller-ID is an OPTION and not required. Do I wish it was cheaper - sure. But even at the price they charge, to me it is worth it to screen callers and give me control over who I talk to and when I talk to them. P.S. I don't pay extra for CallerID myself - it is included in a land line / mobile pkg. |
|
|
to en102
Ah, and yet these same people that believe in profit at any cost, and other that supports their practices are quick to chastice the morality of those who, for example, download copyrighted material by using P2P applications.
If they lack the morality to charge ridiculous fees, how can they question the morality of those who won't play their game? |
|
|
to en102
that's an unfortunate and true fact - and is why it is necessary sometimes for the government to become the conscience.
without either an internal or external conscience we get industries like telecom, where their greed and lack of concern for their country has resulted in a broadband market that is years behind the rest of the developed world, or the content industry, whose lawsuits and bullying have stifled untold creativity and created misery for innocent people.
the free market extremists don't believe in any government regulation or intervention, unless it is of course regulation or intervention that helps industry - does the oil industry really need tax breaks? should congress be passing laws that help the content industry prop up their obsolete business model? |
|
|
to Joe12345678
Re: Why can incomeing be free?Receiving text messages is free with my provider (Sasktel Mobility).
and it's also free to send them if you send them from their website... or send them via e-mail to phone#@pcs.sasktelmobility.com
Both of the free solutions to send require a computer... or a smartphone. |
|
|
factchecker to FFH5
Anon
2008-Jan-29 12:51 pm
to FFH5
Re: It's the market, unfortunatelysaid by FFH5:But Caller-ID is an OPTION and not required. That doesn't mean customers should not be alerted to the true price versus the actual cost of delivering the service. The reason companies get away with charging as much as they do for services like SMS/TXT and caller ID is because consumers don't know the "real costs" of the product - how much it costs to deliver that service/product. |
|
|
amungus Premium Member join:2004-11-26 America |
amungus
Premium Member
2008-Jan-29 12:58 pm
sillyI get incoming free, but it's $.25 per sent text, $.50 per sent pic (which I do even less since my camera in the phone is lo-fi). U.S. Cellular... took over "Cellular One" where I am... they've been pretty good so far... decent plan, nationwide, good service. It's such a scam, yet people always ask me "why don't you just get a text plan?" including, of course, the sales reps... Answer? I don't text much, if at all. Some months, I just don't. I might receive a few, but that's it. It should pretty much be free by now anyway with the rates the way they are. I can understand data costing some money, but a little text? Come on, give me a break. Personally, I don't do it much. 5 outgoing texts costs me a whopping $1. Oh well. Rather have that occasional buck or two tacked on than 5-10-15 bucks for a text "deal." Amazingly enough, I really just want my phone to be... a phone If I needed a crackberry, I'd get a freaking crackberry... |
|
|
factchecker to FFH5
Anon
2008-Jan-29 1:06 pm
to FFH5
Re: It's the market, unfortunatelysaid by FFH5:The capitalist system, so far, has been the best at optimizing scarce resources. I would be careful when you say that once you realize that capitalist economies also exhibit the greatest amount of waste - wasted food (look in the trash of any restaurant), wasted resources (disposable products), etc. For example, millions of gallons of oil are wasted each year on bottled water because the bottles are used once and discarded to landfills. Single use products, like water bottles, made from finite resources, like oil, are not an efficient use of resources. |
|
|
Tunnel VisionWhile I agree with the assessement that the bandwidth costs for GSM (and maybe even CDMA, I don't know how SMS works on that platform) is essentially $0 (the control channel has to be there anyway, sending SMS down it costs nothing), that's only part of the story. Carriers have to implement SMS systems that keep track of the messages, make sure they're delivered, etc, not to mention they have to have agreements with other carries to send and recieve messages between them. Is that worth $.20 or $.30 a message? I have no idea. As somebody else pointed out, they have plans that are significantly cheaper. My whole point is there is more to this than bandwidth costs and AT&T or anybody else does have costs associated with offering it. NEXTEL for instance utilizes a data channel to transfer their version of text messages, I have no idea why because the iDEN system and the phones are fully capable of using two way SMS messages. |
|
PToN Premium Member join:2001-10-04 Houston, TX |
to 93388818
Re: No way outT-Mobile.... |
|
|
to factchecker
Re: It's the market, unfortunatelyThe thing is it's all part of the business model. Costs themselves are nebulous. A businessman just looks at total resources and how much he could make selling them off. If we paid the true cost of Caller ID, dod you think we'd pay the same in other fields? |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY |
This whole "True Cost" notion is a load of BSThe problem I have with the "True Cost" notion is that it only takes into account one aspect of the pricing of a service. Sure, the bandwidth to deliver an SMS costs a lot less than $0.20, however there is a lot more that goes into delivering that message that isnt reflected here. Think about it like this, what REALLY goes into providing an SMS?
1) Real estate costs to house support reps (a few hundred thousand dollars a month, if not more)
2) Salaries of support reps, technicians, and engineers (another few hundred grand per month)
4) Network costs such as equipment and depreciation, cabling, and even overtime (lets not forget about the union gouging the hell out of them either!). This is probably another few hundred thousand per month.
This is just the start, and there are likely many other expenses that I couldnt think of. Does it really cost the carriers anywhere near $0.20 to handle your SMS? OF COURSE NOT! HOWEVER, we must not forget that they (carriers) are running a business, and if people are willing to pay for something then market price will determine how much a company can charge.
People like to analyze and dissect the pricing of almost all the goods/services we purchase. Sure, it might be fun to be an "armchair general" and (incorrectly) assume you can calculate costs, however it wont do anyone a bit of good. If people think the cost of a service they choose to buy is too much, then they can simply stop using it. Clearly, the market has determined that customers will pay $0.20 per SMS, and so therefor the "True Cost" of an SMS is (get ready for it...........) $0.20!! |
|
PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301 Premium Member join:2005-01-03 |
to Dan48
Re: It's the market, unfortunatelysaid by Dan48:How did that jump to a RIAA slag from a topic on sms? It's called a comparison. He was comparing the market of MP3s to the market of sms messages. |
|
PolarBear03 |
to disc
said by disc:Rumour is that Sprint is going to start some price wars: Well yeah, they have to do SOMETHING to keep from losing all of their customers due to billing mistakes and poor customer service. |
|
Cod2 join:2000-07-05 Kernersville, NC |
to wifi4milez
Re: This whole "True Cost" notion is a load of BSWell said. But you know that if all of what you just said was part of the article here @ BBR, it wouldn't be such sensational "news" now, would it? |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2 Zoom 5341J
1 recommendation |
to MightyPez
Re: It's the market, unfortunatelyIt's the lack of a competitive market, unfortunately....
This only happens because there is a limited amount of competition and they all do much the same thing.
People always extol the virtues of the Market and the Free Economy. Too bad it doesn't exist anywhere but in fiction. |
|
|
factchecker to wifi4milez
Anon
2008-Jan-29 2:48 pm
to wifi4milez
Re: This whole "True Cost" notion is a load of BSsaid by wifi4milez:Clearly, the market has determined that customers will pay $0.20 per SMS, and so therefor the "True Cost" of an SMS is (get ready for it...........) $0.20!! No, true cost (or actual cost) is different than market price... Let's try not to confuse the terms here... The true cost of send one SMS message is probably, at most one to two cents (when you divide the costs of offering the service over the millions of messages sent per month)... The _market price_ is twenty cents. |
|
en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA |
to jhboricua
Re: It's the market, unfortunatelyThat's why they have legality through contracts/service agreements bought for by lobbiests and lawyers. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY |
to factchecker
Re: This whole "True Cost" notion is a load of BSsaid by factchecker :said by wifi4milez:Clearly, the market has determined that customers will pay $0.20 per SMS, and so therefor the "True Cost" of an SMS is (get ready for it...........) $0.20!! No, true cost (or actual cost) is different than market price... Let's try not to confuse the terms here... The true cost of send one SMS message is probably, at most one to two cents (when you divide the costs of offering the service over the millions of messages sent per month)... The _market price_ is twenty cents. Wrong. "True Cost" is a term that was made up, and means whatever that person wants it to. My example was that the true cost of a service is what people are willing to pay for it. In this case, true cost = market price. |
|
|
factchecker
Anon
2008-Jan-29 3:18 pm
said by wifi4milez:Wrong. "True Cost" is a term that was made up, and means whatever that person wants it to. One could argue that you are wrong because you are the only one using the term "true cost" while referring to "market price" and not "actual cost". As for it meaning whatever you want it to, a quick Google search doesn't support that assertion either because it is used in place of the term "actual cost'... For example, "The True Cost of Only Paying Minimum Payments", etc. |
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|
AZ_OGM join:2007-01-12 Phoenix, AZ |
to B04
Re: SMS and "Ringtones" - A Civilization in DeclineThat's why my current and previous phone have had USB ports on them so I can connect them to my computer and download a personally edited mp3 as a ring tone. Same thing for wallpapers. |
|