netwire
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Mooresboro, NC
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Millenicom
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Vonage
| Erm...
Perhaps I am not understanding how this works, but... it cost you to send a message to someone, and it cost them to receive it - if they are on the same network the carrier is making double profit on that one message, even though they are only transferring it once. To me it seems like carriers make more of text and picture messaging than they do on actual voice plans, but then again I could be wrong.
--
World of Warcraft - My anti-drug.
|
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by netwire  :Perhaps I am not understanding how this works, but... it cost you to send a message to someone, and it cost them to receive it - if they are on the same network the carrier is making double profit on that one message, even though they are only transferring it once. To me it seems like carriers make more of text and picture messaging than they do on actual voice plans, but then again I could be wrong. My understanding is that wireless phones and the network "talk" to each other via packets all the time (whether you're on the phone or not)... and that txt messages actually fit into these packets. My understanding is that the additional cost of sending a txt message basically approaches zero over just having a regular wireless phone that is charged up.
I could be wrong but that's how it was explained to me, and that's why there's the technical limit of 161 characters (the max that will fit in one packet.)
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| No you are correct. Text messages use no extra bandwidth. They were created to profit off of something that is inherently free. That way large 20 dollar fees for unlimited messages or high per message fees are 100% profit. Because of that, there is little chance they will ever remove those fees because the profit hits would be way to great. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to KrK
said by KrK :said by netwire :Perhaps I am not understanding how this works, but... it cost you to send a message to someone, and it cost them to receive it - if they are on the same network the carrier is making double profit on that one message, even though they are only transferring it once. To me it seems like carriers make more of text and picture messaging than they do on actual voice plans, but then again I could be wrong. My understanding is that wireless phones and the network "talk" to each other via packets all the time (whether you're on the phone or not)... and that txt messages actually fit into these packets. My understanding is that the additional cost of sending a txt message basically approaches zero over just having a regular wireless phone that is charged up. I could be wrong but that's how it was explained to me, and that's why there's the technical limit of 161 characters (the max that will fit in one packet.) You are partly correct. Text messages (on GSM!) are usually transferred on the control channel. The one that tells your phone you're getting a call, or where your phone tells the network "I've answered" or "I received that message." They can be transferred over GPRS, but that's rarely implemented by the carriers.
Your phone doesn't actually use the control channel that much when it's just idling. That's why they last so long in standby. Every 10 seconds or so, it wakes up to listen for a paging message telling it it's receiving a call. Every 10 or 20 minutes (it depends on what the specific carrier has set the specific cell to require) the phone re-registers with the network. If you have lots of phones in one area, the control channel can get pretty congested.
So yes, technically SMS is using a resource that's already there, but it's a very important resource that, when exhausted, causes the entire network to come crashing down. That's why your phone asks for permission to send the message, and the network will wait to push a message out to you until a time that is convenient for it.
While the increasing charges are likely just profit taking by the carriers, there may be a component of attempting to restrict usage to some degree to keep delivery times decent.
Personally, I don't care what at&t does with text message charges. I'm unlikely to burn through 1500 SMS and 200 MMS that I get for what I consider free. I have the old MEdia Works plan that includes the messages plus unlimited data, which I bought for the data, not the messages. I suppose at&t is selling a $15/mo unlimited data package, so I should consider the messages a $5/mo expense...
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to insomniac84
said by insomniac84 :No you are correct. Text messages use no extra bandwidth. Yep you have have to send over 52,000 txt messages( assuming you used all 160 characters ) to use up just one MB of data. Peole thinking paying $20 for unlimite texting is a good bargin have no clue. Hell Verizon will charge you $1.99 per MB of data. And that a joke in of itself and paying $20 for that is a deal?
Why Congress isn't looking into this I don't get. |
|
cyclone_z
join:2006-06-19
Ames, IA
·Qwest.net
| Yes it's a complete rip-off. I never use all my peak minutes anyway and N&W are unltd. So I make calls instead of buying a ripoff SMS package. It actually costs Verizon more if I make a call, in terms of network capacity. Calls take up either 8Kbps or 13Kbps depending on the CDMA codec being used. It costs them even more if it's not a Verizon phone; then AFAIK they have to pay a call termination fee to the other carrier at a per-minute rate. |
|
