 bencPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL
 ·Charter
| Text Messages Cost $1,342,177.28 per GB 1GB = 1,073,741,824 bytes
1,073,741,824 bytes / 160 bytes per SMS = 6,710,886.4 SMS
6,710,886.4 SMS * $.20 per SMS = $1,342,177.28 per GB
Absolutely disgusting!
OK, so no one will ever send over 6 million SMS messages in a single month. Yet an unlimited SMS option costs $20 / mo. So that's $20 for less than 1GB of data transfer.
They could charge $.01 per SMS, or $1/mo. for unlimited SMS and still have a huge markup.
With the advent of mobile Internet, and the ability to use mobile E-mail, there is no more reason to use SMS messages. For contacts without mobile E-mail, you can use an E-mail to SMS gateway. |
|
|
|
 PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | My old ATT plan was great
5 cents for outgoing text messages
Free incomming
No additional monthly charge! |
|
| reply to benc
You don't have to text BTW. This is a value add and it would be bad business if they didn't try to obtain maximum revenue. It also provides some cash-flow stability. If there is a competitive or market driven reason for them to not charge so much, they won't. And it's not like other industries don't do this. Ink is a major cash cow for the printer industry. Overages may be the next cash cow for the Telco's and Cableco's as well. |
|
| You don't have to text, but for those of us who know we're getting ripped off, educating others can help lower our costs.
--
OASAASLLS |
|
1 edit | reply to benc
said by benc:Absolutely disgusting! Wait a minute . . . where is it written that the price for a service must be proportional to it's cost?
In business-terminology it's called "value based pricing". It's where a business wants to be . . . would you rather be in the cellular business right now, or a commodity business, like the airlines where margins are so low and costs so high, they're forced to be closer to cost-based pricing? |
|
 james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | reply to JasonOD
said by JasonOD :
it would be bad business if they didn't try to obtain maximum revenue. That's exactly the short-sighted attitude that has caused long respected companies to lose loyal customers who have bought their products for decades.
Yeah, it makes sense for the CEO and shareholders who will bail out in 2 years, but the company is completely screwed after those 2 years when the once loyal customers decide to shop elsewhere.
Would you rather rip me off for $50 right now and never see me again, or would you rather I give you $10 a week for the rest of my life? |
|
DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | said by james:said by JasonOD :
it would be bad business if they didn't try to obtain maximum revenue. That's exactly the short-sighted attitude that has caused long respected companies to lose loyal customers who have bought their products for decades. Yeah, it makes sense for the CEO and shareholders who will bail out in 2 years, but the company is completely screwed after those 2 years when the once loyal customers decide to shop elsewhere. Would you rather rip me off for $50 right now and never see me again, or would you rather I give you $10 a week for the rest of my life? How can you call such customers "loyal" if they leave over anything above rock-bottom prices? Or do you really mean "lazy" or "illogical" customers who knowingly pay more than they have to under some bizarre belief that the company will treat long-time customers better than brand-new customers? |
|
