dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6
share rss forum feed

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

2 recommendations

reply to Telco

Re: Pricing

said by Telco:

The reality that we now have a choice of 20 cents or $20 on AT&T for example, shows that it's time for the gov to step in.

Yes, because text messages are a life essential service, and we clearly need Government intervention so Lil Suzy can afford to text her friends Shakespearean gems like "4 ll u hu tlk bout me, tnx 4 makin ME D ctr of ur wrld!"


The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream
And we should allow the carriers do whatever they want, I hear you. Government regulation be damned even if said carriers write their own policies into law through clever lobbying.

With that kind of thinking we would still be "colonies" owned by a foreign entity. What do I know, I'm just preaching to the choir. Nothing to see here.
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010)

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
Grow up, I said nothing about the merits or lack thereof of regulation, I just think it's beyond absurd to demand governmental intervention over SMS pricing. SMS is not an essential service, not even close, nor is the pricing as nearly as outlandish as people think it is. I pay about 1.2 cents per SMS, which you'd doubtless regard as too much, but thankfully the Government isn't here to make sure you pay what you want for good and services. If you think SMS is a rip-off, don't buy it. Have your carrier block it, tell your friends you don't use texts, or adopt one of the nearly seamless (Google Voice) alternatives available to you.

SMS is simply a luxury service that people are willing to pay for. Verizon doesn't have a "use this or you'll starve to death/freeze/be somehow economically disadvantaged" gun to your head. We don't demand Governmental intervention in the marketplace because we want to pay less for luxury items.


The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream
I didn't say anything about 1.2 cents being expensive, however 20 cents is highway robbery. Hell, I'd pay that much and wouldn't complain one bit. Neither did I say anything about demanding government regulation. I do think it's needed.

The irony is that it's ok for carriers to lobby all kind of nonsense, but it's not ok when one of the lowly peons suggests anything reasonable. That was what I was trying to highlight.
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010)


The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream
reply to Crookshanks
Same could also be said about electricity, gasoline, etc. sure, they are finite resources. We don't need electricity, or gasoline for that matter. Why not deregulate every industry because "government regulation is bad"? Your argument is a slippery slope which makes absolutely no sense to me.
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010)

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
SMS is not in the same league as any of those services, and in any instance, regulation rarely serves to directly address prices. It creates the framework by which a business operates under, and even if I thought SMS needed to be regulated, I'm not certain how it would address pricing.

As far as twenty cents go, few people actually pay that, and it's called "economy of scale". People who use less of any resource pay more per unit than those who use more. I pay more considerably more for propane than my neighbor, because we supplement with it, whereas she heats with it exclusively. Natural gas delivery charges scale in the same manner (at least in NY and PA), as does electrical consumption.

I'll come back to my earlier point, turn the service off if you think it's overpriced. It's not even remotely in the same league as any sort of critical (food, clean water) or semi-critical (electricity) resource. It's a luxury item, plain and simple.


The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream
What I'm trying to stress is that those resources we see as "critical" were luxury services not too long ago. I'm not saying that we need harsh regulation, but it would be nice to have some sort of bill "cap" for consumer protection. For the record, I don't pay for individual sms, and if it weren't for my family, I wouldn't even be a customer of Verizon Wireless.
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010)


delusion ftl

@comcast.net
This is insane, your bill cap is zero. Your consumer protection is that the government, nor the private sector is forcing you to purchase anything.
Imagine if you wanted a bill cap on a wardrobe of designer jeans, or mcrib sandwiches. Just stop buying what you don't want to pay for. Don't sign up for contracts or carriers that treat you poorly. Or pick a carrier that already has a bill cap.

When did we expect the government to force other people to give us what we want?

Not only that but you live in an area that has 5 infrastructure carriers (VZW, Tmobile, Sprint, ATT, Cricket) and numerous mvno's. Many of which will sell you texts for much less. For one example. Ting sells texts for no more than 3 cents a piece, and if you do enough it gets as cheap as a quarter of a cent a piece. If ATT wants to, starting tomorrow, start charging all their new and upgrading customers 3000 dollars a text, they should be absolutely free to do so assuming their customers are reasonably notified and understand they are agreeing to a $3000 a text service. They will go right out of business, but they should be free from the government telling them no. And conversely, if they wanted to offer unlimited texting and voice for free on every line and only charge for data, they should be allowed to do so.


knoxyouout

join:2012-11-28
Ottawa, ON
reply to Crookshanks
Text messaging has become a life essential service for deaf and hard of hearing folks. Teens are not the only people on Earth who text message.


The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream
reply to delusion ftl
I don't think you understand what I'm talking about. What I'm saying is that these same carriers are able to warp laws based on their preferences. However, we cannot. Carriers shouldn't be able to do that if they want to cry wolf and complain about how we don't need "government regulation", but in the same breath writing policy favoring their position. You don't think that's even slightly unfair?
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010)

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
reply to knoxyouout
It's time to stop crying as it being an essential service. They used the phones BEFORE texting. Phones also have ADA regulations to follow. Most are E3/T3 for hearing aids and as far as texting, those that generally are deaf seem to have smart phones, so they can use Google Voice or another app- Maybe Kik? its free uses the Internet, and works on ANY carrier.

Telco

join:2008-12-19
reply to The Limit
These guys still do not get why they lost the election. The American people are waking up and are tired of the nonsense. Where regulation is bad bad bad, unless it comes to private carrier preventing muni FTTH or competition.

Their dogma is no different to organized crime and grease payments. It's like a gang charging you a fee to walk down a street. His rationale is that well, there are other streets. The sad thing is that they don't even grasp what's wrong with this scenario.

Telco

join:2008-12-19
reply to delusion ftl
said by delusion ftl :

When did we expect the government to force other people to give us what we want?

Indeed, but what you people fail to explain is what happens when carriers collude. What happens when competition is really just a farce.

It's just mind-boggling that you folks seem to cheer this on, like you are the sole shareholder of these carriers. No different to cheering on the death of the unions and workers rights, as if you are F500 CEOs.