dslreports logo
 story category
AT&T SMS/MMS Hikes Come Later This Month
Hey Mister. Nice profit margin you've got there.
Users in our Cellphone forum remind us that AT&T will be raising the rate they charge for text messages another $.05 to $.20 per message starting March 30. Multimedia messaging will also see a an increase of $.05 to $.30 per message. Verizon also hiked their SMS/MMS prices last month. Given they charge you on both the sending and receiving end of these transactions, and the actual bandwidth used costs very little, the profit margins on these kinds of hikes are truly epic. Of course, consumers seem more than willing to pay for it.
view:
topics flat nest 
Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium Member
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH

Done_Posting

Premium Member

Of course...

With the "unlimited" plan wars starting to flare up, they're probably worried that their bread and butter messaging rackets will be hurt. It's absolutely outrageous what providers charge for SMS and MMS, but as long as the vast majority of people are willing to pay for it, I guess there's no point in complaining.

- Tate

Its a Secret
Please speak into the microphone
Premium Member
join:2008-02-23
Da wet coast

Its a Secret

Premium Member

Re: Of course...

I'm with Roger's here in Canada, and have stopped all features; clid, vmail, sms etc. Down to $12/ month. But I have to say, I don't use my cell much. No more rape for services.

Xela18954
join:2000-10-06
Richboro, PA

1 recommendation

Xela18954

Member

Paying for incoming messages?

What I don't understand is why the carriers are forcing customers to pay for incoming messages? At least with an incoming phone call I have an option of using a caller ID and accepting or rejecting a call. With a SMS/MMS messages I get them no matter what and forced to pay. And calling customer service and haggling over 15-20 cents for an unsolicited message is usually not worth my time. I guess that is where the catch is. Carriers probably count on that and make a killing.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Paying for incoming messages?

said by Xela18954:

What I don't understand is why the carriers are forcing customers to pay for incoming messages?
What is so hard to understand? They make money off incoming text messages.

Most cell phone providers want to charge a premium for texting so that they can provide a nasty incentive for customers to upgrade to a higher-tier calling plan that includes a certain number of text messages. Either they make money by charging a premium for each message, or they make money by charging an extra monthly rate for a fixed number of text messages a month.

Xela18954
join:2000-10-06
Richboro, PA

Xela18954

Member

Re: Paying for incoming messages?

said by pnh102:

said by Xela18954:

What I don't understand is why the carriers are forcing customers to pay for incoming messages?
What is so hard to understand? They make money off incoming text messages.

Most cell phone providers want to charge a premium for texting so that they can provide a nasty incentive for customers to upgrade to a higher-tier calling plan that includes a certain number of text messages. Either they make money by charging a premium for each message, or they make money by charging an extra monthly rate for a fixed number of text messages a month.
And until such business practices and pricing structures are tolerated by customeers the wireless services in the US will be far behind those of Far East and Europe.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Paying for incoming messages?

said by Xela18954:

And until such business practices and pricing structures are tolerated by customeers the wireless services in the US will be far behind those of Far East and Europe.
I wouldn't say our mobile technology is that far behind anymore. It just took longer for us to catch up because landline service in the USA was always cheaper and easier to get than landline service abroad. It was only very recently in the USA that using a cell phone exclusively became more economically justifiable.

We use the same GSM-based service available abroad. 3G is also being deployed in many parts of the USA as we speak. At least on the GSM side of things we can use just about any quad-band phone that we want with no problem at all.

Of course, GSM-based services in the USA still have a ways to go to catch up the CDMA-based high speed Internet services.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:
said by Xela18954:

What I don't understand is why the carriers are forcing customers to pay for incoming messages?
What is so hard to understand? They make money off incoming text messages.

Most cell phone providers want to charge a premium for texting so that they can provide a nasty incentive for customers to upgrade to a higher-tier calling plan that includes a certain number of text messages. Either they make money by charging a premium for each message, or they make money by charging an extra monthly rate for a fixed number of text messages a month.
Or you can do what I do. And that is set the option to not accept incoming text msgs. That way you don't pay anything for text msgs. But if you want to send and receive text msgs, than buy a monthly plan that allows them and don't pay per msg.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Paying for incoming messages?

said by FFH5:

But if you want to send and receive text msgs, than buy a monthly plan that allows them and don't pay per msg.
Thankfully AT&T hasn't forced me to upgrade my "Media Net Unlimited" plan.
ctggzg
Premium Member
join:2005-02-11
USA

ctggzg to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Or you can do what I do. And that is set the option to not accept incoming text msgs. That way you don't pay anything for text msgs.
Sure. And if you're having pain in your arm, just amputate the arm. Problem solved?

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Paying for incoming messages?

said by ctggzg:
said by FFH5:

Or you can do what I do. And that is set the option to not accept incoming text msgs. That way you don't pay anything for text msgs.
Sure. And if you're having pain in your arm, just amputate the arm. Problem solved?
Some one wants to talk to me they can call the phone # and speak. And if it isn't important or urgent, they can email me. What have I missed by not getting a text msg?

Brazbit
Premium Member
join:2003-10-22
Port Orchard, WA

Brazbit

Premium Member

Re: Paying for incoming messages?

said by FFH5:

Some one wants to talk to me they can call the phone # and speak. And if it isn't important or urgent, they can email me. What have I missed by not getting a text msg?
That is my take on it. You have the dang phone in your hands already. You could call say what needs to be said and hang up in less time then it takes to type out a message in broken english. I would love to disable text, email, im, internet, camera, games, wallpapers, screen savers, and every other useless money sucking feature on the phone and go back to just having a phone again.

MrMaster
Rum Connoisseur
Premium Member
join:2000-12-16
St Thomas, VI

1 recommendation

MrMaster

Premium Member

Re: Paying for incoming messages?

said by Brazbit:

said by FFH5:

Some one wants to talk to me they can call the phone # and speak. And if it isn't important or urgent, they can email me. What have I missed by not getting a text msg?
That is my take on it. You have the dang phone in your hands already. You could call say what needs to be said and hang up in less time then it takes to type out a message in broken english. I would love to disable text, email, im, internet, camera, games, wallpapers, screen savers, and every other useless money sucking feature on the phone and go back to just having a phone again.
heh...then you'd hate me cause I love my blackberry! Texting has its advantages and no, the time it takes me to punch out a quick txt is LESS than it takes to make a call, wait for 5 rings, then wait for VM and then finally leave a message. screw that.

supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL

supergirl to Xela18954

Member

to Xela18954
said by Xela18954:

What I don't understand is why the carriers are forcing customers to pay for incoming messages? At least with an incoming phone call I have an option of using a caller ID and accepting or rejecting a call. With a SMS/MMS messages I get them no matter what and forced to pay. And calling customer service and haggling over 15-20 cents for an unsolicited message is usually not worth my time. I guess that is where the catch is. Carriers probably count on that and make a killing.
I get SPAM Text messages every month. They take them right off since I blocked ALL but the carriers.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536 to Xela18954

Premium Member

to Xela18954
said by Xela18954:

What I don't understand is why the carriers are forcing customers to pay for incoming messages? At least with an incoming phone call I have an option of using a caller ID and accepting or rejecting a call. With a SMS/MMS messages I get them no matter what and forced to pay. And calling customer service and haggling over 15-20 cents for an unsolicited message is usually not worth my time. I guess that is where the catch is. Carriers probably count on that and make a killing.
my only beef with t mobile
they WONT shut off text messaging so you have to PAY for incoming text spams!
SunnyFL8
Premium Member
join:2001-02-08

SunnyFL8 to Xela18954

Premium Member

to Xela18954
said by Xela18954:

What I don't understand is why the carriers are forcing customers to pay for incoming messages? Carriers probably count on that and make a killing.
Exactly. Not a nice game I agree.
kingofdsl
join:2002-12-11
Indianapolis, IN

kingofdsl to Xela18954

Member

to Xela18954
said by Xela18954:

What I don't understand is why the carriers are forcing customers to pay for incoming messages?

And calling customer service and haggling over 15-20 cents for an unsolicited message is usually not worth my time.

I guess that is where the catch is.

Carriers probably count on that and make a killing.
the actual bandwidth used costs very little, the profit margins on these kinds of hikes are truly epic.

Of course, consumers seem more than willing to pay for it.
========================================================
Not true on consumers seem "more than willing".

While it is true the Cell Phone has become an everyday item of neccessity putting up with bogus charges will not be.

These Corporations as well as investors will feel the wratch of the angry consumer and American. It is simply a law of numbers, when enough angry people band together. The numbers are growing and it will make the Boston Tea Party look like a picnic in the park.

WeSRT4
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL

WeSRT4

Member

Breach of contract?

Wouldn't this change constitute a breach of contract?

If so I'm taking my business elsewhere.

bobjohnson
Premium Member
join:2007-02-03
Spartanburg, SC

bobjohnson

Premium Member

Re: Breach of contract?

said by WeSRT4:

Wouldn't this change constitute a breach of contract?

If so I'm taking my business elsewhere.
I thought the contracts say that prices and offers etc. are subject to change with notice??

WeSRT4
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL

1 edit

WeSRT4

Member

Re: Breach of contract?

said by bobjohnson:

said by WeSRT4:

Wouldn't this change constitute a breach of contract?

If so I'm taking my business elsewhere.
I thought the contracts say that prices and offers etc. are subject to change with notice??
I don't have the contract to look at at the moment. Does anyone know?

I seem to remember that the last time this happened it was a breach of contract.

bobjohnson
Premium Member
join:2007-02-03
Spartanburg, SC

bobjohnson

Premium Member

Re: Breach of contract?

said by WeSRT4:

said by bobjohnson:

said by WeSRT4:

Wouldn't this change constitute a breach of contract?

If so I'm taking my business elsewhere.
I thought the contracts say that prices and offers etc. are subject to change with notice??
I don't have the contract to look at at the moment. Does anyone know?

I seem to remember that the last time this happened it was a breach of contract.
Sorry, I'll answer my own question... They can only change people in contract if you change anything and update your contract... They can just change month 2 month subs with notice... I looked at my old nextel contract, and come to think about it I still have the nextel national 1000 for 45.99, i'm sure sprint would have changed it if they could looking at their pricing now..

WeSRT4
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL

WeSRT4

Member

Re: Breach of contract?

So if they change my SMS pricing I have an out. Nice to know.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

1 edit

morbo to WeSRT4

Member

to WeSRT4
yes. when they change the rates, you can get out of your contract without penalty. you will have to fight them -- may have to call back several times, but be persistant. "material change" i believe is the key wording in the contract. google it.

EDIT
in the mean time, you cost them $ on all the customer service calls. if they still don't budge, go to an area where you know you are roaming (even though you get free roaming), and then use all your minutes there. do that for a few months and they will beg you to leave without penalty.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102 to WeSRT4

Member

to WeSRT4
Message 'packages' are an add on feature to your contract and can be removed/changed at any time, which means they are not subject to contract pricing.
i.e. Your wireless voice plan is for 2 years
Messaging can be added or removed at any time. You don't need to be in contract either to add/remove it.

I used to have $0.10 to send and free to recieve under AT&T Wireless. Since they now charge me to receive (spam), I have AT&T disable data/messaging completely so that I won't be charged.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Re: Breach of contract?

if there is a limit to the number of messages allowed in a "package", meaning there is a chance you could go over the limit, then it is a material breach of contract.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: Breach of contract?

The contracts do not come with any required commitment to any messaging 'package', if I'm not mistaken.
Eg. 450 + rollover = contracted (2 year)
Messaging = add on feature (package?) of 'none', pay per use (now $0.30), and what other media packages / bundles that you add. They are not part of the wireless contract.

Don't confuse a monthly add on feature which has its own rates to your one or two year wireless contract for service. The only basis for a messaging package/feature usage is that you have service.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Re: Breach of contract?

package or no package: this is a material change to the contract. message rates were set at the time of the agreement between the customer and AT&T. changing the rates now is...well a change, hence, any AT&T customer can get out of their contract for the next 30 days without penalty.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: Breach of contract?

said by morbo:

package or no package: this is a material change to the contract.
To what contract? There are no contract term rates for pay per use messaging. Messaging is a la carte.
The options for a la carte messaging are:
- None (i.e. disabled, which is how I have mine)
- Pay per use, in which rates are subject to change
- Bundled (i.e. 200 texts for $4.99)

»www.wireless.att.com/cel ··· .jsp#gsm
quote:
Pricing/Taxes/No Proration: Final month's charges are not prorated. Prices are subject to change. Prices do not include taxes.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Re: Breach of contract?

said by en102:

- Pay per use, in which rates are subject to change
- Bundled (i.e. 200 texts for $4.99)
changing the price of messages is breaking the contract. simply saying "prices are subject to change" does not give AT&T a free pass for changing the prices. changing the price has consequences.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: Breach of contract?

This is no different than me having a 2 year satellite contract for TV service and during that period seeing pay-per view price change for a boxing match or NFL/NHL items changing during that time. The pay-per view was not part of the contract rate there was no contract stating that that item was
a) purchased
b) set to a specific rate, never to change

Show me where in the contract that it states that PPU messaging is part of any contract for AT&T.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Re: Breach of contract?

the difference is messaging is on by default on all cell phones. you can receive messages without your consent. people spam you without your consent. that would be fine if the rate was the same as it was at the time the contract was agreed to.

with pay per view, you and only you (or family member) initiate ordering the program and resultant charges.

see the difference? MAYBE you would have a point if txt messaging was turned off by default, but it is not. so you are wrong.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: Breach of contract?

You can also disable messaging on your cell phone.
The U.S. industry is a pain for 'opt-out'. If they don't give you any form of disabling messages, or charge extra to have messaging disabled (parental controls) then yeah, they'd have a lawsuit, and I'd be joining it.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Re: Breach of contract?

messaging is on by default. i remember reading that carriers don't always (consistently?) allow users to disable messaging.

when carriers start requiring users to TURN ON messaging, then i will agree with your point. until then, consumers should be aware that they can break their contract when their provider breaks it by raising rates.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

1 edit

en102

Member

Re: Breach of contract?

Yup - messaging is on by default - I had to disable mine when I migrated from AT&T Wireless (Free inbound messages) to Cingular/AT&T. If they would not have let me, I would have sued. They should have a disable text option... it would solve this.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536 to bobjohnson

Premium Member

to bobjohnson
said by bobjohnson:
said by WeSRT4:

Wouldn't this change constitute a breach of contract?

If so I'm taking my business elsewhere.
I thought the contracts say that prices and offers etc. are subject to change with notice??
it does but since THEY changed the rates, you can get out without an ETF!

PhoenixDown
FIOS is Awesome
Premium Member
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY

PhoenixDown

Premium Member

Remember when...

ATT Wireless (blue) had free incoming text messages and 5 cent outbound text messages? Those were the days just after the period when you had to walk uphill both ways to school.

TZi
join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL

TZi

Member

Re: Remember when...

said by PhoenixDown:

ATT Wireless (blue) had free incoming text messages and 5 cent outbound text messages? Those were the days just after the period when you had to walk uphill both ways to school.
geez, I remember back in the day when omnipoint came into town and set up the first GSM network in town. They had no idea to even charge for SMS messaging. Granted, no other carrier had two-way text messaging and you could only exchange SMS's with other omnipoint customers...
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

2 edits

Mr Matt

Member

There ought to be a law

The laws related to digital communication media have fallen far behind physical communications. If I send someone an a message via snail mail, the USPS does not charge the recipient the cost of delivering the message. If the message is sent postage due the recipient does not have to accept it. Unfortunately our legislature will not enact laws prohibiting any corporation from charging customers for incoming traffic via their wireless services, if the corporation provides adequate campaign contributions to our politicians. Our legislature should enact laws prohibiting any company providing communication services from charging a customer for incoming traffic whether it be Voice, SMS Text or Advertising downloaded by websites via a customers Wireless Data Service. The only exception would be customers who by contractual agreement accept the cost of incoming traffic as in toll free voice service where the recipent pays.

Noah Vail
Oh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica

Noah Vail

Premium Member

Re: There ought to be a law

said by Mr Matt:

If I send someone an a message via snail mail, the USPS does not charge the recipient the cost of delivering the message. If the message is sent postage due the recipient does not have to accept it.
USPS had "postage due" for longer than it's been gone. You could put a message in the address like ARS for "arrived home safely" and send it PD. The recipient checks the address and then refuses the letter. After the letter carrier makes a couple of unsuccessful attempts that is.

Those reasones and a dozen others made it a money loser. People didn't care enough to pay what it cost.

People are addicted to SMS and addicts will pay whatever it takes.

NV

TZi
join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL

TZi to Mr Matt

Member

to Mr Matt
Speaking of the law falling behind the times, just look at all those pay services on cell phones that are hooked to the text messaging services! That area seems grossly unregulated as you can send one simple text message to a number and get charged almost $10 if not more, and some of them end up as repeating monthly charges with little or no notification that you are doing so in neither the text message itself nor in the type/format of number (its not like 1-900 or 976 ). That whole business seems sneaky and targeted towards naive kids.

PolarBear03
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium Member
join:2005-01-03

PolarBear03

Premium Member

What a joke

I have no idea what paying by the message is like, as I've had unlimited messaging on all four of my lines for $10/mo for years. No, not $10/mo/each line, $10/mo for all four lines, unlimited SMS/MMS.

And hell, it's worth it just for the teenager, let alone us three adults.

Horay T-mobile.

••••••

jgkolt
Premium Member
join:2004-02-21
Avon, OH

jgkolt

Premium Member

Breach Of Contract

Does that mean we can get out of our contracts now?

•••••••

jimbo48
join:2000-11-17
Asheville, NC

jimbo48

Member

Incoming Text Messages

I have no use for text messaging either in or out and resent that these cellphone providers charge for incoming text messages. Just because my cellphone can send/accept texting doesn't mean I want it or use it. I'm not under a contract anymore -paid my two years and am on a month to month basis so I can say screw it anytime I want if I want to put up with another round of hassles with yet another inept cellphone service provider. I don't "need" a cellphone that bad to put up with extortion.
TheMG
Premium Member
join:2007-09-04
Canada
MikroTik RB450G
Cisco DPC3008
Cisco SPA112

1 recommendation

TheMG

Premium Member

Texts... pffft.

What a waste of time and money. Cellphones are becoming the next MSN Messenger of sorts.

Did I say how SICK AND TIRED I am of seeing everyone typing away on their cell phones all the damn time?!?!? On the bus, in the car, during lectures, at the restaurant, at the movies... it's getting really F***ING ridiculous!

That being said, BRING ON THE RATE HIKES! Maybe it'll teach some sense into people.

tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Gulfport, MS

tc1uscg

Member

Stop your crying

You don't get TOP NOTCH customer service for nothing. So keep paying for that outstanding service VZW provides it's customers.