|
It's the market, unfortunatelyAs it was mentioned on Slashdot and on this site before as well, people are willing to pay it, so companies are more than willing to charge it. I myself have a data plan that includes unlimited text messaging.
Remember, we are willing to pay money for a bottle of water that we can get for free and cleaner out of a tap (well, in most cases, anyway). When we pay for something, we perceive it has value. | |
|
| FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ
1 recommendation |
FFH5
Premium Member
2008-Jan-29 9:48 am
Re: It's the market, unfortunatelyIt has worth as long as people are willing to pay for it. Don't like paying for it; don't use it. | |
|
| | |
Re: It's the market, unfortunatelySoon they'll expose that Caller ID is making criminal profits too. | |
|
| | | |
factchecker
Anon
2008-Jan-29 12:11 pm
Re: It's the market, unfortunatelysaid 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 1 edit |
FFH5
Premium Member
2008-Jan-29 12:13 pm
Re: It's the market, unfortunatelysaid 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. | |
|
| | | | | |
factchecker
Anon
2008-Jan-29 12:51 pm
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. | |
|
| | | | | | |
ooglyoggly
Anon
2008-Jan-29 4:04 pm
Re: It's the market, unfortunatelyAnd we still get a charge for Touch Tone! | |
|
| | | | |
to factchecker
The 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? | |
|
| | |
JasonD to FFH5
Anon
2008-Jan-29 10:03 am
to FFH5
Agreed. And they should keep raising the fee until they reach the profit apex point. They could quickly drop the price if SMS demand warrants it or they become too out of step with the market. They'd just be leaving money on the table if they don't, plus it would be hard to find an easier way to add shareholder value. | |
|
| | |
to FFH5
But do you consider this a moral thing to do? | |
|
| | | en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA |
en102
Member
2008-Jan-29 11:41 am
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. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: It's the market, unfortunatelyAh, 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? | |
|
| | | | | en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA |
en102
Member
2008-Jan-29 2:53 pm
Re: It's the market, unfortunatelyThat's why they have legality through contracts/service agreements bought for by lobbiests and lawyers. | |
|
| | | | |
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? | |
|
| | | 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. | |
|
| | | | |
factchecker
Anon
2008-Jan-29 1:06 pm
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. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
anaonono to jhboricua
Anon
2008-Jan-29 3:42 pm
to jhboricua
Moral thing to do? Do you think ANYONE standing to gain from any phone company's profits cares at all whether or not it is the moral thing to do?
Business is business, the only goal is to make as much money as possible. Any perception of morality is merely an attempt to make more money by giving some appearance of a company being moral to gain more customers, thus, make more money.
The only motivation behind any action any company does is to make more money. Bottom line. There is no such thing as "moral" in business. | |
|
| | |
to FFH5
also don't forget, "there's a sucker born every minute". | |
|
| |
to MightyPez
That is EXACTLY correct. We are willing to pay for something that has 'value'. Why do you think P2P is so popular? Because it has no 'value', which is why it's free. If the **AA's got in the game, and charged reasonable prices that people were willing to pay, they could become the 'water' vendor of the internet. Instead, they cling to their outdated system of placing an arbitrary value on something that HAS NO VALUE. A bit is a bit is a bit. The fact that they are organized in a certain way doesn't make the price of ZERO suddenly add up to $17.99. | |
|
| | Dan48Trailer Park Supervisor Premium Member join:2002-12-17 Eh?
1 recommendation |
Dan48
Premium Member
2008-Jan-29 9:54 am
Re: It's the market, unfortunatelyHow did that jump to a RIAA slag from a topic on sms? | |
|
| | | snipper_cr Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Wheaton, IL |
Re: It's the market, unfortunatelysaid by Dan48:How did that jump to a RIAA slag from a topic on sms? Stand by for blaming it on the bush administration! | |
|
| | | PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301 Premium Member join:2005-01-03 |
to Dan48
said 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. | |
|
| Kfedka Premium Member join:2005-05-06 Spokane, WA |
to MightyPez
I've had a cellphone for three years first year being Tmobile and last two years being Verizon. I have seen a drop of 0% on the rate. ISP's are either dropping rates or increasing bandwidth speeds, But these phone companies or doing neither.
There seems to be no competition whatsoever, even with some many wireless phone companies. | |
|
| | disc join:2005-12-31 Raleigh, NC 1 edit |
disc
Member
2008-Jan-29 10:49 am
Re: It's the market, unfortunatelysaid by Kfedka:I've had a cellphone for three years first year being Tmobile and last two years being Verizon. I have seen a drop of 0% on the rate. ISP's are either dropping rates or increasing bandwidth speeds, But these phone companies or doing neither. Rumour is that Sprint is going to start some price wars: » www.thestreet.com/s/spri ··· googlefi | |
|
| | | PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301 Premium Member join:2005-01-03 |
Re: It's the market, unfortunatelysaid 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. | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2 Zoom 5341J
1 recommendation |
to MightyPez
It'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. | |
|
| Ulmo join:2005-09-22 Aptos, CA 1 edit |
to MightyPez
said by MightyPez:As it was mentioned on Slashdot and on this site before as well, people are willing to pay it, so companies are more than willing to charge it. I myself have a data plan that includes unlimited text messaging. Remember, we are willing to pay money for a bottle of water that we can get for free and cleaner out of a tap (well, in most cases, anyway). When we pay for something, we perceive it has value. Not all of us are that stupid, and get the free water instead, but can't do without texts. As soon as there's a phone plan without the outrageous fees, of course we'll use it. | |
|
morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000
1 recommendation |
morbo
Member
2008-Jan-29 9:54 am
kidskids and teens are the biggest SMS users. so this is a tax/fee on their ignorance. | |
|
| |
Re: kidssaid by morbo:kids and teens are the biggest SMS users. so this is a tax/fee on their ignorance. I've reached the point where I'd rather just call the person then spend the time tapping out a message. I used to have Verizon's Unlimited IN text messaging with 500 other messages and it cost $10. Then, I noticed most months I would have no more than 20-30 total messages (in/out). Well, even if it were 30 message @ $0.30 a message, that's only $9.00 so I still saved money. Now that I know I don't have unlimited message, I use it even less. This past month was 19 messages (12 in / 7 out) for $2.85. | |
|
PToN Premium Member join:2001-10-04 Houston, TX |
PToN
Premium Member
2008-Jan-29 9:55 am
No way outPlus, you forget that you are obligated to have SMS even when you dont use it. Of course you pay for what you send and receive. But try calling and tell them you want SMS turned off... The time that happens it will be the same time the sun dies....
It's free money for them, just like water bottling companies, its a license to print money... | |
|
| ••••• |
B04 Premium Member join:2000-10-28 |
B04
Premium Member
2008-Jan-29 10:00 am
SMS and "Ringtones" - A Civilization in DeclineMy Subject line says it for me. The fact that people blithely and willingly pay such ridiculous markups for tiny chunks of WAV or MP3 files (usually for songs they already own) in super-secret Ringtone format for their free-with-2-year-commitment cell phones, and that they then pay dozens of extra dollars per month to text-chat with their friends instead of using the phone/Internet minutes they've already paid for... well let's just say it explains a lot of things. -- B | |
|
| •••••• |
Cod2 join:2000-07-05 Kernersville, NC |
Cod2
Member
2008-Jan-29 10:17 am
one sided arguement...Why doesn't this study take into account the fact that almost all people who use SMS on a regular basis pay for a text plan which is substantially cheaper:
AT&T prices- 200 text messages: $5.00 (10 cents/add'l msg) 1500 text messages: $15.00 (5 cents/add'l msg) Unlimited: $20.00 | |
|
| ••••• |
|
danc4498
Anon
2008-Jan-29 10:18 am
Raised pricesI think the reason prices were raised was to get people to move on to the unlimited plan texting programs. I imagine ATT wants to get rid of a cost per text model, and the only way is to do so (without lowering the price of the unlimited model), is to make the unlimited model more appealing. | |
|
| ••• |
|
slogansandbrands
Anon
2008-Jan-29 10:21 am
clever marketingit's clever marketing to get people to believe that the product cost so much and to convince consumers to buy those products and services.. well, all this was not lost on the company who knows to well that a sucker is born every day. sooner or later a company such as google will come and take away that lucrative market, and the likes of verizon will have a reckoning as well when real competition hits the marketplace it its 65 million subscriber heart.
hey, now that the economy isn't doing so well, maybe $4 for a cup of deluxe coffee wasn't such a hot idea.. starbucks might have to (oh no, the sky is falling) actually CLOSE SOME STORES! | |
|
| |
Starbux Achiever
Anon
2008-Jan-31 1:27 am
Re: clever marketingsaid by slogansandbrands :
it's clever marketing to get people to believe that the product cost so much and to convince consumers to buy those products and services.. hey, now that the economy isn't doing so well, maybe $4 for a cup of deluxe coffee wasn't such a hot idea.. starbucks might have to (oh no, the sky is falling) actually CLOSE SOME STORES! Oh get off it. I've bought "deluxe" coffee at Starbucks for a decade, and it never costs more than $1.50. My local donut franchise (Yum Yum) charges MORE than starbucks. McDonald's coffee is actually marginally better than SBUX, but they can't compete on ambiance, if you're among the few who wish to "dine in". I don't wish to appear a snob, but McD's is always laden with screaming kids, bums, and various lower-class folks with annoying habits. | |
|
1 recommendation |
One reason they fear opening the apps on the phonesFear of the moment you're able to run custom apps on their phones and can do IM over the internet bypassing their ridiculous SMS charges and/or plans. Even their own supplied AOL, MSN, Yahoo IM client applications are made to use SMS so they can charge you. Worst of all, they double dip as they charge you for the SMS message AND the bandwidth against your Internet allowance. | |
|
| djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV |
djrobx
Premium Member
2008-Jan-29 11:20 am
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. | |
|
jester121 Premium Member join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL |
jester121
Premium Member
2008-Jan-29 10:49 am
Kudos....Absolutely brilliant -- create technology that people want/like/can easily learn to use, and charge a price that clearly millions of people are willing to pay.
It makes me proud to be an American. | |
|
|
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. | |
|
|
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. | |
|
| |
Wilbur333
Anon
2008-Jan-29 2:10 pm
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. | |
|
| |
to Joe12345678
said by Joe12345678:why do you have to pay for incoming SMS / text spam? We get free incoming text messages from US Cellular. | |
|
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... | |
|
|
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. | |
|
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!! | |
|
| •••••••••• |
cghh join:2001-01-15 Milpitas, CA 1 edit |
cghh
Member
2008-Jan-29 6:13 pm
What does cost have to do with price?There seems to be an assumption in this thread that there should be a correlation between the cost to produce an item, and the price charged for it (other than the price is generally at least the cost). In a capitalistic system, the price a seller charges for an item is what what enough customers will pay for it. The more customers want an item, the more the seller can charge. Is the price for a painting by a famous artist based on the cost of the canvas and paints and other supplies used to produce the painting? Of course not! If one can produce an item for 10 cents that people are willing to pay $100 for, what is wrong with that?
Of course, if one feels that the capitalistic model is inherently immoral, then one's take on this would be quite different. | |
|
|
I don't pay for texting.Exactly the reason why I don't pay for texting. Sure I can get unlimited texting for only $15/month. Yea, it's not that much money. But I know it's a rip off. And even if it's cheap, I'm not going to buy it, because I know it's a rip off.
I'd be willing to pay maybe.... $2/month. Even then they'll be making a good profit. I'd be able to bring myself to pay that, but not $15. Not per text. Fuck them. | |
|
|
Well well, eat it ATT not me.Just yesterday i cancel my service with them because of this. The rep actually try to compare the rate hike to gas prices going up LOL. I told her i didn't sing any contract with OPEC or with my car manufacturer. Went with sprint and got free text and pic for two years. | |
|
|
Its a Secret
Anon
2008-Jan-30 8:42 pm
Text and caller ID costsAs an ex mobile phone employee, I can tell you text, caller ID, call forwarding etc. cost providers nothing. The capability came as a direct result of digital network implementation.
Your're being ripped off to the N-th degree... it's pure gravy like the system and access fees. | |
|
| |
Richard Wireless
Anon
2008-Jan-31 12:18 pm
Re: Text and caller ID costsCarriers have to pay feature licenses at switch such as caller id, call forward, etc.. But still thats nothing compared to what they are charging all customers. said by Its a Secret :
As an ex mobile phone employee, I can tell you text, caller ID, call forwarding etc. cost providers nothing. The capability came as a direct result of digital network implementation.
Your're being ripped off to the N-th degree... it's pure gravy like the system and access fees. | |
|
|
|