SMS Prices Higher Than Mars Transmissions Costs Yet the Public Keeps Paying for It.... Wednesday Nov 28 2012 10:16 EDT There has been no limit to the number of folks that have pointed out that SMS is an obnoxious and bloated cash cow, carriers charging a fortune for a simple 160 character, 140 byte message, despite it costing them virtually nothing to send (as it travels along an always live tower control channel). That realization is usually followed by people pointing out that carriers charge this because people are stupid enough to continue paying for it, even with the rise of alternative mobile IM platforms like Google Voice or iMessage. The latest outrage over SMS pricing comes courtesy of Rick Falkvinge, the founder of Sweden's Pirate Party, who points out that the cost of sending a text message is greater than what it costs to send the same message from Mars to Earth. His math: quote:
The cost of the Mars Global Surveyor probe was roughly 200 million USD for the satellite and launch, plus 20 million per year. So, 400 million USD. It operated for nine years, transmitting at an assumed average of 42,667 bps. Assuming it transmitted 24/7, that comes down to 42,667 × 3,600 × 24 × 365 × 9 / 8 / 1,024 / 1,024 / 1,024 = 1,410 gigabytes of data at a cost of 400 million dollars, or roughly 284,000 US dollars per gigabyte. That number includes the cost of the actual Mars probe and its launch, as well as the cost of the NASA crew handling its journey to Mars for almost a year before it started transmitting.The charge for sending an SMS text message next door is about 5 USD cents (let’s use the same currency for simpliticy’s sake). Each text message is 160 140 bytes. This means that there are 1,024 × 1,024 × 1,024 / 140 = 7.67 million text messages per gigabyte. Multiplying this number by 0.05 gives us that the traffic charge when sending an SMS text message next door is 383,000 US dollars per gigabyte.
Falkvinge goes on to insist this is a total failure of the free market (carriers of course argue the exact opposite), recommending that phone companies need "to be politically restrained with a complete absence of humor." The piece doesn't mention that SMS as a cash cow is slowly dying (even if it's taking longer for that reality to reach the United States). With SMS and voice being simply supplanted by data, the industry is now offering unlimited SMS pricing if users sign up for new family shared data plans. Still, carriers will get their pound of flesh one way or another, most simply jacking up the price of LTE data to keep your end bill the same. |
 amungus
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
America
kudos:1  ·Cox HSI
|
amungus
Premium Member
2012-Nov-28 9:09 am
alternatives are limitedThe biggest problem with any alternative is getting everyone you know on the same service. SMS/MMS is "universal," even (and perhaps especially) between those without smartphones.
The other problem is that carriers seem to keep messing with plans - I can't get much other than "unlimited" or "pay as you go." Neither are great options. Quite the comparison though, I dig it.
The carriers know that they have folks suckered into it, and don't see any reason to change. Hopefully, someday, we'll see it included in more post paid plans, perhaps when 4G becomes more prevalent? | |
|  | | |
anon0123
Anon
2012-Nov-28 11:56 am
Re: alternatives are limitedTwo words: Google Voice | |
| | | | |
Re: alternatives are limitedI do use google voice, but until i can have an android smartphone that gets a full-day's charge with normal use while keeping the data connection on, it's simply a niche. I dont know anyone with a half-way decent android phone that can keep data on all day without a charger and have battery left to go out after work. I know some heavy iphone users in the same boat.
I use txting b/c i can turn my 3G/LTE data connection off to save battery but still use take and rec calls and txts over the much less hungry voice network. | |
| | | | | |
Re: alternatives are limitedsaid by Somnambul33t:I do use google voice, but until i can have an android smartphone that gets a full-day's charge with normal use while keeping the data connection on, it's simply a niche. I dont know anyone with a half-way decent android phone that can keep data on all day without a charger and have battery left to go out after work. I know some heavy iphone users in the same boat.
I use txting b/c i can turn my 3G/LTE data connection off to save battery but still use take and rec calls and txts over the much less hungry voice network.
You're in luck. » www.motorola.com/us/cons ··· ,pd.html | |
| | | | |  simlesa
Premium Member
join:2006-04-14
Astoria, NY |
simlesa
Premium Member
2012-Nov-29 12:03 am
Re: alternatives are limitedI have the Razr Maxx (which has the same battery as the HD), and no, it can't keep the charge all day. If I keep anything running on the phone all day, I will need a charge in 5-6 hours. Even with this phone, I'm stuck either charging it midday, or carrying a portable battery with me, or just closing any app that maintains a data connection (Google Voice, Skype, or similar). | |
| | | | | | | |
Re: alternatives are limitedA data connection with the screen in sleep mode with the screen off, or a data connection with the screen on and you using it the entire time?
If you're claiming the former then it sounds like you either have a defective device or some other kind of problem. If you mean the latter then maybe you should give your phone a break every few hours. | |
| | | | | | | simlesa
Premium Member
join:2006-04-14
Astoria, NY |
simlesa
Premium Member
2012-Nov-29 4:02 pm
Re: alternatives are limitedI mean I use it to check Facebook and such once every 20-30 minutes. Other times the screen is off, but the phone is not in sleep mode because that would make it not ring. And it's not the particulal phone, because I replaced the first one I had after the screen broke. Because the apps like Google voice depend on a non-stop connection so it can notify you when someone calls/texts/etc. it means they constantly keep the processor running and the data connection open. The phone also heats up a lot due to this. | |
|
| | | | |
to Somnambul33t
There is a phone that will do exactly that on Verizon. Razr maxx hd. I got one two weeks ago and with abnormal use I can keep a full days charge. | |
| | | | |
| | bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1 |
to anon0123
...you didn't actually read the post before replying, did you? | |
| | | | stridr69
join:2003-05-19
San Luis Obispo, CA |
Re: alternatives are limitedI did. And I have a Razr Maxx HD and now I never worry about running to get a charger prior to the end of the day. Easily go 15 hours with 2 or 3 hours of online streaming, hour or so of social networking, same with you tube vids(HD stream), hour or so actually using the phone......to make a phone call. Imagine that! Also the galaxy s III, galaxy note 2 are also long lasting phones. Android has finally become a mature OS with 4.0(ICS) and it's only going to get better as phone manufactures get with the program with installing large batteries in their phones.  | |
|
 jjoshua
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3 |
jjoshua
Premium Member
2012-Nov-28 9:26 am
Stupid comparisonDistance isn't the factor. It's the infrastructure and resources required to send data from anyone on the planet to anyone else on the planet that costs money.
Point to point is easy.
Telco prices still suck. | |
| | | |
Telco
Member
2012-Nov-28 9:53 am
Re: Stupid comparisonWhen it comes to text, it uses the coms channel, so the infrastructure is already there and in use anyway.
Text messages literally cost a carrier nothing. | |
| | | | |
Re: Stupid comparisonIt costs you very little to get to work so why are you not working for very little?
Would it make you happy if they stopped charging $20/mo for unlimited text messages and moved that $20 to your voice plan? | |
| | | | |
to Telco
said by Telco:When it comes to text, it uses the coms channel, so the infrastructure is already there and in use anyway. Umm, some amount of additional infrastructure is required, as are peering agreements with other telco providers. Text messages have a non-zero cost. It's admittedly a very small cost, but it's a cost nonetheless. | |
| | | jjoshua
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3 |
to Telco
Except for all of the infrastructure and people required to keep it happening.
Regardless of specific cost to send a SMS, it's a ridiculous comparison. | |
|
| |
Telco
Member
2012-Nov-28 9:50 am
PricingHe's using 5 cents as a basis. In reality, most major US carriers now charge 20 cents per text message. Therefore, it's actually even higher than that. worse off, we pay to receive them here too. Just goes to shows how stupid we are.
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. It also cements why we need to put our Consumer Protection agency into force to cover everything 'We the People' utilize quick-smart.
We have the worst recession since the Great Depression yet the carriers have not budged once inch on prices. In fact, they have just thrown in unlimited and actually increased pricing. | |
| | | |
Re: Pricingsaid 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 Member
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2 |
Re: PricingAnd 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. | |
| | | | | |
Re: PricingGrow 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 Member
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2 |
Re: PricingI 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. | |
| | | | | | | |
Telco
Member
2012-Nov-29 3:46 pm
Re: PricingThese 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. | |
|
| | | | The Limit
Premium Member
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2 |
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. | |
| | | | | | | |
Re: PricingSMS 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 Member
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2 |
Re: PricingWhat 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
delusion ftl
Anon
2012-Nov-28 5:04 pm
Re: PricingThis 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | The Limit
Premium Member
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2 |
Re: PricingI 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? | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
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. | |
|
| | | |
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. | |
| | | | | |
Re: PricingIt'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. | |
|
| |
Being Stupid Enough To Pay For ItSo paying for texting plans is "stupid," is it? Let's do the math. My texting plan costs me $5/mo. for 300 text messages and works with anybody that has a wireless phone. To go to a data plan, so I could use somebody's proprietary messaging system that only works with people that have signed-up for it, would cost me an additional $50-$70/mo.
Right.
Jim | |
| |
••• | Network Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-08-25
New York
kudos:3  ·T-Mobile US
 ·Google Voice
 ·Verizon FiOS
|
People are stupid and will continue to bePrepaid MVNO's have existed for some time now. Most of these include unlimited messaging, some even charge no tax at all.
There is a business model behind every stupid product catered to every dumbass in this planet. The major phone companies know this, and will continue to serve you accordingly. | |
| |
•••••• |  IowaCowboyIowa native
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1 |
Unlimited for meI have the Verizon ShareEverything plan and I have both unlimited talk & text.
Only thing I have to watch is data. If it wasn't for caps, the data would be unusable as people would overuse it, thus straining the network. I use Verizon Wireless data to supplement my Comcast home connection, not replace it. I use VZW data on the go, I use my secure home Wi-Fi when I am at home. I don't use public Wi-Fi hotspots as those are open to data security threats. | |
| |
••••••••••• | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA |
elray
Member
2012-Nov-28 12:29 pm
A non-issueThere are a half-dozen ways to get SMS service for cheap.
If you don't want to switch to one of them, then you have no one to blame but yourself. | |
| wistlo
join:2003-01-04
New Orleans, LA |
wistlo
Member
2012-Nov-28 2:52 pm
fair up the comparisionTo be fair, coverage on Mars is limited to two very local hot spots with a subscriber base of two.
Text messaging for the rest of us requires tens of thousands of towers and backhaul to be able to provide SMS functionality across 97 of the people or the roughly 2/3 of the land area, in the US's case.
It's been long known that SMS rides on a control channel that does not increase bandwidth requirements, at all. (Known since its invention, actually). The only real costs is having additional back end infrastructure to buffer and route the messages.
What's really happening is SMS is subsidizing data. The $30/month or so goes toward the whole package: voice, data, and SMS.
Concern over pricing is legitimate. It might be a little more honest to charge for data and just drop the pretense. But if one imagines a carrier with no voice and no data revenue, just SMS, how much would that need to cost to cover the towers and T1s? (And I know, all the less direct stuff like advertising, golf sponsorships, lobbying, executive salaries, etc.)
That said, this comparison remains pretty entertaining. | |
|  wmcbrine213 251 145 96
join:2002-12-30
Laurel, MD
kudos:1 |
Obligatory OCD space nerd postThe comparison presented is to the Mars Global Surveyor mission (an orbiter), but the illustration used here appears to be of the Mars Curiosity rover. Which BTW is significantly more expensive, at around $2.5 billion. | |
| BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
EARTH |
BiggA
Premium Member
2012-Nov-28 9:03 pm
Same story over againWe know it's a rip off. It's the same old thing over again. Yes, there are alternatives, no they don't fully replace control channel SMS. SMS is unlimited in the new plans, so you're not paying specifically for SMS, but you're still paying for it one way or another. | |
| | |
SMS for cheapI used to use text plus but they still won't allow picture texts. It uploads the picture to their server and then sends a link to the other person. Plus the text plus service is down a lot more than Verizon is.
Someone show me a SMS service that's up 99% of the time (like verizon texts) and can send full pictures and I'll switch to it. | |
| |  XANAVirus
Premium Member
join:2012-03-03
Lavalette, WV |
XANAVirus
Premium Member
2012-Nov-28 11:20 pm
Re: SMS for cheapHeyWire. | |
|
 a333A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY |
a333
Member
2012-Dec-3 8:04 pm
Not sure what the fuss is...Unless you're on AT&T with their retarded SMS pricing structures, most carriers and/or MVNO's provide fairly reasonable ways to get a large number of (or unlimited) messaging. I recently went on T-mobile's postpaid value plans, and I only pay $5 for unlimited texting and MMS. Verizon currently includes unlimited voice and messaging on all shared plans, and I'm pretty sure Sprint has a few reasonable options for unlimited messaging. If you REALLY want to avoid messaging fees, most semi-smartphones these days can log into Google Voice's HTML interface and send a message, and most recent Androids (even the cheap throwaway phones IIRC) have Google Voice support baked into the ROM's floating out there. Finally, there's the fallback of, you know, actually using your phone as a.... phone to get your message across... nah, scratch that.
Even if you're not postpaid, prepaid carriers and MVNO's have had unlimited messaging for ages... I know for a fact that my old T-mobile prepaid service did. Services like Pageplus (Which rides on Verizon's network), Straighttalk, and Simple Mobile also tend to include unlimited messaging (sometimes even international messaging), and they charge only sales tax to boot... The problem here is that customers are content to not look around and keep blindly paying the ridiculous pay-per-use rates (or stay on carriers with stupid pricing structures for messaging and data)... until people vote with their wallets, little can change. | |
|
| |
|
How about .. |
·
·
·
·
