4 ms·

Honestly, I really don't mind the SMS charge. Sure, each text isn't very expensive, but cell phone companies have to take huge risks to build the infrastructur

Honestly, I really don't mind the SMS charge. Sure, each text isn't very expensive, but cell phone companies have to take huge risks to build the infrastructure to send those texts. It's kind of like bashing Facebook for charging for "virtual drinks". Sure, it's free for them. But they've earned the right to sell it.

fossuser 16y ago
I would liken it more to your ISP charging you an additional $30 a month on top of your internet subscription to be able to use instant messaging.
- corin_ 16y ago
  I wouldn't. That would be comparable to phone networks charging for access to instant messaging on their phone (on top of data costs). Charging for SMS is more like your ISP charging you an additional $xx/month to use an instant messaging system that they themselves provide and host.
orangecat 16y ago
I can see that, but the lockstep price doubling in the last few years is pretty clearly collusion. If you want a real ripoff, look at tethering "plans" where they charge you for literally nothing except not deliberately blocking certain data traffic.
schwabacher 16y ago
If they had taken risks in a perfect market, I would agree. The problem, at least in the US, is that because a limited amount of spectrum is available, and only a few companies have been given an exclusive right to use it, wireless data is natural monopoly / oligopoly. Cable, telephone, wireless monopolies are very similar to, and should clearly be regulated in a similar way to power and water utilities... The only reason that they are not in the United States is political corruption.
magic_haze 16y ago
I'm not sure if this isn't an urban legend (I couldn't find any references on wikipedia)) but I was under the impression that the infrastructure used by sms would have been needed anyway for other GMS related services: transmitting things like the time etc., and sms doesn't cost them any extra. In this case at least, it definitely reeks of double dipping.

fossuser 16y ago

I would liken it more to your ISP charging you an additional $30 a month on top of your internet subscription to be able to use instant messaging.

corin_ 16y ago
I wouldn't. That would be comparable to phone networks charging for access to instant messaging on their phone (on top of data costs). Charging for SMS is more like your ISP charging you an additional $xx/month to use an instant messaging system that they themselves provide and host.

orangecat 16y ago

I can see that, but the lockstep price doubling in the last few years is pretty clearly collusion. If you want a real ripoff, look at tethering "plans" where they charge you for literally nothing except not deliberately blocking certain data traffic.

schwabacher 16y ago

If they had taken risks in a perfect market, I would agree. The problem, at least in the US, is that because a limited amount of spectrum is available, and only a few companies have been given an exclusive right to use it, wireless data is natural monopoly / oligopoly. Cable, telephone, wireless monopolies are very similar to, and should clearly be regulated in a similar way to power and water utilities... The only reason that they are not in the United States is political corruption.

magic_haze 16y ago

I'm not sure if this isn't an urban legend (I couldn't find any references on wikipedia)) but I was under the impression that the infrastructure used by sms would have been needed anyway for other GMS related services: transmitting things like the time etc., and sms doesn't cost them any extra. In this case at least, it definitely reeks of double dipping.