4 ms·

Why is it then that the US cellular providers are the only ones that charge for incoming texts? This doesn't seem like a case where if they didn't charge for it

by pyre 14y ago

Why is it then that the US cellular providers are the only ones that charge for incoming texts? This doesn't seem like a case where if they didn't charge for it, their entire business model would collapse. At least for US cellular providers, it's very clearly a tactic to push people towards paying monthly for 'unlimited text messaging' by attempting to make the per-message pricing prohibitively expensive. The "illusion of options" so to speak. Providing you with multiple options, but making sure that only one of the options makes economic sense (ensuring that the majority of people choose it).

spindritf 14y ago
> Why is it then that the US cellular providers are the only ones that charge for incoming texts? Why would anyone care how their bill is sliced? Why do you care about anything beyond the total cost of owning a (smart)phone per month or year? Incoming texts, outgoing texts, network upkeep... it's a meaningless line on the bill. Sure, some configurations will be a little better for you, some will be a little better for someone else depending on your usage pattern but in the end telcos have to pay their own bills, and have something on top for their investors, so they'll charge you somehow for something.
- manaskarekar 14y ago
  It matters because not all users use all the services. The ones who use the services that bear the burden of 'paying the bills for the carriers' are the ones who are subsidizing other services for you.
- pyre 14y ago
  It doesn't help when the telcos are dishonest about their pricing structures/rules. E.g. claiming that the early termination fees were 'to recover the subsidized cost of the phone' when the ETFs were a flat fee (no matter if you terminated the contract when it was 10% complete or 90% complete). You can say that it's 'their prerogative' to charge a fee for breaking the contract, and that's fine[1]. It's when they try to twist the truth to make it not sound so harsh that it really irks me. [1] The contracts also don't have to be so one-sided. If I need to be penalized for early termination of the contract, why isn't the telco also penalized if they terminate the contract early? AFAIK, there is something in the law about contracts needing to have equal consideration for both sides. If a contract is too one-sided, then it (or at least parts it) can be ruled invalid.
shenberg 14y ago
The most expensive resource for a cellular provider is RF spectrum. You use that up when you receive a call or text too, so it might actually make more sense to charge for both, but consumers are so used to only paying for outgoing calls that they don't care.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  Text messages are piggy-backed onto status/control messages that would be sent regardless, and the slot length is fixed so a shorter / longer message does not change the bandwidth requirement at all. This is the origin of the limited length of these messages.
  - shenberg 14y ago
    You need to get an active channel with the network, which means to tell a cell that you want to talk to it, have it allocate resources for you, get the SMS and send an ACK. It's true that if you already have a data channel active (e.g. you're talking to someone) then you piggy-back the SMS and ACK on it (with audible degradation in audio quality in 2g connections), but that isn't the case most of the time.

by pyre 14y ago

spindritf 14y ago

> Why is it then that the US cellular providers are the only ones that charge for incoming texts? Why would anyone care how their bill is sliced? Why do you care about anything beyond the total cost of owning a (smart)phone per month or year? Incoming texts, outgoing texts, network upkeep... it's a meaningless line on the bill. Sure, some configurations will be a little better for you, some will be a little better for someone else depending on your usage pattern but in the end telcos have to pay their own bills, and have something on top for their investors, so they'll charge you somehow for something.

manaskarekar 14y ago
It matters because not all users use all the services. The ones who use the services that bear the burden of 'paying the bills for the carriers' are the ones who are subsidizing other services for you.
pyre 14y ago
It doesn't help when the telcos are dishonest about their pricing structures/rules. E.g. claiming that the early termination fees were 'to recover the subsidized cost of the phone' when the ETFs were a flat fee (no matter if you terminated the contract when it was 10% complete or 90% complete). You can say that it's 'their prerogative' to charge a fee for breaking the contract, and that's fine[1]. It's when they try to twist the truth to make it not sound so harsh that it really irks me. [1] The contracts also don't have to be so one-sided. If I need to be penalized for early termination of the contract, why isn't the telco also penalized if they terminate the contract early? AFAIK, there is something in the law about contracts needing to have equal consideration for both sides. If a contract is too one-sided, then it (or at least parts it) can be ruled invalid.

shenberg 14y ago

The most expensive resource for a cellular provider is RF spectrum. You use that up when you receive a call or text too, so it might actually make more sense to charge for both, but consumers are so used to only paying for outgoing calls that they don't care.

jacquesm 14y ago
Text messages are piggy-backed onto status/control messages that would be sent regardless, and the slot length is fixed so a shorter / longer message does not change the bandwidth requirement at all. This is the origin of the limited length of these messages.
- shenberg 14y ago
  You need to get an active channel with the network, which means to tell a cell that you want to talk to it, have it allocate resources for you, get the SMS and send an ACK. It's true that if you already have a data channel active (e.g. you're talking to someone) then you piggy-back the SMS and ACK on it (with audible degradation in audio quality in 2g connections), but that isn't the case most of the time.