What Carriers Don't Want You To Know About Texting

An anonymous reader writes "Randall Stross has just published a sobering article in The New York Times about how the four major US wireless carriers don't want anyone to know the actual cost structure of text message services to avoid public outrage over the doubling of a-la-carte per-message fees over the last three years. The truth is that text messages are 'stowaways' inside the control channel — bandwidth that is there whether it is used for texting or not — and 160 bytes per message is a tiny amount of data to store-and-forward over tower-to-tower landlines. In essence it costs carriers practically nothing to transmit even trillions of text messages. When text usage goes up, the carriers don't even have to install new infrastructure as long as it is proportional to voice usage. This makes me dream of the day when there is real competition in the wireless industry, not this gang-of-four oligopoly."

This makes me dream...

[TuaAmin13]

Of when we'll be nickled and dimed for text messages instead of quartered.

Goodness gracious me

[hobbit]

Next you'll be telling me that when you buy Coca-Cola, you're mostly just getting sugar and water!

This just in...

[geekmux]

Addictive behavior (texting) + Monopolistic cellular rule over addictive technology = obscene rates.

Even Larry Ellison is sitting back looking at his cellular bill going "Holy shit. And I thought I ripped people off."

Re:Goodness gracious me

[z_gringo]

When they say "everywhere else", that means Mexico.

Re:Correlation

[Dachannien]

But when it costs around the same amount as a minute of telephone call, I can't help wondering if they would be better off just making a short call...

But that would be, like, totally lame! (or ghey, or whatever it is those whippersnappers are saying these days)

Re:Correlation

[3vi1]

You're right, it's the only way.

Maybe one day some one will invent a way that the two people could use their phones to exchange messages by voice, saving all of the time wasted punching out misspelled words.

Or, if it's not in need of immediate attention, maybe they could invent a way to "record" a message into a "voice mailbox".

Re:Another perspective -

[betterunixthanunix]

"From what I read on Techdirt, it claims that communications between Hubble and Earth cost around $18/MB; in conclusion, I'd say the rates I pay for texting are actually a bargain."

Unless your girlfriend lives on the ISS, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Re:Correlation

[Anonymous Coward]

Or during an grammar test.

Re:Correlation

[Igarden2]

And how convenient that all of the elements have short two letter symbols, perfect for texting. Now, if I could only remember some of them....

Re:This makes me dream...

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I thought he said /other/ countries...

Re:Correlation

[Austerity Empowers]

Hurray for the virtues of value based pricing. If we could find a catchy name for it, it might be legal for rich people to murder poor people too!

Re:This makes me dream...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of when we'll be nickled and dimed for text messages instead of drawn and quartered.
 
There, fixed that for ya. Because, you know, they charge at least one arm and one leg.

Re:Correlation

[thethibs]

So let me understand this: The wave of the future is that we'll be talking to our computers and typing on our phones? "Oh brave new world..."

Re:INCORRECT Correlation

[More_Cowbell]

"WTF? Does that mean the US telcos are double dipping?!"

No, it is just a different model.

Don't you mean: "Yes, but it is also a different model."?

Re:Goodness gracious me

[submain]

Only on slashdot a thread can go from text messaging to high fructose corn syrup.