Text Rip-Off? Pricey Messages 'Cost Virtually Nothing' to Carriers

The one that really annoys me is that you always have to transmit to a cell phone tower for everything. Fair enough for long distance calls, but I can't help but feel a little ripped off when my call is only going about 200m, but instead goes many times that as it goes to at least one tower in the middle, which is probably further away than the other person. It would be difficult to implement, and they wouldn't do it because it would reduce their profits, but if phones could behave as radios it would be great. The only cost to the user would be the electricity to charge the battery of the phone/radio.

Oh, and with texts, the other thing that annoys me is the data rate, it's a 160byte message, sending on at least a 4kbyte/s system per phone(probably more, I don't remember the exact figures for voice transmission), and it takes noticeable time to transmit a text, seriously, WTF?

reply to post by on_yur_6


I only used the Robin Hood reference to contrast yours. The carriers appear to be in collusion and fixing prices. That is not only unethical, its illegal.

I understand and sympathize with your argument, I just don't think it applies to this circumstance. Government does have its place. For the federal government, to me, that includes national defense, a unified currency, and regulation of interstate commerce. Effectively monopolizing an industry and conspiring to fix prices defrauds consumers and is illegal.

What? WHY is this an issue? WHY is there a Senator involved? Don't want to pay for texts? DON'T SUBSCRIBE! DON'T TEXT! Carriers can charge what they charge for texting because PEOPLE WILL PAY FOR IT. SINCE PEOPLE WILL PAY FOR IT, OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE FEEL THEY AREN'T GETTING RIPPED OFF! That's the whole point of the free market. This is EXACTLY why we're in the mess we're in - government poking their noses where it doesn't belong. This is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

Man, there are A LOT of Communists on this board

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
What? WHY is this an issue? WHY is there a Senator involved? Don't want to pay for texts? DON'T SUBSCRIBE! DON'T TEXT! Carriers can charge what they charge for texting because PEOPLE WILL PAY FOR IT. SINCE PEOPLE WILL PAY FOR IT, OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE FEEL THEY AREN'T GETTING RIPPED OFF! That's the whole point of the free market. This is EXACTLY why we're in the mess we're in - government poking their noses where it doesn't belong. This is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

Man, there are A LOT of Communists on this board

So, are you suggesting that consumers should not be protected ?

Calling people Communists (lol, I bet you never seen one in your entire life) on this board will not get you far, I urge you to fix that

reply to post by ChocoTaco369


At least there is someone here that understands this is a joke.

And to the price fixing nonsense. Each carrier around here has different prices for their plans. The unlimited plans by some finally forced my carrier to jump on the bandwagon.

If anyone wants to go around screaming price fixing then look at the gasoline prices. It jumped 11 cents by noon today aat all stations. Why??? New Year's eve and many people will be out and about. Happens all of the time. The price will trickle back down over the next two weeks.

Why don't all of you screaming about unethical practices focus on the oil industry instead of the texting nonsense. At least oil is something we need on a day to day basis.

reply to post by ChocoTaco369


Except the market isn't free and it never has been. Its rigged, and the latest round of taxpayer sponsored bailouts is just more evidence of same. Who do you think convinced the government to pass the bailout bills? Taxpayers?

Throwing labels around like they mean something just makes you seem like a telecom lobbyist. Maybe there are a few of those on this thread, who knows?

reply to post by on_yur_6


There are plenty of threads about the excesses of big oil on the boards, just do a search. That isn't the topic of this thread. I never said it was of earth shattering importance. Its news, and its of interest to me and many others on this site. Who are you to dictate what matters to others? Just because gas prices are a bigger slice of the economic pie, I shouldn't post this story or bother commenting on it? Come on. Price gouging is price gouging.

I admit I was a bit surprised it made the home page top right yesterday. I have posted what I consider weightier topics, but I don't presume to decide what interests others for them.

Originally posted by kozmo

We already know it is to pay the already and otherwise wealthy stockholders, but it is also to allow a compay to expand, engage in R&D etc... But WAIT... Aren't those operating expenses!?!?

My contention, in addition to eliminating the Federal Reserve would be to eliminate Wall St. and the stock market. It is nothing more than an additional fleecing of the average consumer to enrich the already wealthy. Corporations should be forced to record ZERO profit, meaning that they will be forced to reinvest every penny coming in on operations. This will cause an incentive for companies to either a.) pay their workers more; b.) lower the price of their product; c.) pour the money into developing new products/technologies and d.) some combination of the aforementioned.

As long as the "Stock Market" exists, there will be an incentive to fleece the consuming public. There is very obvious price collusion amongst these companies to ensure profit. What ever happened to the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities Exchange Commission, the enforcement of predatory business laws and anti-trust legislation???

Oh wait, I know... they have been rendered ineffective by the politicians enjoying the largesse of the major corporations in the form of "campaign contributions". I mean, why stop the gravy train, right?

My first thought was that it was bizarre to put the phrase "stock market" in quotes. What do you call it exactly? Secondly, R&D is a capital investment much more than an operating expense. In fact I looked at Wikipedia which actually goes further to imply it would be "the opposite" of an operating expense. Thirdly, eliminating wall street does absolute zero to stop the potential for hyperinflation, the printing of worthless money, and transfer of wealth from the more poor to the more rich which is precisely what the federal reserve does when it prints fiat money and hands it over to the rich.

Fourthly, your idea to eliminate Wall Street is a horrific idea. Horrible! Instead of the poor having an opportunity to own a piece of companies, then companies become the exclusive domain of the rich. Perhaps you don't realize that the stock market allows the fluid transfer ownership corporations. You think just by throwing a wrench into the machine that people will simply stop owning corporations?

Now, regarding "forcing corporations to record zero profit". That idea is just downright insulting. Do you understand what an income statement is?! It is a physical impossibility if accounting is accurately done to grow a company that makes 0% or less profit. Therefore, the best a corporation would do is grow 0% and on average it would shrink due to its technologies and methods becoming obsolete over time.

I cant' believe how irresponsible it is for you to even suggest such a thing without laying out a system that could actually replace it! Maybe you are one of those Communists who thinks everything would be so wonderful if big-brother was in charge of absolutely everything including corporations.

Ignoring the previous four pages of posts, I just have to ask....

Who DIDN'T know that texting was a huge ripoff? I thought this was common knowledge. I mean, they may put up an elaborate pricing scheme and excuses to make customers think they're not getting sodomized bigtime, much like oil companies and their $5+ a gallon prices... but in the end, you either use the service or you don't. Enough people are willing to pay the price to text on these carriers services to justify the prices.

If you want to text for free, you could always carry around your laptop and hit WiFi hotspots to IM.

Personally, I always hated text messages on cell phones. They're a waste of time, like 90% of that bunk forwarded email. I figure, if you got something you need to tell me, then call me. I'll be glad to hear from ya. Don't text... and for christ's sake, don't text behind the wheel. I have absolutely no problems with you killing yourself due to a critical mass of stupidity, but when you're on the road you put other people's lives at risk. That I do have a problem with.

Well..I keep reading and I guess I just don't get it. I bought unlimited text for my daughters phone because it's .15 to send them. She can easily send more than 100 of the things a month. Why? I have no idea. I think the whole idea of text msg. pretty stupid. But it was easy to see when I looked at the contract what the costs were for anything I can do with my phone. Internet (another useless thing for a phone in my opinion),sms, and mms msgs. all have a cost per piece and there is a unlimited cost if one so chooses that they are important enough to look at those fwd FWD fwd emails at a traffic light. No one tries to hide all this. I guess if one was willing to sign one of those huge documents without reading it then it might be a surprise. Personally I wont be willing to say I'm going to give you X dollars a month without knowing where it's going and why. You can think it's a rip off all you want but if you sign the contract then you agree to the terms. and if you are willing to agree to the terms then it must not be too bad or you would not put your name on the line.

Want it to get cheaper? Try this, Stop doing it! The phone makers keep making phones that make messaging easier (QWERTY keyboards etc) but you are in no way forced to use it. If the supply is high and the demand gets less and less the price goes down. They (cell carriers) want you to spend money with them. So they are going to try and make their deals look better than brand X. I might spend a while two dollars a year on sms msgs. a year. I don't like sending them and really don't like getting them. I do see where it can be handy but not enough to get a txt plan myself. It's not worth the money to me. So I don't use it unless I really have to.

To the poster that thought it was odd for a 200 m distance from point A & B. Cell phones are not like walkie talkies. They work sending signals to towers that boost it so it can get to point B no matter if it's 200 meters ore 20,000 meters.

Back to the topic at hand. I can't see how we as customers get ripped off when we have the option of not signing on the dotted line and we have the option to make a call over being the thumbs of fury ninja I see so often sending some stupid fwd email joke to all in their addy book. Just say no to text messaging. I don't cost anything to not make them.and if you feel that the cell companies are not playing fair? Send them a message and don't use one. We all got along fine without them. Well, those of us that are old enough to remember life without them anyway. Whew..I remember when they were huge and it was .35 a minute. There were no real plans back then. You got one and you paid for the minutes used. Now that was a rip off!

reply to post by Icarus Rising


See my post on page 4 ..

[edit on 1/1/09 by RedDragon]

reply to post by apex


Because lowering costs always hurts profits.

reply to post by Lasheic


If you think oil prices are so over-priced, go to a venture capitalist with your plan on how to sell oil at half the price. If you really can, I'm sure someone would be interested.

[edit on 1/1/09 by RedDragon]

Originally posted by RedDragon
reply to post by apex

 

Because lowering costs always hurts profits.

I know. Thats the difference between what, say, a scientist would say is how it could be done, and how a businessman says it should be done. Naturally, we always get hit with what the businessman wants, of course.

Originally posted by DrumJunkieTo the poster that thought it was odd for a 200 m distance from point A & B. Cell phones are not like walkie talkies. They work sending signals to towers that boost it so it can get to point B no matter if it's 200 meters ore 20,000 meters.

Yeah, only they could work that way. There's nothing really preventing them from doing so. The phone could check to see if the destination phone was nearby or not before trying to connect to the tower first. If the signal can get to a tower a few miles away or so (in a rural area), it should easily be able to transmit to another phone. Or, alternatively, you could just have a phone that also works as a radio. Then you could just try communicating that way first.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by apex]

whine whine whine...

"It's not fair!!!!"


News flash! Life isn't fair! You have to make good choices, and choose what is good for you.

Nobody is responsible for you but you.

That is the beauty of Capitalism.

We teach our children to be fair to others, but we don't teach them how to protect themselves from those who want something from them. If we did, then there would not even be a discussion about this. Those who think it's a good service would still pay for it. Those who don't wouldn't... simple as that.

Stop blaming the world for your own problems.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I'm still stunned that you don't get it. You probably think its ok to rob Peter to pay Paul, too.

Why change? Because its unethical, and unethical business practices are bad for the industry, and bad for the economy as a whole. Left unchecked, unethical business practices such as this force the rest of the industry to follow suit or go out of business. Project the ripple effect across the entire economy, and you end up with the situation we are facing today. The whole system starts to collapse like a house of cards.

This is a reverse Robin Hood scenario. The rich are stealing from the poor, which is how most of them got rich to begin with. Lets all rip each other off and see where we end up. In a dog eat dog world, you end up without any dogs.

Actually, I don't think you get it.

If you regulate the price, then you are stealing from Peter to give it to Paul. If you wanted to sell something of yours to someone for $50, and I came along and said NO, you have to sell it for $10, then am I not in effect stealing $40 from you and giving it to the other guy?

If they want to charge 20 cents for a txt message, and you force them to only charge you 5 cents for each, then you are stealing 15 cents from them.

It may be that 20 cents is too much to pay. I certainly wouldn't pay it. My work pays for mine, and we have unlimited txt msgs. I wouldn't pay for it out of my own pocket. But that is my choice.

What business is it of yours to decide what is ethical for another person to charge? What business is it of yours to say how much a company should be forced to charge, rather than simply deciding what is not worth you to pay?

Nobody forces you to buy these things. You are the one who has decided to pay an unethical company. That was your choice.

I'd of course love free things. But I have no right to force someone to do such things. What is more unethical than forcing people against their will? You're actions make you more unethical than they are.

You talk about a dog eat dog world, but what you talk about is dog eat dog. If it wasn't dog eat dog, then you wouldn't be trying to force them to act as you want. You are trying to force them to feed you.

But go ahead, work for things that regulate the crap outta people. There is no punishment more suitable for you. As you will end up without any choices on service, nor will you get upgrades to services, and then you can be happy with your free, but crappy txt messaging system because you killed any incentive for companies to progress.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia


Couldn't have said it any better.


It's amazing how clear one's perspective becomes when they practice Self Reliance.

reply to post by badmedia

Matthew 21

12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.

15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased,

16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

Enjoy it while you can. Surely, you have your reward. You don't have to try and salve your conscience by justifying your upsidedown sense of ethics to me, either. Try telling it to the One who judges this world when you stand before Him, and see where it gets you.

reply to post by Icarus Rising


First off, you are using a parable regarding the attempts by many to gain favor from god through purchases of sorts. The money changers were all selling birds and the like to be sacrificed. No one can purchase their way into the good graces of God.


Second off, who uses a parable, not even the right parable, to demonize a system of economics? I mean really... even Jesus said, render unto ceasar.

We are not talking about the buying and selling of spiritual salvation here, as the verse you mentioned was actually speaking of. We are talking about the buying and selling of text messages for Pete's sake!

[edit on 1-1-2009 by HunkaHunka]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Imo, it applies directly to this circumstance, and it isn't a parable. "All them that bought and sold in the temple," implies more than doves for sacrifice. The money changers were charging exorbitant fees to convert currency. How does that have anything to do with temple worship and sacrifice?

You may want to isolate it in an attempt to insulate yourself from the consequences of your actions, but your business decisions appear not to be based on the cost you incur forming the basis for the price you charge for the goods and/or services you provide, but rather on charging the maximum the market will bear to maximize your almighty profits without concern for the cost of production guiding your pricing strategy. That's gouging. At least, that's the way it sounds to me from your comments on this thread.

I do have to say that $200k profit on $2.4 million in sales is not a figure that reflects gouging. Perhaps you are just running your mouth on this issue for the sake of conversation. You can spare me the effort.