The truth behind the cost of text messaging

What are you currently paying for your text messaging? Is it 20 or 25 cents or are you one of the millions of users who buy a text messaging package with your phone plan for $5 or more every month?

Regardless what you pay, you're over paying. Not that this comes as a surprise to many but the New York Times has divulged in great detail how bad your actually being ripped off.

Wireless carriers have a "control channel" for sending text messages, This channel is used for that task, in fact every time your cell phone communicates with the tower it uses the "control channel" regardless if you text or not. Simply, the text message is small enough that it piggy backs in the control channel if needed; there is no impact on the tower because of the message; but text messages are not just tiny; they are also free riders, tucked into what's called a control channel, space reserved for operation of the wireless network."

The reasoning of the limit length of 160 characters has nothing to do with the handset or networks capability. It revolves around the control channels extra space to allow for a text message to piggy back its way to the tower. In fact, it doesn't cost the carrier much more to send 100 million text messages versus the cost of sending 1 million text messages. Plain and simple, you're being ripped off and the carriers don't care.

When will the price gouging end? It's unclear but at least one person is looking out for the consumers. United States Senator Herb Kohl, Democrat of Wisconsin and the chairman of the Senate antitrust subcommittee have been investigating the matter but are running into brick walls with regards to receiving information from the nation's four major carriers. If that doesn't work, one of the 20 class action lawsuits may get the carriers attention.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Digital TV coupons could run out

Next Story

LG to launch 3G cellphone watch at CES 2009

96 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

charging for yexting is pretty much pointless nowadays, companies know that they cant make any real money from it so they might as well give it away for free, especially since most smart phones now have skype mobile and windows live messenger mobile apps. Most people have these facilities as well so as long as you have the internet you can use instant messaging services.

Everyone talks about spending $0.25 per message but does anyone really pay that much? ATT for example has a $5 plan that gives you 200 messages. So it works out to $0.025. ATT is far from the cheapest carrier too. Does SMS have no value at all to you people? If it doesn't have any value then why are you paying for it?

How expensive?

CDMA cell-phone voice-communications are provided at 9,600 bps (bits per second), and GSM is sent at 13,000 bps.

An SMS character (a letter, etc.) requires 7 bits. Therefore, a message with 160 characters will use 1,120 bits.

For CDMA:
(1,120 bits per "full" text message) divided by (9600 bits per second) = a little over 1/10 of a second of cell-phone-system time.

For GSM:
(1,120 bits per "full" text message) divided by (13,000 bits per second) = a little under 1/10 of a second of cell-phone-system time.

Assuming gross misunderstandings by myself regarding how the cellphone systems work, let's round up, and let's say that a text message uses the same resources as a full second of voice communications.

If you can get 400 minutes of talk-time for $40, that equates to 1/6 of a cent per second to talk.

If a second of voice communications costs 1/6 of a cent, and a text message using a second on the cell-phone-system costs 20 cents, then the text message is charged 11,900% more for an equivalent amount of cell-system resources.

And, I'm sure that's an underestimation.

Yeh, you get profits and make a good living. But, I think we're seeing more frequent examples of the damage done by "inordinate profits." Inordinate rates can only be charged if it's allowed.

Or, like this:

Sending 1 message = $0.25, max 1.1KB, yet data plans have a typical 1-5GB limit. So, 1GB = 1024MB = 1,048,576KB and cost about $20 a month. So, sending 1.1KB costs $0.25, so sending 1,048,576KB should in theory cost $262,144 per month. Yet, the carriers get away with it!

In Vietnam it costs half a cent (0.005 USD) to send. No charge to receive text or calls.

U.S. is 0.2USD to receive/send text now that's bull****!

ha ha ha, I can't believe people don't have unlimited SMS on contracts these days, I thought most did when I shopped around.

My missus got a free Sony PS3, unlimited SMS and way too many free minutes on a �35 a month contract... we worked out the PS3 really made the contract half that value.

I know of girls who text up to 3k sms at least ,

tats 3000 x .05 cents = $150 SGD

some girls in singapore just love to text.

Guess my country's ISP love them~

It's about time this story was written. I mean seriously. Your phone calls are more intensive on their servers then text messages. 20/25 cents a text is a COMPLETE rip-off.

I find this totally unsurprising, I think everyone has long known that SMS messages are the cash cow for mobile phone companies.

Actually, when I said it's not that bad out here in UK, I was referring to pay monthly contracts, not pay as you go. Because I currently pay £20 per month, and that gives me 600 minutes, 1000 texts and unlimited web browsing. That is a pretty good deal IMO. Pay as you go is a bloody rip off. I don't know why people are on pay as you go! I mean, come on, can't you fork out £20 a month for your phone?!!

Even a year ago I used to use my phone so little that PAYG was the better deal for me. But now, it's getting to the point where I'm spending upwards of £25 a month. At points it was £10 a week. Although, T-Mobile giving me £10 free credit for the weekends helped. I have come close to switching, but I've slowed down in communication lately.

The last time I topped up my phone was when I was still at Uni. I finished Uni in May. I topped under my phone by £10.
Now tell me that I'm being ripped off using PAYG. PAYG is fine for ppl who don't use their mobiles very much.

Text messages where intended to be a free bonus for mobile customers, cause they only needed a few bytes on the controll channel...
Then the companys smelled the big profit and charged for it...

I still think it makes more sense to run your phone's email client at all times, and use that instead of texting. Only uses your data plan, and no character maximums. Besides, you can always email someone's phonenumber@provider.net and they receive it just like a text. Keep up with your contact list and it becomes second nature.

Ah well.

It is priced at what the market is willing to pay for. If I have a service that costs me no time and money, but people are willing to pay for that service why is it so unreasonable for me to still charge for it? This is capitalism, after all.

Personally, I wish they'd raise it up to at LEAST $2.50 a message. At such a price, idiots would not text and drive (I'm glad I don't know any of these morons) and people would finally get wise to the fact that with all the typing, sending, waiting, receiving, reading, replying, etc... you could have turned that 20 minute (doublethe time if you text anything that could be misunderstood) texting conversation into a 30 second phone call if you had only hit dial instead!! How texting could even be concidered a conveinience is beyond me...especially with so many plans in place where the call to the other person is free (or already included in monthly plan rate).

All of the phones I have gotten for me and my family have texting completely blocked.

Rohdekill said,
people would finally get wise to the fact that with all the typing, sending, waiting, receiving, reading, replying, etc... you could have turned that 20 minute (doublethe time if you text anything that could be misunderstood) texting conversation into a 30 second phone call if you had only hit dial instead!! How texting could even be concidered a conveinience is beyond me...

Exactly my thoughts, you just said it better, I call it "Regressive Technology"

Woah, calm down!

Texting has many advantages - a silent conversation being one. Another is being the optional delay between messages. Another being the chance to think between replies. There's too many to sit here and type about - phone calls are only better in certain situations.

Michael1406 said,
Woah, calm down!

Texting has many advantages - a silent conversation being one. Another is being the optional delay between messages. Another being the chance to think between replies. There's too many to sit here and type about - phone calls are only better in certain situations.

Or you need to tell someone something real fast without getting sucked into a 2 hour conversation with that person that talks forever. Hahaha. I am not one that uses SMS often but I must say it does have it's legitimate uses from time to time. That is exactly why some are willing to pay for it.

Michael1406 said,
Woah, calm down!

Texting has many advantages - a silent conversation being one. Another is being the optional delay between messages. Another being the chance to think between replies. There's too many to sit here and type about - phone calls are only better in certain situations.

Another addition in the list: while at a noisy concert, club, party, etc. where it's next to impossible to hear anything on your phone given the noise level, and you're stuck in a sea of people and can't really get outside to talk.

SMS' are far worse than any instant messaging client (ICQ). And chatting via IMs is nearly free since GPRS traffic is rather expensive.

This is disbalance.

If it were cheaper, people would text even more and end up paying the same. People are generally stupid like that. All power to people who know how to exploit and make money off of that.

""By their very definition, Control Channels are vital to the process of setting up any cellular voice calls—and, I think, data transfers. Thus, more text messages being transmitted at any given time, the less control channels are available for individuals who wish to make a phone call," explains our own Clint Ecker, a former RF Engineer for one of the major carriers, on his personal blog."

Source: Ars Technica

People are signing up in droves to be price gouged. So be it. The fool and his money are soon be parted.

If you don't like the price, then for goodness sake stop using it.

I see text messaging as regressive technology anyways. Typing messages with a 10 number key pad that are limited to 160 characters and can't have attachments... sounds a lot like telegraph to me. 21st Century Telegraph.

Where is my satellite videophone watch they have been promising?

There are tons of businesses out there that have large profit margins. Big deal. So what business is next? If you don't want to text then don't do it. No one is forcing you to buy text messages. The government has no right to tell a business how much profit to make. We live in a free market. If you don't like it, move to China.

Think about it guys.

Did you really say we live in a free market?

Alright guys, does someone else want to handle this idiot or do I gotta do it? Obviously you haven't heard the words "bail-out" recently have you. Your kids would be eating Chinese lead from their unsafe toys. Ever heard of government regulations?

Get outta your cave. YOU think about it.

Runelord said,
Did you really say we live in a free market?

Alright guys, does someone else want to handle this idiot or do I gotta do it? Obviously you haven't heard the words "bail-out" recently have you. Your kids would be eating Chinese lead from their unsafe toys. Ever heard of government regulations?

Get outta your cave. YOU think about it.

Who said I was for bailouts? What do the bailouts have to do with this topic? Government regulating profit margins? No thanks. Clearly you don't own business. Now let me go back into my cave and think some more.

I've known about this for a while, dosent cost the operators a penny to send a text message. Luckily I get 500 Free texts everytime I top up my iPhone by £15, so dosent really bother me too much.

J400uk said,
I've known about this for a while, dosent cost the operators a penny to send a text message. Luckily I get 500 Free texts everytime I top up my iPhone by ?15, so dosent really bother me too much.


such irony...you get something free by paying for something else


Some people pay WAY TOO MUCH!
Shop around, get a decent package.

I'm paying T-Mobile (UK) just £15 ($21 USD) a month for:-
UNLIMITED Landline calls (anytime).
10,000 minutes for off-peaks calls to any mobile network.
900 minutes or 1800 texts peak time.

It basically means, I never see a bill for calls or texts as they're all free in the package.
I also get 2GB of data on 3G for £5

Have a look at their sim-only deals. I'm with O2, and pay £20 for 600 minutes, 1000 texts, and "unlimited" data.

I never really saw the appeal of Pay As You Go - I always ended up spending more on credit than I do on my contract.

S a v i o r said,
Its SGD$0.05 cents in singapore.

So is it cheap or what ?

=/

Which one M1, Singtel or Starhub? Are they all charging the same price for text messages?

greythorne said,

Which one M1, Singtel or Starhub? Are they all charging the same price for text messages?



All local carriers in singapore charge 5 cents per sms.

with mms costing same prices for Starhub(im on starhub) not sure about M1/singtel though

In Canada we continue to get boned even worse than the States; we get charged (unless you have a Plan) 15 cents for each text sent and received. The Federal government wagged their telecommunications finger @ the colluding carriers, but to no effect.

I try not to text, but some people still seem to think they are getting a good deal when they sign up to a plan that includes 500 "free" texts per month!

I have a good deal on my mobile phone where I get billed each month but don't pay a line rental fee - sort of pay as you went rather than pay as you go! My average bill is less than £1 on an everage month due to carefull use...

Cell phones should be no more than a home phone, that's even pushing it. The basic home phone bill runs about 40 a month. Now take that and add data and text for free that's all it should cost if even that, more like 10 a month. People just need to rid themselves of cell phones period and see how much everything goes down.

The old days of supply and demand have diminished now instead of costs going down since practically everyone has a cell phone it keeps going up (WHY???) because they can...

I've ditched my cell phone years ago, now if everyone else went to say Skype at home and phone items (the hardware item forget name off hand) that you see giving FREE phone service (Not really true) but for 30 bucks a YEAR, yes folks a YEAR, is like the going rate for internet phones and services...

Skype as an example will give you a number and you can call anywhere in and out anytime with your computer for 30 bucks a YEAR. Now only if they'd use the white noise or even some new form of Wi-Fi (Skype that is) which they do use Wi-Fi now, because any internet connection will work with Skype, my point is a NATIONAL WI-FI or some form that has yet to be created for internet connectivity, then you could get a cell phone that was Skype only and there you go you'd piggy back off home networks, Wi-Fi, or any wireless networks if set up correctly...

Sooner or later someone will come up with a service that uses a satellite but works like Skype and Wi-Fi and cost only pennys a month and this would rid everyone from having to pay 40-200 a month for phone service.

Nothing will ever change until people put their feet down and say ENOUGH ALREADY... Same holds true for every other thing going on in this country and others period. Sure a few people do it but it's never enough to even make a speed bump. Wake the F*C& up people!!!

The basic home phone system is actually incredibly simple, you merely setup a route from you to the end number and keep that path until one of you hangs up...Cells require hand off between towers while you are moving, cells are all on different channels, etc. This is complicated to put it mild.

You can not compare Skype with a cell phone, I can not take Skype to my hometown, it seems the 24k dial-up offered there doesn't work so well for VoIP. Also Skype wouldn't have helped me to call AAA to tow my car when the transmission went out in the middle of no where.

Of course with your nation wi-fi idea, all I would need to do is lug a laptop everywhere I go. That is nearly as convenient as carrying a device weighing ounces that fits in my pocket.

schubb said,
Of course with your nation wi-fi idea, all I would need to do is lug a laptop everywhere I go. That is nearly as convenient as carrying a device weighing ounces that fits in my pocket.


Many if not most newer smartphones have wifi built in.

roadwarrior said,
Many if not most newer smartphones have wifi built in.

You missed the point, you still have a cell phone, you aren't using Skype, or if you are you are using VoIP via cell, which makes no sense to me.

schubb said,
The basic home phone system is actually incredibly simple, you merely setup a route from you to the end number and keep that path until one of you hangs up...Cells require hand off between towers while you are moving, cells are all on different channels, etc. This is complicated to put it mild.

You can not compare Skype with a cell phone, I can not take Skype to my hometown, it seems the 24k dial-up offered there doesn't work so well for VoIP. Also Skype wouldn't have helped me to call AAA to tow my car when the transmission went out in the middle of no where.

Of course with your nation wi-fi idea, all I would need to do is lug a laptop everywhere I go. That is nearly as convenient as carrying a device weighing ounces that fits in my pocket.

Ya, the technology is complicated. It's probably a good thing that the cell phone carriers aren't developing the technology. They buy it from people like Motorola and such.

Some of you obviously got my point. I'm not saying that Skype would work my point was the cost per year.

My car has a built in cell phone and it only costs me like 18 bucks for 1500 minutes. Now have a WI-FI or similar technology that gets beamed via Satellite - XM radio as well and the use of white noise channels that is being researched and the channels being opened up by TV going to Digital etc. and BINGO you have Skype anywhere or internet and text etc. for say 30 bucks a year. That was what I was trying to get across. It just takes someone to start it up and research better technologies than the CELL period at a better cost.

In the day they had internet via Satellite and I think some companies still offer that. So your Skype phone then could be a Satellite phone per say. As I said some of the technology I'm suggesting may not even exist yet.

The fact is if EVERYONE dumped their cells the price would drop to nil for service period.

Remember gas prices and everyone going to public transportation, it made a dent???

Cellar Dweller said,
Some of you obviously got my point. I'm not saying that Skype would work my point was the cost per year.

My car has a built in cell phone and it only costs me like 18 bucks for 1500 minutes. Now have a WI-FI or similar technology that gets beamed via Satellite - XM radio as well and the use of white noise channels that is being researched and the channels being opened up by TV going to Digital etc. and BINGO you have Skype anywhere or internet and text etc. for say 30 bucks a year. That was what I was trying to get across. It just takes someone to start it up and research better technologies than the CELL period at a better cost.

In the day they had internet via Satellite and I think some companies still offer that. So your Skype phone then could be a Satellite phone per say. As I said some of the technology I'm suggesting may not even exist yet.

The fact is if EVERYONE dumped their cells the price would drop to nil for service period.

Remember gas prices and everyone going to public transportation, it made a dent???

You can't compare land line pricing to cell pricing. As already stated, cell technology is very expensive to operate and expand and going to satellites would be significantly more expensive then cell technology. Have you ever looked at what it costs to build and launch a satellite? Have you ever looked at how long it takes from start to finish to lunch one? How about the life span of a satellite? Not to mention the limited bandwidth. How about outages do to weather. Using satellites for phone service isn't practical.

Sure they are making a massive profit on SMS. But it beats paying $0.50 per minute that cell service used to cost. Notice the government didn't step in and tell cell providers that $0.50/min was to much. How about the price of data services. Did the government drive that down? Nope. The free market drives prices down. Just like it will drive SMS down.

It is possible to shop for cheaper SMS service. They aren't all charging the same price. All of them are ridiculous but so less then others. It really is a very simple concept.

Why is the image of a windows symbol?
I suppose that having a slightly more expensive texting pricing system is ok if it subsidies other services that mobile phone users use, however if the mobile phone companies are just looking to increase their profit margins unfairly then they should be made to PAY.

So they can spy on their customers for the government but they can't provide details on their SMS system?

That which you described is the theory of the luxury / elasticity of a product.

Supply and Demand is a law which shows that the change in supply inversely affects demand... aka, greater supply, same demand, lower price.
less supply, same demand, higher price. same supply, increased demand, increased price.

It is a pretty simple concept, if you can get more profit from one part of your business you can run other parts or services at a lower profit margin this has always been the case.

Take the computer shop and asked them how much they make from a mouse mat percentagewise?

The problem we have is we demand cheaper and cheaper services and products, we then complain when the company goes under and people lose their jobs. We cannot have it both ways.

I believe in paying for something that's actually worth it. I mean, as I stated about World of Warcraft, it takes a lot of effort and money to keep the thousands of servers running smooth and stable, along with providing the proper support team, bringing in new content continuously, and paying all their employees. I don't mind paying for such a dedicated service. As LTD would tell you, he doesn't mind paying for what he feels is quality hardware/software with Apple products. For him, it's worth it.

However, I disagree with paying for something just because. That doesn't make sense at all...

dead.cell said,
However, I disagree with paying for something just because. That doesn't make sense at all...

I'm guessing you did not read all my post.

I dont believe for one second that paying $30.00 for data service is a low profit area...I pay $25.00 for my home service that is unlimited usage, 10 meg down and 3 megs up...

for my $30 at vzw, i get capped at 5 gigs, and is much slower

dead.cell said,
I believe in paying for something that's actually worth it. I mean, as I stated about World of Warcraft, it takes a lot of effort and money to keep the thousands of servers running smooth and stable, along with providing the proper support team, bringing in new content continuously, and paying all their employees. I don't mind paying for such a dedicated service. As LTD would tell you, he doesn't mind paying for what he feels is quality hardware/software with Apple products. For him, it's worth it.

However, I disagree with paying for something just because. That doesn't make sense at all...

But if you do, then you implicitly accept that you will pay for something just because. I send 10 txts per year, simply because I do not accept it is worth paying for, that is how I show that I think it is a con game.

stevember said,
I'm guessing you did not read all my post.

I read it. It still doesn't make sense to charge people so much money per text though. I mean, you could say more on a pay phone than you could with an actual text message. You could actually carry a conversation! With no typing required!!

Also, what about the executives who get those big cash packages and fly off while the company collapses on itself? Are they not part of the problem, working for their own self-interest instead of what's best for everyone in the company? Or is it simply the consumer demand, which the companies DON'T HAVE TO GIVE IN TO. And many don't. Otherwise, we'd all have blazing internet at little to no cost at all and so forth.

schubb said,
But if you do, then you implicitly accept that you will pay for something just because. I send 10 txts per year, simply because I do not accept it is worth paying for, that is how I show that I think it is a con game.

I pay for quality products and services, or whatever strikes me as a reasonable deal. I only use my cell phone when I NEED to (work and so forth), so I stick with a prepaid phone with 250+ minutes that last me for 3 months or longer. If I want to text, I simply use a free online text sender, and I'm good.

And, SOMEHOW, people can easily rack up hundreds of dollars in sending text messages. How many of you, or people you've known, have gone way over their limit and had to pay a ridiculous bill?

I know my cousin, my sister-in-law, and others have. That's a LOT of money they're pulling in from all this...

dead.cell said,
And, SOMEHOW, people can easily rack up hundreds of dollars in sending text messages. How many of you, or people you've known, have gone way over their limit and had to pay a ridiculous bill?

I know my cousin, my sister-in-law, and others have. That's a LOT of money they're pulling in from all this...
Yeah, some peopel are way to addicted to txts. Ive never sent one, except either from msn, or online, both of which are free.

darkpuma said,
Ive never sent one, except either from msn, or online, both of which are free.

MSN texts are NOT free.

If they reduced the cost of text messages then they would have to recover the money elsewhere (ie data/call charges). Do you think they'll just go, "ok texts are now free" when they make so much money off them?
I knew it cost almost nothing to send but hey, they'll make there money somehow!

Majesticmerc said,
"Text Messaging is the closest thing to pure profit ever invented" -- Sir Chris Gent (Founder of 'Vodafone' )

haha, that's such a great quote

Text messaging deserves to be free. The data cost for a text message is nil compared to the data required to carry a voice. They charge us simply because they can. If they would make it free, they could justify it by saving on the cost of people making voice calls. They could text instead for free, lighter data load for the phone companies, everyone wins!

You are paying for a service, not the cost of the carriers for the service. As long as the people are willing to keep texting, there is no need to lower the cost. If you want it cheaper, hit them where it hurts, stop texting until they drop the price, as long as people demand texting and pay for it, the price will not come down.

The utility of sending texts is obviously worth the price charged or the amount of texting would be going down.

I understand your point but when i already pay $90.00 a month for voice and data service why cant the data include the text messaging....

bdsams said,
I understand your point but when i already pay $90.00 a month of voice and data service why cant the data include the text messaging....

ditto

bdsams said,
I understand your point but when i already pay $90.00 a month for voice and data service why cant the data include the text messaging....

Because it's a business? Why can't microsoft include the ultimate features into it's basic plan? People are willing to pay for it, and the carriers are taking advantage of that.

giga said,
Because it's a business? Why can't microsoft include the ultimate features into it's basic plan? People are willing to pay for it, and the carriers are taking advantage of that.


Im paying for capped data, they could include the Txt's as it costs them nothing to send or recieve

Its called price gouging, where all compeititors raise the rates on a prodcut (or featre) that is not warranted by the marketplace...when they work together they take away compeition....rates went from 10 cents to 20 cents in three years, very few markets desire 33% inflation with no gain in service

giga said,
Because it's a business? Why can't microsoft include the ultimate features into it's basic plan? People are willing to pay for it, and the carriers are taking advantage of that.


There's a huge difference. You are paying to take advantage of something thats already there that costs the carrier nothing extra to allow you to use it. As opposed to Ultimate where there are extra development efforts to add those additional features that cost time and money to develop.

Basically the carriers are charging you to use something that is virtually free to them

Think of it like this.... 3.3 Trillion texts @ 20 cents each = 6.6 trillion dollars ($6,600,000,000,000.00 -- Now thats a lot of Zeros!) just on text messaging alone all profit because it doesnt cost them anything to deliver them for you.

Text messaging should be free for everyone. Period!

It's a free market. There's no law that they can't charge for a service--even if it costs them nothing. There's obviously a market for it and people are willing to pay for it. (price gouging laws are only effective in times of crisis or emergency.)

Imposing a fee for a service/product is not directly related to the cost of offering that service/product. A business can make a large loss off of one of their main services and then make up for that profit loss by charging extra for another service, which doesn't have as high of a producer cost.

Capitalism is inherently funded through "greed". Say what you want of how it is morally wrong, but that's the system.

Now, if you're talking about price fixing between all the carriers--then yes, that would be illegal under US law.

Ogmius said,
There's a huge difference. You are paying to take advantage of something thats already there that costs the carrier nothing extra to allow you to use it. As opposed to Ultimate where there are extra development efforts to add those additional features that cost time and money to develop.

Basically the carriers are charging you to use something that is virtually free to them

Think of it like this.... 3.3 Trillion texts @ 20 cents each = 6.6 trillion dollars ($6,600,000,000,000.00 -- Now thats a lot of Zeros!) just on text messaging alone all profit because it doesnt cost them anything to deliver them for you.

Text messaging should be free for everyone. Period!

Yes, too many zero's in fact. 3.3 trillion text messages would have to cost $2.00 each to equate to 6.6 trillion dollars.

The Guardian said,
Very interesting...although here in the UK it's not that bad.

Still expensive here though, you think 12p for a txt message is nearly the price of a stamp in a way...

I think the pricing scheme for call plans and text messaging is vile and should be reduced dramatically.

Thanks to the EU, call and txt prices will be coming down shortly. To compensate for the loss in revenue, carriers may start charging to receive calls. This is more in-line with current structures in USA.

...Thanks to the EU

digitalsoft said,
Still expensive here though, you think 12p for a txt message is nearly the price of a stamp in a way...

I think the pricing scheme for call plans and text messaging is vile and should be reduced dramatically.


Nearly the price of a stamp? Its 3 times less the price of a stamp.

In the UK the networks charge each other 3p a go to 'handle' incoming messages from each other. Really messages going within your own network should be cheaper.

illmonkey said,

Nearly the price of a stamp? Its 3 times less the price of a stamp.

Woah, didnt realise how expensive stamps were these days lol! Still basically half of a 2nd class...

i always knew it was way way cheaper then you generally get charged, but i had no idea it was absolutely no cost to the carrier!!!

mad

BGM said,
i always knew it was way way cheaper then you generally get charged, but i had no idea it was absolutely no cost to the carrier!!!

mad


Never said no cost!

i hope they all go down, one of the lawsuits questions why the charge went from 10 cents to 20 cents per message in three years...price gouging anyone?

i always figured it cost so much simply because it was data. i never thought about checking to see how large the data packet was. lol great information there though.

That's quite interesting information, I didn't realise they piggy backed on what seems like standard packets going back and forth the tower