|
smackfu posted:Pay per text is stupid, except that the only other option left is a $20 unlimited plan (or $30 for a family plan). If you don't text much, or only know people with iPhones and iMessage, I can see pay-per-text working out better. I can't wait for the overage bills to come in when little Timmy goes apeshit on YouTube and the bills 150$ higher.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 19:43 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 12:37 |
|
|
Pay per text is stupid? I pay $5 a month for text or I could pay $20 a month to AT&T for unlimited text's that cost them nothing to send over the network. gently caress AT&T for not offering an in between option. Give them $20 a month or don't have a text plan, nice.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 20:02 |
|
|
The whole zero or unlimited is the most anti-consumer bullshit I've seen ATT do lately with their plans. It's really inexcusable. There's no way to defend it other than pure greed. Cest la vie.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 20:07 |
|
|
EbolaIvory posted:Congrats on being the minority? Thanks for replying with snark instead of answering my question. AFAICT, having an inappropriate plan is what is stupid. For some people that may be $20 texting plans, for some people that may be pay per text. For some people having pay as you go may be stupid, for others it makes the most sense. For some people 200MB data makes the most sense, for others they should have 3GB. I'll try again, what's stupid about having pay per text if you don't use texts?
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 21:12 |
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Thanks for replying with snark instead of answering my question. People who actually text. And use it. Its stupid to be on pay per use. Great you send 5 a month and are a goon. The rest of the world and 99% of my customers do over a 1000 and it would cost far more per use. Don't like not having a middle package? Vote with your wallet. Go somewhere else. Fact is I've never seen a large enough sample size of people using under 1000 texts to need anything but unlimited or nothing. So once again if you actually text and not just use it once in a while its stupid to not have unlimited anyways. You get more phone mins out of it anyways and most people end up saving 20$ on the rate plan anyways. So the tiny % of people can use their 5 texts a month and not bitch I guess. Anyways anyways anyways. Go me.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 21:49 |
|
|
Yeah AT&T and others saw the iMessage train coming long ago and got rid of the $5 for 200 text option and went pay per use or give us $20 more each month. Nice. I'm grandfathered on it and have no plans on letting go. Whatsapp for 98% of texting works here.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 22:06 |
|
|
EbolaIvory posted:So once again if you actually text and not just use it once in a while its stupid to not have unlimited anyways. Yes, I don't think anyone disagreed with this. But anyway... I guess the answer to my question is "nothing". I was just wondering if I was missing something by not getting unlimited and all I got in return was snark. I will say that "voting with your wallet" is a weak solution in today's market. People say the same thing about home ISP's, and it's a weak solution there, too. There are a lot of variables that go into choosing a carrier, and text messaging is only one of them. Inevitably, because of the weak state of competition in US cellular carriers, people have to make compromises that hurt. Most people can't get the product they want. For example, (if I needed text messaging) I could choose Verizon, but then I'd have to have lovely coverage. Other people want a particular phone on a particular carrier, but then have to compromise to get the data plan they want. It's always some sort of painful compromise. Yes, it's what you have to do. No, there's nothing wrong with bitching about it.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 23:24 |
|
|
EbolaIvory posted:Fact is I've never seen a large enough sample size of people using under 1000 texts to need anything but unlimited or nothing. So once again if you actually text and not just use it once in a while its stupid to not have unlimited anyways. You get more phone mins out of it anyways and most people end up saving 20$ on the rate plan anyways. So the tiny % of people can use their 5 texts a month and not bitch I guess. That's a pretty poor argument; it's almost like ATT is doing us a favor! Fact is, there are lots of people above the age of 25 who simply don't text much. They might text 200 or so, where they would have spent $5 before, but now they either need a guaranteed $20 a month, or sporadically pay a random $40 for the same usage. Does it magically reduce ATT's overheard to simply take away a feature code? Nope. It's a lovely money grab, and unfortunately, people can't just "vote with their wallet" and drop their plans and their phones and switch. Welcome to America! I love talking to Europeans who are working here temporarily, and they are just utterly shocked at how lovely all of our plans are for every carrier (except Tmobile, they seem to not be so retarded, but look what that's got them)
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 23:24 |
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Thanks for replying with snark instead of answering my question. Thank you for the info  one step closer to actually hitting the button now.Heres a kicker question, if i disable text messaging entirely, can i set up Google Voice to do sms? The only reason i need texting right now is for small family issues, like my sister letting me know shes ready to walk home from her friends who live in a really bad part of my apartments. I doubt id send/recieve more than 50 a month, but even at pay per text, it would be really expensive
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 23:25 |
|
|
grimcreaper posted:Thank you for the info Yes, Google Voice does SMS just fine. You don't need anything from AT&T to do this. The only thing to remember is that people have to text your Google Voice number, not your AT&T number. Be sure to install the Voice app on your phone if it doesn't come with it.
|
| # ? Mar 19, 2012 23:27 |
|
|
EbolaIvory posted:Fact is I've never seen a large enough sample size of people using under 1000 texts to need anything but unlimited or nothing. So once again if you actually text and not just use it once in a while its stupid to not have unlimited anyways. You get more phone mins out of it anyways and most people end up saving 20$ on the rate plan anyways. So the tiny % of people can use their 5 texts a month and not bitch I guess. Rent posted:That's a pretty poor argument; it's almost like ATT is doing us a favor! In Ebola's defense, I have been doing tons of bill reviews for goons in SA-Mart and 90% of them should have unlimited texting. If you do the math, at this point you would have to use less than 100 texts for not having unlimited to make sense. Plus you get the unlimited M2AM which would allow you to drop down your minutes plan. Be honest, how many landlines do you REALLY call anymore? So unless you use less than 100 texts and less than 450 minutes, it doesn't make sense to not have unlimited texting.
|
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 01:48 |
|
|
Doesn't the M2AM require a more pricey family plan?
|
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 02:00 |
|
|
smackfu posted:Doesn't the M2AM require a more pricey family plan? As long as you aren't on a grandfathered 550 min plan. It works on the 700 min plan.
|
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 02:27 |
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Yes, Google Voice does SMS just fine. You don't need anything from AT&T to do this. The only thing to remember is that people have to text your Google Voice number, not your AT&T number. Also note that GV does not do MMS, that and the M2AM (and the fact I'd have to train my mom and wife to use GV for text, fat chance) is what's keeping my $30'unlimited text.
|
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 02:49 |
|
|
TraderStav posted:Also note that GV does not do MMS, that and the M2AM (and the fact I'd have to train my mom and wife to use GV for text, fat chance) is what's keeping my $30'unlimited text. Also, GV is pretty unreliable. The iPhone GV app is pretty awful as well. I ported my wife's cell number to Google Voice when I switched her to ATT and got her an iPhone with an older texting plan (1000txt/$10), and the GV app is terrible. It's unreliable and seems to just sit there unresponsive and not do anything. On Android it wasn't too much better either, there would be times when I knew someone was texting me, and I didn't get anything. I'd have to sit there and keep force closing the app until the text finally came in. I eventually just booked marked the GV web app and would check it all the time. I got sick of that and just turned on forwarding to my cell number, and moved people over to our new numbers. Also, the GV integration with your voicemail is wierd, since whenever someone calls you it takes up a couple minutes, since the call is being fowarded to GV. Even if you reject the call. My wireless minutes are eaten up by hundreds of one minute calls from my phone fowarding to my GV mailbox. Seems like there's almost no monetary value in using GV, it just adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to what should be a dead simple service.
|
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 03:00 |
|
|
It's like a grocery store noticing that a lot of people buy gallon size milk, so now you can either buy no milk, or gallon sized milk. Don't like it? gently caress off, go buy soy milk When they had so many different minute plans and they reduced them, it made sense and helped people in the end. This type of bullshit doesn't. I AM NOT AFFECTED, but it's annoying as gently caress explaining to 30-somethings who don't loving text all day like a teen girl and older people who would really like to send a few texts every now and then, but not pay $20 a month.
|
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 03:16 |
|
|
Beefstorm posted:In Ebola's defense, I have been doing tons of bill reviews for goons in SA-Mart and 90% of them should have unlimited texting. I realize this only applies to like 1% of the US, but you might find it interesting: We put several thousand minutes a month on our voice plan (business with incoming calls from a wide variety of numbers), and 95% of mobile calls are AT&T calls. Verizon, Sprint, & TMobile service all sucks very badly for a cluster of maybe 10 counties in this area. I can think of 5 AT&T stores in my county alone, and there are zero stores for any other carriers.
|
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 04:20 |
|
|
EbolaIvory posted:No idea on voice but I'll assume it works. And I have no idea on charges. But if you block sms /mms you won't be charged for them since you cant receive them. Sorry, forgot to thank you for the info in my previous post The option for no mms/sms didnt show up for me when i was trying to convince myself i need the Note again. I opened up a CS chat and the rep told me its impossible for any of the newer android phones and the iphones but i have a feeling he was trying to get a better sale. Kept pushing me to buy into the contract at every sentence. (As i had said before, the option seems to come and go as it pleases, i see it back now, but for a few hours both refused to show up during plan selections.) "Well, for your needs I see no reason why you wouldn't get unlimited talk and text options and also the 5gb datapro plan." Mind you, this was when he was asking how much I thought I would use the phone, I said no more than maybe an hour or 2 a week tops for talk time. I really have little need for a phone. My main reason for wanting the phone is that i need an emergency phone. One that I can really have fun with too though. Ive enjoyed using my ipod touch, but not having a real phone sucks at times. Several times I've needed one to call the police. I know i can just go with a cheap phone/company like Tracfone and pay literally 20 bucks every 3 months, but i cant have fun with those phones at all. The note gives me a lot of flexibility. Id only be streaming maybe an hour or 2 of HD video a week when i was at work. The rest of the time I would be connected to wi-fi so i doubt id need more than 3 gigs of data, at least for now. Im just having a really hard time convincing myself i need to pay ATT a total of almost $1,800 for the Note over 2 years. grimcreaper fucked around with this message at Mar 20, 2012 around 12:19 |
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 07:10 |
|
|
Beefstorm posted:As long as you aren't on a grandfathered 550 min plan. It works on the 700 min plan.
|
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 13:24 |
|
|
smackfu posted:You sure? The page I am looking at says mobile to any mobile only applies to $69.99 or up family plans, so I would think you need to go to the $80 1400 min plan. Which doesn't really make the feature worth it to us, since it's $30 for unlimited messaging plus $30 more for the upgraded Family plan. I realize its billed 60 for one 9.99 for the other. But that's pretty obvious.
|
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 17:19 |
|
|
So apparently AT&T will unlock your iPhone, but only if Tim Cook gets involved
|
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 17:38 |
|
|
CoasterMaster posted:So apparently AT&T will unlock your iPhone, but only if Tim Cook gets involved We really should have a law/rule/something that says once your contract is up your phone can be unlocked easily.
|
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 18:03 |
|
|
EbolaIvory posted:And 700 is 69.99 Anyways, I guess my 550 plan with three lines is one penny under the cut-off. Woo.
|
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 18:56 |
|
|
Thermopyle posted:I send/receive 0 to 5 texts a month. Why is pay per text stupid? It's evil because in the vast majority of circumstances it results in one of two things: 1. Blocking receipt of all SMS, at which point pay-per-text might as well not exist. 2. Forcing folks onto an SMS plan when their kid gets 1000 texts in a month from all his friends, despite him sending none. Or more to the point, it's evil because it gives you no control over the potential upper limit of your phone bill, aside from blocking texts or switching to a texting plan. Pay-per sent text is fine, and a wonderful option for low volume users. I'd be fine if carries switched to 30-40¢ pay-per-sent text and no incoming text fees. But the current situation of 20¢ for both send and receive is a disaster waiting to happen on any line where that option remains available. If you think that's somehow a remotely defensible option and you have a line with pay-per received texts, then I invite you to share your phone number with the Internets.
|
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 19:15 |
|
|
They can't do that, then they wouldn't be able to double dip if the person sending and receiving is on AT&T, and you would be able to control your bill, and we can't have that.
|
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 19:36 |
|
|
EbolaIvory posted:Great you send 5 a month and are a goon. The rest of the world and 99% of my customers do over a 1000 and it would cost far more per use. quote:A ComScore study of U.S. subscribers thru March of this year indicated: 63.7 percent used text messaging on their mobile device, 30.1 percent used browsers via mobile, 28.6 percent downloaded applications, and 18.7 percent accessed blogs and social media via mobile. I'm glad to see you think 36.3% of mobile phone users is such a miniscule, unimportant amount, I see why you like working for AT&T so much, you and them are a perfect fit.
|
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 19:50 |
|
|
At the risk of stoking the flames on the text message debate, the part that is the most infuriating to me is that there is ZERO incremental cost for AT&T to support text messaging as the packets are already being transmitted to and from the devices already. You just piggyback a message along it. It's a mega-margin business for sure. While I am not one to stop a business from receiving a profit from a service that obviously has value, the GOUGING is what gets me all riled up. A reasonable return is one thing...
|
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 20:09 |
|
|
TraderStav posted:At the risk of stoking the flames on the text message debate, the part that is the most infuriating to me is that there is ZERO incremental cost for AT&T to support text messaging as the packets are already being transmitted to and from the devices already. The point of "absurd" SMS rates is to push folks into texting plans, which is a stable, predictable revenue source for networks to cover their fixed infrastructure costs. Sure, they could get rid of pay-per text entirely, but it's genuinely useful to a small-number of low-volume users. Aside from deceptive practices, it's not harmful, and for your purposes you can otherwise pretend it doesn't exist. Twice in the past week we've discussed the cost issues surrounding SMS. I know I've written a bit about it in the "Recommendation" thread, and I thought it was brought up here also--perhaps not. In any event, I personally find the concept of pay-per text less distasteful when understanding its actual economic purpose. I still don't like the unbounded-receive-cost problem though. ExcessBLarg! fucked around with this message at Mar 20, 2012 around 20:41 |
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 20:39 |
|
|
Nyc_Tattoo posted:I'm glad to see you think 36.3% of mobile phone users is such a miniscule, unimportant amount, I see why you like working for AT&T so much, you and them are a perfect fit. No I just understand the rules and guidelines we have and while they may not be agreeable to everyone , you do have a choice and can go to another provider. Pretty straight forward to be honest. 36% means poo poo to me. That's including every provider, old people who only talk, and everything between. The people bitching about not having a choice text. And the choice isn't hard. Use a text free app or gvoice or one of the other dozen alternatives out there. Or continue to pay for the 5 you send and receive a month? Some people seem to think us reps are sucking AT&T dick every day. We arnt, I pay verizon for my wireless service because i'd rather share a plan with the family and save money, plus I always prefer verizons android offerings. I have no bias, and I pay just as much as you guys if not more. Ever seen a family plan with 2 groups and everyone with smart phones, insurance, texting, ringback tones, and every other jerk off option you can imagine? Shits like 500-600 every month, its bat poo poo. But you know why we pay? Because the service works generally, my familys been with them for years, and its 2012, shits expensive and everyone understands that. Everyone also understands that there are cheaper options, but they simply dont work for our needs and we've decided its easier to pay a consistently high bill every month that still isnt too bad per person (its like 80 bucks each or something and 160ish for those that have work smart phones.) plus theres no surprises because we loving have everything already. EbolaIvory fucked around with this message at Mar 21, 2012 around 00:58 |
| # ? Mar 20, 2012 23:19 |
|
|
ExcessBLarg! posted:The point of "absurd" SMS rates is to push folks into texting plans, which is a stable, predictable revenue source for networks to cover their fixed infrastructure costs. Sure, they could get rid of pay-per text entirely, but it's genuinely useful to a small-number of low-volume users. Aside from deceptive practices, it's not harmful, and for your purposes you can otherwise pretend it doesn't exist. The problem I have with this is that, they already have a stable, predictable revenue source: contracted plans. I mean...you're right...stable, predictable revenue sources are extremely valuable to the carriers (and businesses in general). That's the main point of contracts, really. However, it would be a lot more consumer-friendly if they would adjust their plans in whatever way to give them the stability they desire and then allow people to do whatever they wanted with their text messaging. They won't do this, because the main point of pushing people onto texting plans is to make more money. I don't begrudge a company making a ton of money. I begrudge them using market distortions to do so. I guess, really, almost all of these complaints boil down to the lack of competition and choice. I mean, with the text messaging thing, I would love to be able to vote with my wallet, but as I mentioned earlier the choice of provider is a multi-faceted thing with lots of priorities, and the amount of choice is very limited. I would be unhappy with any carrier in the USA because they all do lovely stuff. (Of course, unhappy is hyperbolic...it's just cellular service, afterall)
|
| # ? Mar 21, 2012 00:59 |
|
|
Thermopyle posted:The problem I have with this is that, they already have a stable, predictable revenue source: contracted plans. Thermopyle posted:However, it would be a lot more consumer-friendly if they would adjust their plans in whatever way to give them the stability they desire and then allow people to do whatever they wanted with their text messaging. Chances are, if texting plans were dropped as a concept, base service rates would raise by $10/mo. Consider, for example, how Sprint's smartphone plans, which include text service, run $10/mo more ($80/mo total) than "standard-tier" Verizon and AT&T voice and data service, without text plans ($70/mo total). Granted, $80/mo nets you "unlimited data" on Sprint, but $70/mo also did on Verizon and AT&T not long ago. Edit: Just to point out, if you only use SMS services and neither (or sparingly) care about voice and data, AT&T GoPhone offers unlimited text for $20/mo total and T-Mobile Monthly4G for $15/mo. ExcessBLarg! fucked around with this message at Mar 21, 2012 around 01:59 |
| # ? Mar 21, 2012 01:56 |
|
|
Let's just recall that AT&T used to have $5, $10, and $20 texting plans. Now they only have $20. That's what drives people to pay-per-text, nothing else.
|
| # ? Mar 21, 2012 03:00 |
|
|
That's true, it was a much more reasonable situation back when the $5 and $10 options were around.
|
| # ? Mar 21, 2012 03:09 |
|
|
ExcessBLarg! posted:That's true, it was a much more reasonable situation back when the $5 and $10 options were around. Agreed. I do wish they would bring back a 10$ option, it would help sell data plans to be honest. and people would eventually upgrade themselves to the unlimited later anyways, but it at least it eases people into it i guess. I dunno, I do a stupid amount of texting as does everyone I know. But I can see the use for it. ExcessBLarg! posted:Edit: Just to point out, if you only use SMS services and neither (or sparingly) care about voice and data, AT&T GoPhone offers unlimited text for $20/mo total and T-Mobile Monthly4G for $15/mo. And its such a loving awesome idea. If I was in need of cheap communication thats where id be for sure. EbolaIvory fucked around with this message at Mar 21, 2012 around 04:51 |
| # ? Mar 21, 2012 04:47 |
|
|
ExcessBLarg! posted:But if I never use SMS services, why should I subsidize your potentially-heavy use of it? If I never use voice services, why should I subsidize your potentially-heavy use of voice with my SMS plan? After all, SMS costs them next to nothing, it's data and voice that costs them money. I object to any of us subsidizing anyone else's usage. Really though, none of us are subsidizing anything other than mega profits. AT&T is doing nothing but moving to protect those profits. There's nothing wrong with that, really. But the problem is that their (and really, by "their" I mean all the carriers) moves are anti-consumer and consumers can't vote with their wallet because they get shafted by limited choice. ExcessBLarg! posted:Chances are, if texting plans were dropped as a concept, base service rates would raise by $10/mo. Right, and that hints at one of my points. You're not paying for the costs of texting, you're paying for profits (mostly) and subsidizing voice service (a little). To be clear, personally, I'm OK with AT&T making pure profit on something that costs them next to nothing. For people who use SMS a lot the value they get out of the service is probably worth the $10 or $20 per month. The only thing I have an issue with is the market distortions that allow them to go "hey, have nothing or pay $20 for unlimited". It's a dick move. Anyway, I don't even care about this. I only got involved in this discussion because someone said pay-per-text was stupid, and I was wondering (since I don't really pay close enough attention to my bill and how AT&T's plans change) if I was missing out on some reason why for my situation where I basically never send or receive texts (email and IM for me).
|
| # ? Mar 21, 2012 05:41 |
|
|
It's not as if you're subsidizing the use of an electrical grid where the marginal use reduces the reliability and wear on the equipment. The packets are already being sent as an underlying mechanism of the technology, long before text messages were available to the consumer. The subsidization is of the profits lost on those who do not use the service, not on the 'wear and tear' on the infrastructure. They really should adopt the utility model mindset in this arena, capture a REASONABLE return on the service and leave those other profits on the table. Be a good corporate citizen.
|
| # ? Mar 21, 2012 12:41 |
|
|
I'm pretty sure this will be my final set of questions, sorry for asking about a ton of things. How does the Early Termination Fee work? From what I understand, as long as i cancel AFTER the first 30 days, i will NOT be charged for both the ETF and early phone price (only the 325.00 ETF fee)? Or do i always have to pay out both? So, if i decide i dont like paying the monthly fee, due to bad coverage or whatever, after the first month or 2, i can just cancel the service and only have to pay the $325.00 total? Im just double checking with you guys. grimcreaper fucked around with this message at Mar 21, 2012 around 21:56 |
| # ? Mar 21, 2012 21:25 |
|
|
Thermopyle posted:If I never use voice services, why should I subsidize your potentially-heavy use of voice with my SMS plan? Thermopyle posted:After all, SMS costs them next to nothing, it's data and voice that costs them money. TraderStav posted:The packets are already being sent as an underlying mechanism of the technology, long before text messages were available to the consumer. Believe me, I've tried to understand SS7 and it's complicated as poo poo. If anyone here is a telephony protocol expert, I invite them to provide a detailed analysis that settles this issue once and for all. That said, to the extent I understand the relevant protocols, SMS isn't as cheap as everyone thinks it is, i.e., it's not free. The problem is that, while the marginal cost to send "the next" SMS is essentially zero, there is a significant cost to flinging messages across the network in bulk. Most SMS messages, particularly those sent to idle handsets, have to be sent across paging channels, which are very bandwidth constrained relative to voice/data channels. If you have enough users in a single cell having "text conversations", you'll saturate the paging channel bandwidth, and that's where problems begin. Now, one solution to the "paging channel problem" is to QoS SMS messages into the lowest priority bin, which carriers do. But since folks dislike getting texts minutes after they're sent (particularly if one is having a conversation), at some point the carriers is going to have to upgrade their basestations to add more paging channels, and thus, greater SMS capacity within a cell. That's a real cost. About the "texts take up space that's already being used" claim, that's a vague explanation of a technical protocol that I'm not certain is that simple. It's possible that SMS can piggy-back on other paging messages, I'm not sure. If a phone is actively in a voice call, I believe texts can route through that channel which is much less resource constrained. But I would suspect that most texts arriving at handsets within 5-10 seconds of being sent are likely being pushed, and not piggy-backing. Like I said, I'm not an expert in the details of the signaling protocols, so I don't have solid answers for questions like: "how much text traffic can a cell support before it requires infrastructure upgrades to deliver timely?" But the answer certainly isn't infinite. All that said, $20/mo or bust (or 20¢ per SMS I guess) is crummy, and I'm not a fan of AT&T's recent pricing shenanigans. But I find it believable the explosion in SMS use over the past few years may have risen to the level where carriers have had build out additional infrastructure to support it, and so I don't find the general concept of charging for SMS services to be completely detestable. ExcessBLarg! fucked around with this message at Mar 21, 2012 around 23:14 |
| # ? Mar 21, 2012 23:10 |
|
|
ExcessBLarg! posted:But you're not. ExcessBLarg! posted:Can we please stop quoting this without a solid reference to back it up? Just because some smartass a long time ago pointed out that AT&T text rates charge $1500 per MB doesn't make either of the above statements true. In the past, I've just done naive back of the envelope calculations on what it takes to transmit and receive bytes of data and how that compares to the information content of voice calls and data usage. ExcessBLarg! posted:But the answer certainly isn't infinite. AMR voice coding probably averages around 1024 bytes....per second, compared to ~140 bytes for a full text message. (AMR is adaptive so it has multiple bit rates) Of course, there are lots of details this glosses over. Like the issue of the distinct channels you mention. My feeling is that there are costs to account for, but that they just aren't that substantive compared to the cost of text messaging. (As a tangential point: I'm not terribly concerned that the technology they're using to send text messages makes inefficient usage of spectrum. If their prices are "high" because they don't use spectrum well, and I cared about text messaging, then I'll just switch to another carrier who makes use of a better technology. Oh wait.) ExcessBLarg! posted:But I find it believable the explosion in SMS use over the past few years may have risen to the level where carriers have had build out additional infrastructure to support it ExcessBLarg! posted:and so I don't find the general concept of charging for SMS services to be completely detestable.
|
| # ? Mar 22, 2012 00:01 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 12:37 |
|
|
Thermopyle posted:In the past, I've just done naive back of the envelope calculations on what it takes to transmit and receive bytes of data and how that compares to the information content of voice calls and data usage. For data, it's a bit more difficult, especially with smartphones that use persistent data connections, which is why a lot of work has, in recent years, gone towards optimizing data power and spectrum-usage efficiency. With LTE, dedicated low-power, low-bandwidth signaling mechanisms should go away, or at least be less of a bottleneck. And in that kind of network, the distinction between SMS and GV/C2DM should blur (if we're not already there) to the point that dedicated messaging plans become a legacy service that really has no benefit over a comparably-priced data plan. Thermopyle posted:I have a confidence level of greater than 85% that their actual infrastructure costs as a proportion of the total price paid over all their customers using the $20 unlimited SMS plan is less than say...3%...of their infrastructure costs for voice calls. But sure, few of us are "happy" with the existing pricing models across the nationwide carriers. There's some interesting options out there, for sure, but unfortunately they're not available to everyone, if for no other reason than lack of coverage. And in particular, the changes in AT&T's pricing over the past year (limited texting options, $5/mo data plan increases) do rub me as rather predatory. I don't know, hopefully this discussion provides some more background to folks on these issues. It'll be interesting to see where things go in the future.
|
| # ? Mar 22, 2012 00:49 |
|
