They really do not tax the infrastructure in any significant way. A voice call is about 5K bits per second. And those are high quality of service bits. They needs to be delivered in a timely fashion. An SMS is about 1K bits and can be delivered seconds later and no one will care. even seven is basically correct. SMS messages are grossly overpriced in the US. Which is why you find people that send a lot of texts move to some service like google voice which sends the messages using you data plan where even the cheapest data plan can support 100s of thousands of messages a month without making a dent in you data plan.
Because I think giving high end laptops to little kids is a bit excessive?
You are another one that talks about infrastructure, QoS, bps, and data like you have a clue about them. I’m not in this to show anyone up, pit them individually (tho I seem to be engaged in a rare derailment and apologize to the OP), or win debate points. I am, however, HERE (SDMB) because I believe in fighting ignorance.
Trillions and trillions of SMS messages (that’s 12 zeros on your tail, Red Baron, type it out and really look at it, like visually- 1,000,000,000,000) double-digit trillions (10,000,000,000,000 annually in just the US), traverse the “infrastructure” [which both of you seem to think grew free, overnight, and designed for SMS]. Every one of those carries the face-value content of the text you type and send, but in zeros-and-ones that taco is wrapped in several more layers (think Taco Town SNL skit) before it is ever served up to you, the unwashed masses.
Do you have the first clue that this infrastructure was built starting in the early 1800s and the same twisted copper pair that runs to your house would be recognizable to Bell or Edison? Not relevant, you say? Oh, you mean mobile-to-mobile only. Good thing we’ve evolved beyond ever having to fax or call someone with a landline, or contact a hospital or business or alarm system or ship-to-shore or pretty much EVERY ATM AND CREDIT CARD MACHINE with landlines.
Do you even know what you mean when you say voice is “5k bits per second” (or is it 5 kbps or 5Kbps, and does it even mean the analog sampling rate or bandwidth transmission rate- VERY distinct things not even measured or used or relevant in the same way).
You also mention that these are high QoS bits, and SMS are not, which you think somehow makes them easier/cheaper to get down the line since they can afford a few more MILLISECONDS (or Heaven forbid, seconds or even minutes) of delay?
If you had the first clue, you would know how asinine this makes you sound. The copper POTS (plain old telephone system [whose infrastructure took billions and billions of dollars decades before you were born]) system already lost 1 in 24 channels for control (CCS, then SS7, then SRS- all accumulative before SMS overload), to keep it real-time. Your low QoS means MORE packets eat up this fragile-ass copper POTS to KEEP resending the whole enchilada over and over every time it hits and loses a collision with the xillions of bits of first-thru-the-door voice bits, eating up an already exclusive and constricted control channel. THE FACT THAT IT DELAYS-BY-DESIGN MAKES IT WORSE, DUMBASS.
Now- is it overpriced? I already conceded so. Especially in the US. You know why? We invested so heavily 200 years ago in piece-of-shit telegram-telephone-fax-ISDN-DSL copper infrastructure, and then divestitured it, and only recently then over-layed fiber and taller towers and higher satellites on top of it as an afterthought, that we’re still scrambling to reconcile voice with data.
Comparing the two, however, only makes your ignorance glaring. The “two” infrastructure do not cross over readily, nor does previous investment in obsolete technology negate lightning-fast exponentially-growing demand for newer and more exclusive technology, and NEITHER infrastructure, or the millions of people that support them, or the xillions of dollars to both retro-fit and translate COME FREE.
To the informed, your argument sounds like “I should get free half-time spots during the SuperBowl because video costs ‘literally’ nothing to transmit [cuz Aunt Jan’s old boyfriend’s uncle’s former-roomate once uploaded a video to youtube FER FREE], there’s public access channels on my basic cable, and the infrastructure already exists and so my 30-seconds of PRE-RECORDED low-quality video simply CAN NOT costs as much as HD live-feed game coverage which I get as part of my $13/mo basic cable!!!11!!”
There’s apples, and there’s oranges, and there’s mythological apples everyone scrambles to pick up because they are gold and say “KALI”, and then way out there past that on some kind of luddite-silverstein-giving-tree there’s the some magic fruit in your analogy that tastes like SMS as if it were data. **Of course **there are other forms of mobile/instant messaging!! USE THEM- THEY ARE ACTUALLY DATA AND PRICED ACCORDINGLY (EVEN IF STILL OVER-SO, ESP IN US), but you won’t be punished for taxing the hell out of archaic, over-burdened, never-designed-for-this limited channels.
Don’t even get me started on unfunded federal mandates. You both obviously don’t know what the hell you are talking about, so you wouldn’t begin to comprehend the cost of wire-tapping, GPS, 911, 411, do-not-call, number portabilty, directory-listings, environmental concerns and costs, labor, maintenance, benefits, unions, retro-fitting, future-proofing, satellites, trans-oceanic cable repair, global inter-operability, etc.
Just keep pushing “Send” and thinking the fairies deliver it. Quite frankly I’m just as bored discussing it as it feels just like work. If you must present further ignorance though, I’ll gamely keep trying to cure it. Hell, if you even have ANY cite that doesn’t ignorantly conflate date with text (SMS), I’ll take the time to debunk it too.
Wow, you are really passionate about telecom infrastructure.
If text messages disappeared, how much would the phone companies save? Trillions and trillions sounds impressive, but I use my phone to watch movies, download books and stream music for hours. My message of “Cam you pick up some milk?” Should cost just a tiny tiny tiny fraction of that.
That is so super polite compared to what I was thinking. I actually am impressed.
You use your smart data-ready internet device that connects cellularly to the much newer information super highway to do those things, and if you use any of many data instant messaging services to send your message it will cost a fraction.
When you use it as a telephone to transmit SMS text though, it does not travel the same roads in the same way. Ma Bell is still ripping you off, just not quite to the extreme everyone thinks when they conflate the two.
Sorry for the rant…12 years in this aspect of the industry, 40+ hrs/week, has made me a bit jaded about people’s concept of magic clouds that pass everything the same way. Thank you for your constraint in reply.
The savings to phone companies would be comparable to Netflix’s if everyone stopped using mail-order DVDs and only streamed. In other words, they would lose money because of the mark-up, but they would quickly recuperate by losing the need to maintain and grow a faltering system, and invest that CAPEX in newer systems that are more relevant.
Now I’m genuinely curious. How do other countries do it? Are their SMSs send in different, more efficient ways?
I’d really need to see a cite on other countries text-pricing disparity. I saw some links earlier that were all about data being cheaper in Europe, but not really anything about texting.
What some users think of as texting is actually mobile messaging which leverages slightly newer GSM technology (well, 2G and up). It is much cheaper here and there.
The crazy 10-20 cent/txt rate in US often bandied about is for unbundled texting. Ma Bell’s excuse is they don’t want to burden people who don’t want texting by charging more to include it on every account, but they price it (in collusion, and at&t and VzWireless have bought their way out of anti-trust investigations over same) in such a way to force people to get unlimited texting (ditto with unlimited data) and market demand for video/sound/apps drives sales of more smart phones that leverage these services via data instead of oldskool SMS.
I don’t see a lot of indication that it is much cheaper overseas. The changes that have brought it down in Europe were enforced not that horribly long ago by their commission via tariff (cite) which sliced “roaming” call/texting and data costs to a fraction of what they were. To get an idea of what had been roaming before, overlay the US on top of Europe and think about getting raped for cell usage every time you crossed a state-line in US (comparable size comparison).
So…regulation is one big factor. Smaller geographic areas (easier coverage/deployment). Newer networks (learning from our mistakes and adopting newer technologies like fiber-to-the-home more quickly than US). Population densities (sounds silly as a factor, but the more people a tower/geosynch sat can cover, the less are needed), but the biggest reason (I suspect, absent a cite to investigate) is…
The people talking about how cheap it is are not talking about the same kind of unbundled (pay per text) SMS oldskool texting that US customers are complaining about. If you have a smart phone AND unlimited texting in US, your true price per text is perfectly comparable world-wide from what I’m seeing.
Everyone complaining about texting cost in US should go with a package, save money, and spend more time wondering why our healthcare and education costs also suck compared to a lot of places overseas. 
See here for some prices:
http://www.echinacities.com/expat-corner/a-dummy-s-guide-to-cell-phones-and-services-in-china.html
Text messages in China are around .08 RMB, or less than one cent. Basic voice and data plans start at $7.35. These are no-contract pay-as-you-go bundles.
In Cameroon, in-network (which is easy, as there are only two phone provider) texts messages are .35 CFA, or around half a cent. This is all completely pay-as-you-go, with bonuses of up to 15% if you buy more than $2.00 in credit at a time.
http://www.mtncameroon.net/LoadedPortal
In both of these countries, you do not pay to receive messages (unlike us, who actually pay double for each message). Indeed, in Cameroon they even offer services that allow you to send a basic message (saying basically “call me back”) if you have no credit at all on your phone. Cameroonians have, predictably, developed a nuanced code of how to use missed calls and empty text messages.
For comparison, I currently pay around $70.00 a month for a bare bones iPhone plan, of which I use only a tiny portion of the voice (maybe 100 minutes out of 450), and of which I’m always going oh so slightly over the data and text limits, whopping me with $20.00 in extra charges for a few texts.
China has about the same geographic area as US but with over four times the population, so that population density thing comes in as one factor. Market penetration is another…according to Forbes, China hit one billion cellphone users earlier this year, but only 14% are on 3G. That means 86% are still on 2G which is enough to utilize GMS for texting, but not the technology you’re used to for downloading movies and streaming video and apps, etc.
There’s a limit to what the market will bear, too- in 2001 a Chinese manufacturing job (er, working in a factory, not manufacturing Chinese people) averaged 58 cents per hour. These wages have gone up in last decade but aren’t expected to hit $6/hr until 2015. The cost of living is cheaper too, but not proportional to those wages. Cellphones and (crappy 2G) data plans just would not sell if they cost more.
Look at healthcare costs and average earnings and electricity and oil usage disparities also- it’s an entirely different economic culture and they are making their profits by staggering volume rather than high prices, selling crappy bandwidth (2G), and pricing to their market.
Cameroon seems to be another case where the market simply wouldn’t exist if it charged more. Only about 1 in 100 ppl had a landline, so they haven’t exactly exhausted themselves on old infrastructure, and the lack of almost any form of communication has driven the adoption of cellphone. Also crappy 2G- but just enough to leverage GSM instead of SMS. Only a few million users are capitalizing on living in that paradise and using cellphones. (Very isolated case study).
Shrug. I’ll say again, US shit is grossly over-priced, but the idea that it is “free” to the phone companies is all I was contesting. I’m not an expert on global economics, and there are so many factors- average wage vs. CoL, taxes, regulation, later adoption allowing for newer technology, but not expensive bleeding edge tech which would cost more.
They, and the Chinese, may be talking and (GMS-)texting, but they aren’t able on 2G to stream sound/video data like we are spoiled on. It’s more comparable to a tracfone with unlimited texting (then adjusted for local economy) which is a lot less than you pay for iPhone plans…
And you are going too far by saying Tracfones cost “a lot less” than iPhone plans. It’s $45 for the lowest plan, or about half of what sven is paying.
I thought you might like to know, since you are flaming mad about the difference between $0.00 and $0.0001.
Isn’t half of what you are paying significantly less? Even a lot less.
But you keep white knighting Big T. Shine on you crazy diamond.
Well, if you feel like making the same wages you’d make in China or Cameroon, then we can discuss equivalences and how we should be cheaper. Otherwise STFU and keep collecting a paycheck that would make you very wealthy in those nations.
Bit confused Chimera- which statement is this aimed at?
I’m confused too. Chimera, in this context I think it would be far more revealing to compare the cost of a text message to other products in the local economy, like a quart of cooking oil, a Big Mac, or a four-mile taxicab ride. If the price of a message is far less compared to those items than it is in the U.S., then it’s cheaper. What an average worker earns isn’t really the point.
Are you in Australia?* If so, what is the typical price per message there?
*Guessing from your location; thought that is a reference to Aboriginal culture.
That’s not how economics work. Prices don’t just evenly scale down so that making $200 in China is basically like making $2,000 here.
Locally produced products, such as produce, indigenous building materials, crafts and labor are going to be much cheaper. Global commodities, such as cooking oil and maize, are pretty much the same price in Geneva or Kathmandu, give or take some tariffs and taxes and transport costs to truly remote areas. That’s why the food crisis a few years back caused us a few extra bucks on our shopping bill, while sending families around the globe into the brink. Gasoline is tricky because it can be heavily taxed and occasionally subsidized, but the base price is the same everywhere.
Soap, laundry detergent and other “entry level” consumer goods are sold in the West at inflated prices, and multinationals such as Unilever have “emerging market” lines at lower price points. Cheap Chinese goods are globally available, but in the US we see the low-end goods as dollar store garbage, whereas in poorer countries the cheap plastic stuff is the best quality many people have access to. Quality manufactured goods are going to be very expensive in poor countries, often double or triple the US price.
Cell phone infrastructure and the skilled personnel to maintain it strikes me as one of those things that is less like a tomato or homespun cloth, and more like a generator or a tractor- in other words, things that are probably going to be more expensive as you get into poorer and poorer places, not cheaper. China has internal manufacturing, technical capacity, other infrastructure (roads and electricty) and probably some favorable government policies that can keep prices low, and that may help. Cameroon (along with much of Sub-Saharan Africa) almost certainly does not. Looking at face value, I’d expect cell phone costs to be exponentially higher in Cameroon, as they are with most technological products (I think a land line, for example, runs around $70 a month- over many people’s monthly income.)
Cell phone service is not cheap abroad because abroad is cheap. Cell phone service is cheap abroad because cell phone service is cheap.
Not really. I pay $7 a month for my Tracfone, and get more minutes than I actually use.
It sounds to me like a lot of people don’t know how to shop for cheaper cellphone service. I pay $35 a month to boostmobile for unlimited cell phone service. I could get service a lot cheaper if I was willing to just buy minutes. I was on Sprint before, so my service is the same. I could get unlimited data for $40, but I haven’t bothered, since I use Clearwire for my internet. I can just take my tablet and hotspot with me it I need to get online.
I use a pre-paid service, and I do have a smart phone, unlimited everything $45 per month. A landline all by itself was $60. I get my internet through my cable company, and high speed internet and cable are just under $60. It didn’t make sense for meto get a landline. My employer expects to be able to contact me, so a phone I take with me is essential.
It is a different world than when we were kids.