What is the difference between text messages and data?

[tsguy52]

Originally Posted by vatothe0

So handling in excess of 30,000,000,000 messages per month has a minimal cost? Must run on magic.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

It is a minimal cost to keep that specific aspect of the network up. Channels designed just for SMS that are always open within the network, which makes the cost a flat rate for the carrier. Does not involve many different systems as voice or data would. Bandwidth is never really an issue. 1 SMS = 140 bytes max

[tsguy52]

Originally Posted by vatothe0

So are the plan. What is your point?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

The point is that SMS costs are heavily inflated and are so that they make up for the lack voice calls now made. Sure the plans are cheaper, but when you put it in perspective SMS has a very very good profit margin.

[vatothe0]

Originally Posted by tsguy52

The point is that SMS costs are heavily inflated and are so that they make up for the lack voice calls now made. Sure the plans are cheaper, but when you put it in perspective SMS has a very very good profit margin.

A business that sells some items with low margin and some with high margin? How terrible of them.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[tsguy52]

Here is how inflated SMS costs are:

Cost per SMS: $.20
Cost per MB used in a data session browsing the web: $1.99

1MB worth of SMS = 7,490 SMS messages
7,490 SMS messages @ $.20 each = $1,498

So you're looking at $1,498/MB vs $1.99/MB normal data.

[vatothe0]

Originally Posted by tsguy52

It is a minimal cost to keep that specific aspect of the network up. Channels designed just for SMS that are always open within the network, which makes the cost a flat rate for the carrier. Does not involve many different systems as voice or data would. Bandwidth is never really an issue. 1 SMS = 140 bytes max

So 30,000,000,000 messages multiplied by 140 bytes is a a lot of data. Add in support to bill it, and store the messages for legal requests and its quite a bit.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[vatothe0]

Originally Posted by tsguy52

Here is how inflated SMS costs are:

Cost per SMS: $.20
Cost per MB used in a data session browsing the web: $1.99

1MB worth of SMS = 7,490 SMS messages
7,490 SMS messages @ $.20 each = $1,498

So you're looking at $1,498/MB vs $1.99/MB normal data.

Send your messages as email then.

Since you have no idea what the true cost for sms is, this is pretty pointless.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[tsguy52]

Originally Posted by vatothe0

So 30,000,000,000 messages multiplied by 140 bytes is a a lot of data. Add in support to bill it, and store the messages for legal requests and its quite a bit.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Billing isn't a big issue. It passes through their SMSC, then it gets billed. It doesn't even matter if you're roaming, which makes it less complex when it comes to billing.

Storing 30 billion messages on a server would be a very small size. Not to mention VZW would delete the messages after a certain amount of time anyway.

For 30 Billion messages it would require roughly 3,912GB of storage space. That could fit on a few hard drives. Big deal.

[TwinsX2Dad]

Originally Posted by vatothe0

So handling in excess of 30,000,000,000 messages per month has a minimal cost? Must run on magic.

Of course it is minimal - or even zero.

SMS runs on a subchannel within the voice carrier. Whether or not this subchannel is carrying any user messages, it is constantly transmitting two-way data. The data is carrier ID information, but the vast majority of it is redundant sampling.

If there is no subscriber message input, an extremely tiny amount of the information is actually used - somewhere around .000001% is all that is actually processed & the rest goes unused - data bouncing off walls & into the ether. Text messaging traffic accounts for less than .000025 of the total transmission bandwidth. The data flows between your phone & the network, whether you send anything or not - even when you have a texting block.

So it is there whether you use it or not - a byproduct of the radio spectrum - carriers don't need to provision anything extra to make it work - they only need to do extra to stop independent transmissions to your account or line.

Think of it this way - i used to have a home with flood irrigation. The canal that served me was less than 200ft from my property line. I owned & maintained the gate apparatus, as well as the piping that suppied the water. The irrigation authority did nothing to the water other than divert it away from the river. At the end of the canal, the water fed into a water plant. If I used water, I had to pay $50 per year to the authority. If I didn't use any water, they locked my gate & I was not granted access to the water. I understand the fee for the water was for maintenance of the channels before my gate - but why did I have to pay for a fishing license to drop a hook into the water? The fish that made it to the plant died. The fish that made it through the gate & grating into my yard could be caught

That canal represents voice service - the subchannels & undertows are there no matter what. I paid for the water, like one would pay for the voice service. The fish were there no matter what. Was the irrigation authority paying for those fish? No - the fish were free. My license fees went to subsidize something else in the state. It would cost them to keep the canal fish-free.

So. it doesn't matter if it is 3 messages, 30 billion or 700 billion - there is no cost to provide the service - it is there no matter what.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[tsguy52]

Originally Posted by vatothe0

Send your messages as email then.

Since you have no idea what the true cost for sms is, this is pretty pointless.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

You're bringing up an argument that has no merit. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to charge for SMS. I think it's a brilliant business move. It costs basically nothing and reels in an amazing profit margin.

Why are you trying to prove that SMS actually takes very much to upkeep?

[TwinsX2Dad]

Originally Posted by tsguy52

Why are you trying to prove that SMS actually takes very much to upkeep?

He can't - the argument he is posing has no merit. He is just arguing to read his own words.

As I've said many times before - what the costs are is meaningless - what means something is how much people are willing to pay. If they can charge it & you don't like it, then don't use it. There are many others willing to pay for the service, whether the carrier makes 1% profit or 1000% profit. Anyone who argues that it isn't market-driven is either dumb to economics or has a socialist/fascist view of the world.

But anyone who tries to make an argument that SMS costs anything - and I would even forgive a high estimate of five cents per line per year - doesn't know telecom or how it works.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[lak611]

Originally Posted by TwinsX2Dad

Of course it is minimal - or even zero.

SMS runs on a subchannel within the voice carrier. Whether or not this subchannel is carrying any user messages, it is constantly transmitting two-way data. The data is carrier ID information, but the vast majority of it is redundant sampling.

If there is no subscriber message input, an extremely tiny amount of the information is actually used - somewhere around .000001% is all that is actually processed & the rest goes unused - data bouncing off walls & into the ether. Text messaging traffic accounts for less than .000025 of the total transmission bandwidth. The data flows between your phone & the network, whether you send anything or not - even when you have a texting block.

So it is there whether you use it or not - a byproduct of the radio spectrum - carriers don't need to provision anything extra to make it work - they only need to do extra to stop independent transmissions to your account or line.

Think of it this way - i used to have a home with flood irrigation. The canal that served me was less than 200ft from my property line. I owned & maintained the gate apparatus, as well as the piping that suppied the water. The irrigation authority did nothing to the water other than divert it away from the river. At the end of the canal, the water fed into a water plant. If I used water, I had to pay $50 per year to the authority. If I didn't use any water, they locked my gate & I was not granted access to the water. I understand the fee for the water was for maintenance of the channels before my gate - but why did I have to pay for a fishing license to drop a hook into the water? The fish that made it to the plant died. The fish that made it through the gate & grating into my yard could be caught

That canal represents voice service - the subchannels & undertows are there no matter what. I paid for the water, like one would pay for the voice service. The fish were there no matter what. Was the irrigation authority paying for those fish? No - the fish were free. My license fees went to subsidize something else in the state. It would cost them to keep the canal fish-free.

So. it doesn't matter if it is 3 messages, 30 billion or 700 billion - there is no cost to provide the service - it is there no matter what.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Thanks for posting this. It really gives a good explanation that is easy to understand.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[vatothe0]

Originally Posted by TwinsX2Dad

He can't - the argument he is posing has no merit. He is just arguing to read his own words.

As I've said many times before - what the costs are is meaningless - what means something is how much people are willing to pay. If they can charge it & you don't like it, then don't use it. There are many others willing to pay for the service, whether the carrier makes 1% profit or 1000% profit. Anyone who argues that it isn't market-driven is either dumb to economics or has a socialist/fascist view of the world.

But anyone who tries to make an argument that SMS costs anything - and I would even forgive a high estimate of five cents per line per year - doesn't know telecom or how it works.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

So you're saying that all of VZW's costs to transport ~360,000,000,000 messages per year is less than $4,000,000? That's even based on 80 million customers texting at the same rate they did in November of 2008...

I'm not saying the cost is high or that messaging isn't a high margin service. I'm saying the costs are not insubstantial and cannot be ignored.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[TwinsX2Dad]

Originally Posted by vatothe0

So you're saying that all of VZW's costs to transport ~360,000,000,000 messages per year is less than $4,000,000? That's even based on 80 million customers texting at the same rate they did in November of 2008...

I'm not saying the cost is high or that messaging isn't a high margin service. I'm saying the costs are not insubstantial and cannot be ignored.

No - I never said any of those figures. You're trying to read things that I never said. What I said was if the carriers decided to charge nothing for texting, their only cost being billing for the service, the cost would be nothiing. Zero, zilch, nada. Just like the cost to my old irrigation district for those fish. Zip.

You cannot separate the subchannel from the voice frequency - it is too low power for voice and too noisy for full data. But it is there. There is no interface to utilize it. The device simply has to be able to access the channel that is constantly pirating data from it anyway - no cost to the carrier there.

Programming for the entire network consisted of no more than two hours programming time and doesn't need to be refreshed, reworked or manually duplicated. So you can take your programmer - even if he made $50/hour - toss in a high figure of $500/hour for network time & you have a cost that is fully amortized in the texting plans my company pays in one month.

By any math teacher's calculation & instruction, $1100, spread across 87 million subscribers over the lifespan of a contract, is mathematically nil & irrelevant. It would still be nil & irrelevant if we simply spread it out across one month.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[vatothe0]

Originally Posted by TwinsX2Dad

No - I never said any of those figures. You're trying to read things that I never said. What I said was if the carriers decided to charge nothing for texting, their only cost being billing for the service, the cost would be nothiing. Zero, zilch, nada. Just like the cost to my old irrigation district for those fish. Zip.

You cannot separate the subchannel from the voice frequency - it is too low power for voice and too noisy for full data. But it is there. There is no interface to utilize it. The device simply has to be able to access the channel that is constantly pirating data from it anyway - no cost to the carrier there.

Programming for the entire network consisted of no more than two hours programming time and doesn't need to be refreshed, reworked or manually duplicated. So you can take your programmer - even if he made $50/hour - toss in a high figure of $500/hour for network time & you have a cost that is fully amortized in the texting plans my company pays in one month.

By any math teacher's calculation & instruction, $1100, spread across 87 million subscribers over the lifespan of a contract, is mathematically nil & irrelevant. It would still be nil & irrelevant if we simply spread it out across one month.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

So now you're saying it only cost Verizon $1100 once to operate all their SMS messages forever? Or even a year?

If it costs nothing to transmit and deliver a message, why would verizon attempt to disable delivery notification? Your position is that it cost them nothing so what would motivate them to do that?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[tsguy52]

Originally Posted by vatothe0

So now you're saying it only cost Verizon $1100 once to operate all their SMS messages forever? Or even a year?

If it costs nothing to transmit and deliver a message, why would verizon attempt to disable delivery notification? Your position is that it cost them nothing so what would motivate them to do that?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Disabling delivery notification to free up the network channel is a lot different than it costing them too much.

The point of this whole thread is - what is the justification of the pricing for SMS when it is basically included in the service regardless?

Answer: Highly profitable. Good business decision.

I remember when you could get unlimited text for $5. Then it went to $7 and then to $10. That was with Cellular South. Still using the SAME technology and not costing the company any more than it did back 5 years ago. Normally when technology advances prices go down. We've only seen the opposite with SMS. That's because it is having to make up for the lack of minutes required by the average user (lower plans selected).