09-05-09 01:46 PM
34 12
tools
  1. Laura Knotek's Avatar
    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
    09-04-09 08:34 PM
  2. vatothe0's Avatar
    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
    09-04-09 09:35 PM
  3. TwinsX2Dad's Avatar
    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
    09-04-09 09:53 PM
  4. vatothe0's Avatar
    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
    09-04-09 10:29 PM
  5. tsguy52's Avatar
    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).
    09-04-09 11:05 PM
  6. TwinsX2Dad's Avatar
    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?
    Until you actually learn some reading comprehension, let me spell it out to you this way.

    Open your car's glove box.

    See the empty space in there?

    Now wad up a piece of paper & stuff it in that empty space.

    Drive around for a week.

    Did it cost you anything?

    Now onto your new shuck & jive with the delivery notification.

    How many people call into support asking why some messages show a notification & some don't? How much time is spent explaining to customers the difference between in-network & out of network behavior? What's the latest VZW estimate on average cost per support call? Is it about $8 or has it hit $10 yet?

    Get rid of it, six months later, no more calls. Now you can see where the cost savings comes in.

    Now, go learn some telecom engineering. Oh wait - to do that, you must first know how to read & understand logic. I know that logic escapes you, but you might make an effort to grasp it.

    And yet again - tsguy proves that no matter how bleak it seems, some intelligent life does exist in the ether.
    09-05-09 03:16 AM
  7. vatothe0's Avatar
    So now you're back to saying it's zero cost. Whereas here...
    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.
    you said it cost Verizon up to 5 cents per line per year which would be about 4 million dollars.

    It's hard to track which version of your own story you're asserting as fact.

    So if you are saying the cost is zero then that's fine. I can assure you it isn't.
    09-05-09 12:51 PM
  8. TwinsX2Dad's Avatar
    .you said it cost Verizon up to 5 cents per line per year which would be about 4 million dollars.
    You sir, are a liar. What I said...
    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.

    Typical tactic of someone trying to argue something they are over their head on - to twist & intentionally misinterpret their opposition.

    I said I would FORGIVE an estimate - be it from you or anyone else. I never once said it would cost that. I would forgive that because again, it would be statistically irrelevant.

    But let's take your flawed assumption for a moment. We'll add together your misinterpreted $4 million/year & add in my high estimate for programming. We now have $4,001,100. Now let's say less than 20% of VZW customers have a $20 testing plan for a year. To make it easy, let's just call it 15 million $20 texting packages. In a year, that is $3.6 billion. The cost is still .001% of revenue. 1/1000th of a percent.

    Let's see - you're a rep, right? As such, ouve probably never seen a line of code, climbed a tower or been on the provisioning end of a switch, much less touched a switch. You're fed what low-level managers want you to know & you swallow it hook, line & sinker.

    You go back to pushing flip phones & I will continue to help build & provision networks. And while you're there being trated like a mushroom, learn to not twist the words of others - your desperate attempts to do so with what I write are blindingly obvious.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    09-05-09 01:34 PM
  9. tsguy52's Avatar
    The cost is basically no cost at all, because there is hardly anything to maintain. Everything is there in place and ready to go.

    How often are outages ever related to SMS?

    Now - how many data outages are there? Or what about voice issues? Nothing like getting a disconnect error when calling your landline!

    With SMS you don't have to worry about a lot of things - most cases it just works. And in any event that it is not working, then it can be fixed fairly quickly with a few clicks (99% of the time).

    Voice/Data cost the company so much more to manage when compared to SMS. SMS is a drop in the bucket - and I think that is the point TwinsX2Dad is trying to make here.
    Last edited by tsguy52; 09-05-09 at 01:48 PM.
    09-05-09 01:46 PM
34 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD