Rumor Mill
I keep hearing...
...that the FCC is gonna make it mandatory that wireless carriers make text messaging rates cheaper due to it causing inflation. I guess reasoning is basically that it only costs providers pennies on the dollar, its not fair that they charge as much as they do.
Anyone got any insight on this?
Anyone got any insight on this?
...
Most carriers offer bundles for messaging. Really, if you're spending over $5 (maybe 50 to 100 messages, depending on carrier) on TXT charges, you should probably have a package anyways.
Of course, if they force carriers to lower costs, you can sure as well bet that the carriers will also lower their courtesy credits, upgrade dates and not give things away so much.
Of course, if they force carriers to lower costs, you can sure as well bet that the carriers will also lower their courtesy credits, upgrade dates and not give things away so much.
...
Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Yes, the carriers are getting over. SMS cost them pennies to generate. By forcing consumers to sign up for bundles (even a $5) they are guaranteeing themselves revenue on something which cost them next to nothing. Basically, the same things fast food restaurants do by charging you $.99 for a drink that cost them the cost of the cup. I don't see the FCC getting involved. The carriers have no conscience... So what else is new? If you ran Verizon or AT&T and you could get away with it, would you not do the same?
...
Well of course the carriers are gonna milk it for all its worth, but I can see where this is out of hand. If I send 4000 texts in a month on the AT&T network (way over average), I have to pay $20 for the unlimited plan. It costs AT&T 2 dollars maybe to send this info and their charging me 1000% more. That's inflation if nothing else.
And DIVINE, you were thinking more along the lines of pay per use. I agree with you that people using that much text should be on a plan, but as I've explained above, even on a plan the carriers are overcharging.
I don't think the FCC is gonna get involved either, but I can see why the idea has been brought up a few times.
And DIVINE, you were thinking more along the lines of pay per use. I agree with you that people using that much text should be on a plan, but as I've explained above, even on a plan the carriers are overcharging.
I don't think the FCC is gonna get involved either, but I can see why the idea has been brought up a few times.
...
Actually forwarding calls and tranferring voice is more expensive than providing the texting service..while directly hiking the rates up on voice calls will affect the users directly ...slowly bringin text into the fore by bringing out a lot of offers and making people text more and then beginning to charge messages profits the service provider....the possible profits are recovered through text service while the voice call rates are untouched
So i dont see a change of texting rate fall.
So i dont see a change of texting rate fall.
...
Yeah we know its more expensive, that's why we pay more for it. But the cost of it isn't rising, and that's the reason our rates haven't changed. Carriers charge us enough to cover our costs plus make profit, they don't need to "make up the money" with other features like texting.
...
See, this would be a valid argument if networks were static.
But ALL major networks are spending a boatload to expand their networks as well as unveiling new features and pushing high speed data networks (which improve voice calls with better coverage and generally mean longer battery lives). While they do charge for the data features, it isn't anywhere near enough to cover the initial setup costs quickly enough before the next technology is released. Plus it offers benefits to "basic" customers that they are not being charged for.
Text messaging packages are there for steady income. That is why they are SO much cheaper per message than the per message rate. Carriers prefer the packages because they are predictable.
The profit...
(continues)
But ALL major networks are spending a boatload to expand their networks as well as unveiling new features and pushing high speed data networks (which improve voice calls with better coverage and generally mean longer battery lives). While they do charge for the data features, it isn't anywhere near enough to cover the initial setup costs quickly enough before the next technology is released. Plus it offers benefits to "basic" customers that they are not being charged for.
Text messaging packages are there for steady income. That is why they are SO much cheaper per message than the per message rate. Carriers prefer the packages because they are predictable.
The profit...
(continues)
...
This might be one of the most amusing post I've ever seen on here. I busted a gut over this one. 🤣 🤣 You may want to consult someone with an economics or business background for this one. There are very few industries where our Federal Government can or is willing to step in and establish a price ceiling.
We live in a free market economy. Prices are set according to supply and demand. Companies will charge what the customer is willing to pay for the services. If the government want to adjust a price point, they typically subsidize it. Currently I believe our government has more to worry about than the price of text messages. Thinks like a financial meltdown, the collapse of our real estate industry, and the highest unem...
(continues)
We live in a free market economy. Prices are set according to supply and demand. Companies will charge what the customer is willing to pay for the services. If the government want to adjust a price point, they typically subsidize it. Currently I believe our government has more to worry about than the price of text messages. Thinks like a financial meltdown, the collapse of our real estate industry, and the highest unem...
(continues)
...
Thank you so much for finally saying it. If the cost of milk goes up at the grogery store, the government isn't going to step in and lower it. You nailed it on the head. As a sales rep for a wireless company, I know we will charge whatever it is the consumer is willing to pay to use the service.
...
using milk is actually a bad analogy because the government artificially raises the price of all dairy products though paying farmers not to raise cattle and then buying metric tons of product that they then throw away.
...
