Calls for an investigation into monopolistic practices by US mobile
operators have been answered with a review by the Justice Department
that could quickly turn into an investigation.
On Monday the chair of the Senate antitrust subcommittee, Herb Kohl,
wrote to the FCC and the Justice Department, regarding operators
abusing their power through exclusive handset deals, price matching
and refusal to make roaming agreements. Now the Wall Street Journal
reports that the Justice Department has launched a review of the
matter. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124689740762401297.html>
Herb Kohl's letter pointed to increases in the cost of text messaging
as in indicator of the risk America is taking by having so few
companies with such market share, describing it as a "warning sign
for the state of competition in the cell phone market", while also
calling for mandated roaming to allow smaller companies to compete
more effectively.
...
The FCC is already examining exclusive handset deals, to see if they
unfairly benefit the larger operators. This follows a letter on the
issue from Senator Kerry, so the operators should be suitably on edge
by now anyway.
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/07/antitrust_investigation/>
>
> Calls for an investigation into monopolistic practices by US mobile
> operators have been answered with a review by the Justice Department
> that could quickly turn into an investigation.
Good. What they charge for text messaging is an obvious case of
price fixing - the default 20 cents per message is at least an
order of magnitude higher than can be justified by the cost of
providing the service (including a decent profit).
It is easy to estimate - aside from the wireless part of it,
text messaging is really no different intrinsicly than email.
It just has a limit of 160 characters per message. So the cost
is really a fraction of a penny per message + wireless bandwidth costs.
AT&T charges around two cents per kilobyte (less if you have a
plan). Even at that grossly inflated rate, the bandwidth required
for sending a text message is less than a penny.
IMHO the only explanation for these high prices is price fixing.
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:kc37551nu2kjgpqb6pff4668ielk1jrf09@4ax.com:
> The FCC is already examining exclusive handset deals, to see if they
> unfairly benefit the larger operators. This follows a letter on the
> issue from Senator Kerry, so the operators should be suitably on edge
> by now anyway.
>
Anyone having to "investigate" the obvious is bureaucratic footdragging
until the money comes in from the big boys. Then, it'll all be forgotten
until they get greedy again.
--
-----
Larry
Noone will be safe until the last lawyer has been strangled by the entrails
of the last cleric.
> Good. What they charge for text messaging is an obvious case of
> price fixing - the default 20 cents per message is at least an
> order of magnitude higher than can be justified by the cost of
> providing the service (including a decent profit).
>
>
20 cents for 161 bytes = $1,242.24/megabyte, $1,242,236/GB.
Are you saying you find that a bit "excessive"?
The word "usury" comes to mind here, with visions of being dragged out of
their offices and hung by the necks from the nearest lamppost....like the
old days.
......and noone seems to care.....no riots, demonstrations, even so much as
a protest sign....Sheeple just accept anything and fanbois think it's
wonderful....
......so it must be "OK"....right?
--
-----
Larry
Noone will be safe until the last lawyer has been strangled by the entrails
of the last cleric.
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:47:59 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
<Xns9C41AAE5D35CEnoonehomecom@74.209.131.13>:
>nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>news:871vos48su.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>
>> Good. What they charge for text messaging is an obvious case of
>> price fixing - the default 20 cents per message is at least an
>> order of magnitude higher than can be justified by the cost of
>> providing the service (including a decent profit).
>
>20 cents for 161 bytes = $1,242.24/megabyte, $1,242,236/GB.
>
>Are you saying you find that a bit "excessive"?
>
>The word "usury" comes to mind here, ...
Whatever for? It's got nothing to do with usury.
usury n., pl. -ries.
1. the lending or practice of lending money at an exorbitant
interest.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:42:08 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
<Xns9C41A9E8626Enoonehomecom@74.209.131.13>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:kc37551nu2kjgpqb6pff4668ielk1jrf09@4ax.com :
>
>> The FCC is already examining exclusive handset deals, to see if they
>> unfairly benefit the larger operators. This follows a letter on the
>> issue from Senator Kerry, so the operators should be suitably on edge
>> by now anyway.
>
>Anyone having to "investigate" the obvious is bureaucratic footdragging
>until the money comes in from the big boys. Then, it'll all be forgotten
>until they get greedy again.
Investigation is an essential part of due process, which you'd
undoubtedly be whining about if you were on the other end of the
process.
"The lad doth protest too much methinks!"
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
> Good. What they charge for text messaging is an obvious case of
> price fixing - the default 20 cents per message is at least an
> order of magnitude higher than can be justified by the cost of
> providing the service (including a decent profit).
Price fixing requires collusion. In the case of the currently obscene
text message charges, it's one carrier testing the waters of a new price
point, getting away with it, and everyone else joining the feeding frenzy.
Besides- they don't actually expect you to pay $0.20/text- it's extortion
to convince you to buy a $5-10 message bundle, resulting in an ersatz
rate increase.
It's like the "baggage fees" at airlines. They don't expect you fly
without luggage- it's simply a way to increase a $250 ticket to $275
without raising rates, like a $5 texting plan makes your $40/month
cellular bill a $45/month bill.
> IMHO the only explanation for these high prices is price fixing.
Nahh, it's a shell game. Just like how casual dining restaurants now
charge $2.50 for a Coke vs. $1 a few years ago, so they can claim their
entrees are "still under $10."
I vote with my wallet and simply refuse to use text messaging. I'll let
all you guys pay $0.20 each, giving the carriers $0.19 profit and helping
hold down my voice plan rates.
> ... [much snippage] ...
>
> Nahh, it's a shell game. Just like how casual dining restaurants now
> charge $2.50 for a Coke vs. $1 a few years ago, so they can claim their
> entrees are "still under $10."
Like you (below), I too vote with my wallet, and choose to accept only
tap-water at such restaurants. A can of Coke I can get for under 20 cents
at my local supermarket, should I ever care to; a teabag costs me under
3 cents (so no $2.00 cups of tea); and the ground coffee for a cuppa'
runs me maybe 15 cents (still makes even a $1 cuppa' too exorbitant).
> I vote with my wallet and simply refuse to use text messaging. I'll let
> all you guys pay $0.20 each, giving the carriers $0.19 profit and helping
> hold down my voice plan rates.
>
> Thanks for doing your part!
My text messaging -- all I can eat, anyway -- is bundled into my $30/mo
price-plan, as are my anytime minutes (again, more than I ever use) and
my WAP/GPRS data (unlimited, world-wide).
Makes for a very strong allegiance to my carrier :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
> At 07 Jul 2009 12:01:05 -0700 Bill Z. wrote:
>
>> Good. What they charge for text messaging is an obvious case of
>> price fixing - the default 20 cents per message is at least an
>> order of magnitude higher than can be justified by the cost of
>> providing the service (including a decent profit).
>
>
> Price fixing requires collusion. In the case of the currently obscene
> text message charges, it's one carrier testing the waters of a new price
> point, getting away with it, and everyone else joining the feeding frenzy.
Collusion is just what the justice department will be investigating.
> Besides- they don't actually expect you to pay $0.20/text- it's extortion
> to convince you to buy a $5-10 message bundle, resulting in an ersatz
> rate increase.
If its "extortion", they are abusing their near monopoloy. It's time for
our government to serve us instead of them and crack down on these
people.
tlvp wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:53:22 -0400, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@anoospaml.com> wrote:
>
>> ... [much snippage] ...
>>
>> Nahh, it's a shell game. Just like how casual dining restaurants now
>> charge $2.50 for a Coke vs. $1 a few years ago, so they can claim their
>> entrees are "still under $10."
>
> Like you (below), I too vote with my wallet, and choose to accept only
> tap-water at such restaurants. A can of Coke I can get for under 20 cents
> at my local supermarket, should I ever care to; a teabag costs me under
> 3 cents (so no $2.00 cups of tea); and the ground coffee for a cuppa'
> runs me maybe 15 cents (still makes even a $1 cuppa' too exorbitant).
<snip>
You are leaving things out in your analysis! They could sell you the
can of Coke for less BUT, they provide a glass that must be washed. Same
thing for the tea cup. They put ice in your soda; they have to pay for
the ice machine. They also have to pay the waiter to bring it to you!
Lower class eateries such as McDonalds give you a paper cup which also
must be paid for.
No matter where your wallet leads you, you generally get what you pay
for and don't get what you don't pay for.
> Good. What they charge for text messaging is an obvious case of
> price fixing - the default 20 cents per message is at least an
> order of magnitude higher than can be justified by the cost of
> providing the service (including a decent profit).
Businesses need no justification for the prices they charge for
anything. If people think the cost is too high then they are free not to
buy the product.
> IMHO the only explanation for these high prices is price fixing.
The carriers raise prices like the airlines raise prices. They see if
other carriers will follow.
Clearly the ridiculous prices for texting on postpaid plans are designed
to encourage subscribers to sign up for a monthly texting plan.
Personally, I went the other way and had my postpaid carrier disable
texting completely so I would stop getting junk texts.
If I was to do a lot of texting, I'd drop post paid entirely and sign up
for the $33/month 1500 minutes/1500 texts prepaid plan from PagePlus. I
never use 1500 minutes/month, even with M2M and off-peak included.
At 07 Jul 2009 18:50:20 -0700 Bill Z. wrote:
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@aNOoSPAMl.com> writes:
>
> > At 07 Jul 2009 12:01:05 -0700 Bill Z. wrote:
> >
> >> Good. What they charge for text messaging is an obvious case of
> >> price fixing - the default 20 cents per message is at least an
> >> order of magnitude higher than can be justified by the cost of
> >> providing the service (including a decent profit).
> >
> >
> > Price fixing requires collusion. In the case of the currently obscene
> > text message charges, it's one carrier testing the waters of a new
price
> > point, getting away with it, and everyone else joining the feeding
frenzy.
>
> Collusion is just what the justice department will be investigating.
No, they'll be investigating the effect of national operator on small
rdgional operators.
> > Besides- they don't actually expect you to pay $0.20/text- it's
extortion
> > to convince you to buy a $5-10 message bundle, resulting in an ersatz
> > rate increase.
>
> If its "extortion", they are abusing their near monopoloy. It's time
for
> our government to serve us instead of them and crack down on these
> people.
There are four national providers of wireless service. We have more
choice and selection in wireless than we do in breakfast cereals, and
soft drinks. When 12-packs of Coke and Pepsi sell for exactly the same
$3.50 at the local grocer, that's the benefit of competition. When four
wireless providers sell texts for the exact same $0.20 it's collusion?
In article <3td755lg63j25m2g4pto6tint14d2cfm50@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> Good. What they charge for text messaging is an obvious case of
> >> price fixing - the default 20 cents per message is at least an
> >> order of magnitude higher than can be justified by the cost of
> >> providing the service (including a decent profit).
> >
> >20 cents for 161 bytes = $1,242.24/megabyte, $1,242,236/GB.
> >
> >Are you saying you find that a bit "excessive"?
> >
> >The word "usury" comes to mind here, ...
>
> Whatever for? It's got nothing to do with usury.
>
> usury n., pl. -ries.
> 1. the lending or practice of lending money at an exorbitant
> interest.
>There are four national providers of wireless service. We have more
>choice and selection in wireless than we do in breakfast cereals, and
>soft drinks. When 12-packs of Coke and Pepsi sell for exactly the same
>$3.50 at the local grocer, that's the benefit of competition. When four
>wireless providers sell texts for the exact same $0.20 it's collusion?
When you have to get a 2-year contract to buy Coke or Pepsi, and you
can't use the same drinking glasses for both Coke and Pepsi, I'd
say there are monopolistic practices at work.
> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>> Good. What they charge for text messaging is an obvious case of
>> price fixing - the default 20 cents per message is at least an
>> order of magnitude higher than can be justified by the cost of
>> providing the service (including a decent profit).
>
> Businesses need no justification for the prices they charge for
> anything. If people think the cost is too high then they are free not
> to buy the product.
Not true - that's why we have antitrust laws. Cell phone companies
in particular are using a public resource, radio frequencies, and
thus should be expected to treat the public fairly in return for
exclusive access to this public resource. Think of it as a business
deal between the cell phone companies and the public. If the public,
represented by our government, agrees to give a business a license
to use specific portions of the radio spectrum, the public should
get something in return such as being treated fairly.
> Personally, I went the other way and had my postpaid carrier disable
> texting completely so I would stop getting junk texts.
I've done the same thing although I recently turned it at the request
of some people I know. I haven't been getting junk right now - I
think it is because Cingular changed to AT&T Mobility and also changed the
domain names (they convert short emails to SMS).
> If I was to do a lot of texting, I'd drop post paid entirely and sign
> up for the $33/month 1500 minutes/1500 texts prepaid plan from
> PagePlus. I never use 1500 minutes/month, even with M2M and off-peak
> included.
> At 07 Jul 2009 18:50:20 -0700 Bill Z. wrote:
>> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@aNOoSPAMl.com> writes:
>>
>> > At 07 Jul 2009 12:01:05 -0700 Bill Z. wrote:
>> >
>> >> Good. What they charge for text messaging is an obvious case of
>> >> price fixing - the default 20 cents per message is at least an
>> >> order of magnitude higher than can be justified by the cost of
>> >> providing the service (including a decent profit).
>> >
>> >
>> > Price fixing requires collusion. In the case of the currently obscene
>> > text message charges, it's one carrier testing the waters of a new
> price
>> > point, getting away with it, and everyone else joining the feeding
> frenzy.
>>
>> Collusion is just what the justice department will be investigating.
>
> No, they'll be investigating the effect of national operator on small
> rdgional operators.
I bet there are a lot of things that will be investigated.
> There are four national providers of wireless service. We have more
> choice and selection in wireless than we do in breakfast cereals, and
> soft drinks. When 12-packs of Coke and Pepsi sell for exactly the same
> $3.50 at the local grocer, that's the benefit of competition. When four
> wireless providers sell texts for the exact same $0.20 it's collusion?
Explain why it is *exactly* $.20 when the cost is less than a penny.
There are obviously anti-competitive forces at work here.
In article <RhV4m.32993$S16.15131@newsfe23.iad>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote:
> There are four national providers of wireless service. We have more
> choice and selection in wireless than we do in breakfast cereals, and
> soft drinks. When 12-packs of Coke and Pepsi sell for exactly the same
> $3.50 at the local grocer, that's the benefit of competition.
Go to another grocer; that's where you're going to find the competition.
I know I certainly don't pay that much for soda.
> When four
> wireless providers sell texts for the exact same $0.20 it's collusion?
Yes, it certainly is. Four providers? Fine. And where do you buy their
products? From them, directly. You can't shop around to many outlets to
find different pricing.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
In article <ZfU4m.5$Ad2.2@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Clearly the ridiculous prices for texting on postpaid plans are designed
> to encourage subscribers to sign up for a monthly texting plan.
All of telecommunication is set up that way now. No plan? Then you pay
$2.50 a minute for an intra-lata call. This is why more and more
businesses are leaving telephone companies entirely and discovering the
magic of "do it yourself" VOIP.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
At 07 Jul 2009 23:43:32 -0500 Gordon Burditt wrote:
> >There are four national providers of wireless service. We have more
> >choice and selection in wireless than we do in breakfast cereals, and
> >soft drinks. When 12-packs of Coke and Pepsi sell for exactly the same
> >$3.50 at the local grocer, that's the benefit of competition. When
four
> >wireless providers sell texts for the exact same $0.20 it's collusion?
>
> When you have to get a 2-year contract to buy Coke or Pepsi, and you
> can't use the same drinking glasses for both Coke and Pepsi, I'd
> say there are monopolistic practices at work.
At least three of the four national carriers (I'm not certain about Sprint,
sorry) do not REQUIRE two-year contracts, or any contracts at all (iPhone
excepted). Unless, of course, you want a substantial discount on a shiny
new phone.
As far as the "drinking glases", three of the four (this time I'm sure
about Sprint!) allow any compatible equipment on their network. While
it's true CDMA and GSM aren't compatible with each other, blame the Feds
for not mandating a standard back when they should have. The two major
GSM carriers will unlock their phones (iPhones again, excepted,) enabling
their use on each other's networks after 90 days of service.
In message <fvadnW9UJ9Xan8nXnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@giganews.com> "Richard B.
Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>You are leaving things out in your analysis! They could sell you the
>can of Coke for less BUT, they provide a glass that must be washed. Same
>thing for the tea cup.
True, another few cents.
>They put ice in your soda; they have to pay for
>the ice machine.
Amortized across all of the sodas a restaurant sells, what do you think
is the cost here?
>They also have to pay the waiter to bring it to you!
Few restaurants have dedicated drink staff. Do you think they could do
with one less waiter if they stopped serving drinks at all?
In message <ZfU4m.5$Ad2.2@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com> SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>Bill Z. wrote:
>
>> Good. What they charge for text messaging is an obvious case of
>> price fixing - the default 20 cents per message is at least an
>> order of magnitude higher than can be justified by the cost of
>> providing the service (including a decent profit).
>
>Businesses need no justification for the prices they charge for
>anything. If people think the cost is too high then they are free not to
>buy the product.
In general, I'd agree completely. However, mobile wireless
communication is a bit different in that new competition can't show up
and start offering service because of limited frequency availability.
Whenever you're selling exclusive access to a public resource, it's only
fair to have some public input into the service offered since the
competitive market can't step up and offer an alternative.
> >> Collusion is just what the justice department will be investigating.
> >
> > No, they'll be investigating the effect of national operator on small
> > rdgional operators.
>
> I bet there are a lot of things that will be investigated.
Perhaps. I'm a pessimist. The last time anyone planned to
"investigate", the carriers all agreed to pro-rate cancellation fees, and
suddenly the pressure was off.
> > There are four national providers of wireless service. We have more
> > choice and selection in wireless than we do in breakfast cereals, and
> > soft drinks. When 12-packs of Coke and Pepsi sell for exactly the
same
> > $3.50 at the local grocer, that's the benefit of competition. When
four
> > wireless providers sell texts for the exact same $0.20 it's
collusion?
>
> Explain why it is *exactly* $.20 when the cost is less than a penny.
Because people will pay it. Keep paying $0.20, and next year it'll be
$0.25, then $0.30, then $0.35. It'll keep going up until usage levels
off or drops, and carriers will have found their "sweet spot."
> There are obviously anti-competitive forces at work here.
I gave the examples of restaurant soft drinks and airline luggage- the
fees are ways to raise rates without raising rates. No one shops for
cars by comparison pricing the optional floormats or seat heaters.
Optional services and extras pad the profit, yet allows themto advertise
their "low, low prices."
Competition has held voice rates in check, capped maximum revenues
(everyone has a $99 "unlimited" plan now) and ARPU (average revenue per
user) was fairly flat until ancillary services like messaging and data
took off.
As long as people are willing to pay the exhorbitant rates, what
incentive does any carrier have to lower them? You might argue that
offering free texting might draw in more customers, but if carriers are
making an average of $5/month/customer from texting plans and a la carte
charges, that "lost" revenue, if they were to give it away, has to come
from somewhere. Would you be happier if they drop texting to $0.01, and
raise your voice plan $5.00 to compensate? I wouldn't, because I manage
to live happily without texting. I'd rather they drop voice plans $5 and
raise texting to $0.50!
The next step, of course, will be forced bundling- one carrier will raise
their prices $10 across the board and include "free" messaging, and the
rest will either follow suit, or look anti-competitive for charging $0.20
for a "free" service.
> > There are four national providers of wireless service. We have more
> > choice and selection in wireless than we do in breakfast cereals, and
> > soft drinks. When 12-packs of Coke and Pepsi sell for exactly the
same
> > $3.50 at the local grocer, that's the benefit of competition.
>
> Go to another grocer; that's where you're going to find the
competition.
> I know I certainly don't pay that much for soda.
Welcome to Denver, Colorado, I guess. Grocery prices here stunned me
after spending a decade in Omaha and Kansas City. I never paid more than
a buck for a loaf of bread or $1.50 for a pound of ground beef until I
moved here! But I digress...
> > When four
> > wireless providers sell texts for the exact same $0.20 it's
collusion?
>
> Yes, it certainly is. Four providers? Fine. And where do you buy their
> products? From them, directly. You can't shop around to many outlets to
> find different pricing.
Sure you can- there are plenty of MVNOs (Mobile Virtual Network Operators)
that resell the big four's services, and offer some of those services,
particularly texing, for less. PagePlus sells prepaid Verizon voice for
as low as $0.06/minute, and texting for $0.08, or a 1500 minutes/texts
plan for $40/month. Virgin Mobile (USA) resells Sprint, and several
vendors, including Tracfone, Beyond Wireless, Locus Mobile, and 7-11's
"Speakout" resell AT&T.
Gordon Burditt wrote:
>> There are four national providers of wireless service. We have more
>> choice and selection in wireless than we do in breakfast cereals, and
>> soft drinks. When 12-packs of Coke and Pepsi sell for exactly the same
>> $3.50 at the local grocer, that's the benefit of competition. When four
>> wireless providers sell texts for the exact same $0.20 it's collusion?
>
> When you have to get a 2-year contract to buy Coke or Pepsi, and you
> can't use the same drinking glasses for both Coke and Pepsi, I'd
> say there are monopolistic practices at work.
>
You don't have to sign a two year contract! You will, however, pay
something a lot closer to the retail price of the phone than you
otherwise would. They dangle a "cheap" (subsidized) phone in front of
you in order to get you to sign their contract. You can pay one way or
the other but, believe me, you pay!
> There are four national providers of wireless service. We have more
> choice and selection in wireless than we do in breakfast cereals, and
> soft drinks. When 12-packs of Coke and Pepsi sell for exactly the same
> $3.50 at the local grocer, that's the benefit of competition.
Except you can go to many different grocers for that soda, and pay a lot
more or a lot less. I paid $2 for a 12 pack last week (had to buy six to
get it at that price), and I could easily find a store that charged $5.
And BTW, there are far more than four soft drink and four cereal
manufacturers.
> When four
> wireless providers sell texts for the exact same $0.20 it's collusion?
It's called "gentle collusion." It's like what the airlines do. They
don't gather together to set fares and fees, they raise fares and fees
and wait to see what the competition does. If the competition follows,
then the increase sticks (like baggage fees). If the competition doesn't
follow, the increase doesn't stick (like U.S. Air charging for soft drinks).
What's fun is the disruptive competitors like Southwest Airlines and
RyanAir, MetroPCS and PagePlus, 365 soda, and Trader Joe's cereals.
Coke and Pepsi can't respond to a cane sugar soda (actually Pepsi is
trying with Pepsi Throwback).
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:35:41 -0700, poldy <poldy@kfu.com> wrote in
<poldy-9E29CC.21354107072009@news.eternal-september.org>:
>In article <3td755lg63j25m2g4pto6tint14d2cfm50@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Good. What they charge for text messaging is an obvious case of
>> >> price fixing - the default 20 cents per message is at least an
>> >> order of magnitude higher than can be justified by the cost of
>> >> providing the service (including a decent profit).
>> >
>> >20 cents for 161 bytes = $1,242.24/megabyte, $1,242,236/GB.
There's quite a bit more to text messaging that just raw data, so that
kind of calculation is misleading.
>> >Are you saying you find that a bit "excessive"?
>> >
>> >The word "usury" comes to mind here, ...
>>
>> Whatever for? It's got nothing to do with usury.
>>
>> usury n., pl. -ries.
>> 1. the lending or practice of lending money at an exorbitant
>> interest.
>
>Gouging then.
"Gouging" connotes some sort of extortion or swindling,
so how can it be "gouging" when you are free not to use it?
I'm willing to bet most people use much less expensive messaging
bundles, so the unbundled price per message isn't much of an issue.
T-Mobile bundles:
* Any 300 Domestic Messages, $4.99 per month
* Any 1000 Domestic Messages, $9.99 per month
* Unlimited Domestic Messages, $14.99 per month
There's also the option of using email over Web data or Wi-Fi.
I leave an email client running in the background on my handset
that alerts me to new email.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:01:30 -0700, John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote
in <higgy-4A4341.23013007072009@news.announcetech.com>:
>In article <fvadnW9UJ9Xan8nXnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> No matter where your wallet leads you, you generally get what you pay
>> for and don't get what you don't pay for.
>
>And don't get or don't even want a lot of what you DO pay for!
Only if you're foolish enough to pay for such things.
You are free to buy or not buy as you wish,
so it's disingenuous to complain about high prices.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:24:24 -0700, DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net>
wrote in <d7b855lkp44ah75vtvvekos3d29ffb61ug@4ax.com>:
>In message <fvadnW9UJ9Xan8nXnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@giganews.com> "Richard B.
>Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>You are leaving things out in your analysis! They could sell you the
>>can of Coke for less BUT, they provide a glass that must be washed. Same
>>thing for the tea cup.
>
>True, another few cents.
>
>>They put ice in your soda; they have to pay for
>>the ice machine.
>
>Amortized across all of the sodas a restaurant sells, what do you think
>is the cost here?
>
>>They also have to pay the waiter to bring it to you!
>
>Few restaurants have dedicated drink staff. Do you think they could do
>with one less waiter if they stopped serving drinks at all?
These are all real costs, and much greater than you seem to think.
Otherwise price competition among such retail establishments would drive
prices down. If you really think it's a lucrative proposition to sell
Coke for 25¢ per glass then go for it. Just be prepared to lose your
donkey.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:46:35 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote in
<RhV4m.32993$S16.15131@newsfe23.iad>:
>At 07 Jul 2009 18:50:20 -0700 Bill Z. wrote:
>> If its "extortion", they are abusing their near monopoloy. It's time for
>> our government to serve us instead of them and crack down on these
>> people.
>
>There are four national providers of wireless service. We have more
>choice and selection in wireless than we do in breakfast cereals, and
>soft drinks.
We actually have a good deal of choice in breakfast cereals and soft
drinks. Not only are there much less expensive supermarket brands,
there are also independents, like Trader Joe's here in the San Francisco
Bay Area. <http://www.traderjoes.com>
>When 12-packs of Coke and Pepsi sell for exactly the same
>$3.50 at the local grocer, that's the benefit of competition.
For most of us the local grocer is far from the only option -- much
lower prices may well be available at other retailers. What the local
grocer may be selling is convenience, an important part of the value
proposition.
>When four
>wireless providers sell texts for the exact same $0.20 it's collusion?
Good point.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
NEWS: US edges towards mobile antitrust case 
Linear Mode
