the truth about text messaging

jimmynokia

something that came to mind in a thread i posted on and a fact you might like to know

please share your thoughts

it costs the network ,any network to be honest next to nothing if nothing at all

Your phone actually sends out heartbeats to the tower it's connected to every few seconds, and SMS text messages piggy back on the heartbeat packet, which is why they are limited to 150odd characters. The impact on networks caused by SMS is not just negligible, it's SO negligible that it's almost no overhead whatsoever on the carrier :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

DID YOU KNOW THAT:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:


so any network to charge for text should be shot at this stage in a bundle or out of bundle :mad::mad::mad:


now thats something for you all to think about ..........

Denzil2222

Does it cost them nothing to send a text to an internationl number too? Its strange that texting an irish number costs 9cent but texting an international number costs 25cent

jimmynokia

it works on the same basis afaik:mad: price increase is known as a VAS value added service

Johnny Storm

No phone call of any kind actually "costs" anything.
The cost is in building and maintaining the networks.

CantGetNoSleep

Johnny Storm wrote: »

No phone call of any kind actually "costs" anything.
The cost is in building and maintaining the networks.

+1

The actual message may have cost nothing, but they still have the costs associated with sending the message, such as setting up the network, keeping it functional etc

Abelloid

Last time I checked each network was giving away hundreds of free text messages, happy?

jimmynokia

this is not true
this is how it works think about it
naturally it costs a company/network to set up and maintain this is why there is billpay and payg rates standard
it cost nothing with every network to call each other IE 3 to 3 meteor to meteor you know what im saying CORRECT.
NEXT
to call outside networks there is always a charge on nearly all tariffs CORRECT

why,and how?

networks charge each other 3 or 4 c per call to use there towers
this is hidden in all networks as they all depend on each other to function or others to use them for example JUST MOBILE ON VODA AND TESCO ON 02...

hence no charge to the network and BINGO the networks all gain.......AND Make money and come up with these charges

jimmynokia

JustinOval wrote: »

Last time I checked each network was giving away hundreds of free text messages, happy?

yes thats true but what about others that pay on every newtork outside tarriff
or when you top up by a certain amount and dont get full benefits of the monthly top up ????????????????????????????????

Denzil2222

One thing for sure is there has always been a cartel going on between the networks in this country.

CantGetNoSleep

Ever here of capitalism Jimmy my boy? The networks are there to make money, not to provide a service for free

I'm sure if they felt they would make most money by offering unlimited free texts then one of them would have done that by now, but obviously they feel they make most money by charging for texts or selling them in bundles

Nonoperational

It's a service it's perfectly reasonable for them to charge for it. Loads of services don't cost the person anything if you take it literally but they're not free.

CantGetNoSleep

Denzil2222 wrote: »

One thing for sure is there has always been a cartel going on between the networks in this country.

It might be an oligopoly but doubt its an actual cartel per se

jimmynokia

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

Ever here of capitalism Jimmy my boy? The networks are there to make money, not to provide a service for free

I'm sure if they felt they would make most money by offering unlimited free texts then one of them would have done that by now, but obviously they feel they make most money by charging for texts or selling them in bundles

yeah did this is the point of this and i guarantee you that not alot of people know either so just watch this one grow my boy LOL

jimmynokia

Denzil2222 wrote: »

One thing for sure is there has always been a cartel going on between the networks in this country.

that was something i had in mind as there must be in order to execute the above

CantGetNoSleep

jimmynokia wrote: »

yeah did this is the point of this and i guarantee you that not alot of people know either so just watch this one grow my boy LOL

What do you mean by grow Jimmy? It isn't a great shock that the actual cost to a mobile operator of a call or text message is little or nothing.

What do you think is going to happen now Jimmy?

MrStuffins

So let me get this straight............. companies are providing a service...... and charging the customer for this service..... in order to make a profit?

I'm shocked and appauled! :eek:

jimmynokia

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

What do you mean by grow Jimmy? It isn't a great shock that the actual cost to a mobile operator of a call or text message is little or nothing.

What do you think is going to happen now Jimmy?

no not to the operator to the user cantgetnosleep

3DataModem

Did you know that buses charge for each journey, even though they are ALREADY driving the route ANYWAY so each passenger costs them effectively nothing!!!

Also, 90 per cent of food ordered is already made when you order it. It's just sitting there!! It actually costs them nothing extra just to hand it to you.

What a rip off. Should be free.

(Opening Post is idiotic.)

drunkmonkey

Meet Jimmy, Head of doing things Differently!:)

jimmynokia

3DataModem wrote: »

Did you know that buses charge for each journey, even though they are ALREADY driving the route ANYWAY so each passenger costs them effectively nothing!!!

Also, 90 per cent of food ordered is already made when you order it. It's just sitting there!! It actually costs them nothing extra just to hand it to you.

What a rip off. Should be free.

(Opening Post is idiotic.)

your a bigger idiot for replying with a stupid answer like that

its just a little fact

so if you like we can start a little fact thread for you

jimmynokia

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Meet Jimmy, Head of doing things Differently!:)

explain

CantGetNoSleep

jimmynokia wrote: »

no not to the operator to the user cantgetnosleep

Do you mean prices might increase Jimmy?

If so, the conditions of the market at present (4 main networks all with relatively good coverage, and 4 MVNOs, mean that one operator will just lower the cost)

Or could they decrease? As in become free? This will have to happen if one of the big networks does it, as the rest will need to follow suit to remain competitive, or at least improve bundle deals

I don't know the conditions about MVNOs, but I can guarantee you that Tesco mobile are not part of any tacit agreement or cartel, it is not the way they work in any sector they operate in

MrStuffins

Letting people have free texts for nothing in return would be mental!

However, i actually don't pay fo r my texts. I give Meteor €20 a month and they let me send as many as i want!

So i can text for the entire month, and still be in ,€20 credit with the company. Credit i can use for other things like web browsing and making calls.

CantGetNoSleep

MrStuffins wrote: »

Letting people have free texts for nothing in return would be mental!

However, i actually don't pay fo r my texts. I give Meteor €20 a month and they let me send as many as i want!

So i can text for the entire month, and still be in ,€20 credit with the company. Credit i can use for other things like web browsing and making calls.

Of course, but considering they cost the network nothing they should be free no?

helimachoptor

Johnny Storm wrote: »

No phone call of any kind actually "costs" anything.
The cost is in building and maintaining the networks.

Indeed, it does once you terminate a call or SMS on another network you need to pay that operator termination charges.

In regards to SMS, the operator buys the hardware, i.e. SMSC and B and it also needs to provide transmission of the SMS through the network. Each SMSC is licensed by the provider, to have a maximum capacity of X amount of SMS per hour/day/week etc they operator needs to pay this fee (but due to the revenue generated by SMS this is pretty small). There are costs just because you dont see them doesnt mean SMS should be free.

MrStuffins

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

Of course, but considering they cost the network nothing they should be free no?

They are free!

evolving_doors

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

It might be an oligopoly but doubt its an actual cartel per se

Confuseopoly might be a better term

Wayy too confusing to compare who and when you call people in an average month and compare with every operators bundles.. generally the best thing to do is ask a teenager what's the best plan..

Mumha

The proper comparison would be to compare the cost of calls and texts in a similar sized country like Denmark, and a larger country like the UK and Germany. Where would we stand in relation to all of those countries ?

blaz

1. Mobile operators first had to build a network for you to be able to actually sends texts. That the networks are there now doesn't mean that they cost nothing, operators are still paying off loans they used to fund the buildout, plus they have fixed monthly cost like, eh, the staff that maintains that network.

2. The signaling channel that is used to send an SMS is a limited resource. It was built to carry just signaling messages ("phone number A is calling phone number B, please set up a voice channel"). To quote Wikipedia:

The key idea for SMS was to use this telephony-optimized system, and to transport messages on the signaling paths needed to control the telephony traffic during time periods when no signaling traffic existed. In this way, unused resources in the system could be used to transport messages at minimal cost. However, it was necessary to limit the length of the messages to 128 bytes (later improved to 140 bytes, or 160 seven-bit characters) so that the messages could fit into the existing signaling formats.

Bob the Builder

I'm with jimmynokia to the extent that on prepay it is costing them very little on a per message basis to send a message but with my tariff on o2, I only get 150 texts as part of my bundle. I personally think that while they are out to make a profit, which is understandable, the amount they charge for out of bundle texts is twice what it should be.

jimmynokia wrote: »

explain

EMobile, Eircom's new network's promotional effect. look for the ads on TV

jimmynokia

Bob the Builder wrote: »

I'm with jimmynokia to the extent that on prepay it is costing them very little on a per message basis to send a message but with my tariff on o2, I only get 150 texts as part of my bundle. I personally think that while they are out to make a profit, which is understandable, the amount they charge for out of bundle texts is twice what it should be.



EMobile, Eircom's new network's promotional effect. look for the ads on TV

ive seen the ads i know one of them from the ad LOL STILL DONT EXPLAIN the comment :D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Overature

from what i heard it costs like 1/3 of a cent to send one, and at 10 cent a txt thats something like 6000% increase. and then they want to tax us?

MrStuffins

Bob the Builder wrote: »

EMobile, Eircom's new network's promotional effect. look for the ads on TV

My girlfriend works for one of the Mobile Operators and told me about eMobile ages ago.

It makes no sense to me because............ doesn't Eircom own and run Meteor?

drunkmonkey

MrStuffins wrote: »

It makes no sense to me because............ doesn't Eircom own and run Meteor?

It makes sense if there going to sell Meteor.

Ash.J.Williams

jimmynokia wrote: »

something that came to mind in a thread i posted on and a fact you might like to know

please share your thoughts

it costs the network ,any network to be honest next to nothing if nothing at all

Your phone actually sends out heartbeats to the tower it's connected to every few seconds, and SMS text messages piggy back on the heartbeat packet, which is why they are limited to 150odd characters. The impact on networks caused by SMS is not just negligible, it's SO negligible that it's almost no overhead whatsoever on the carrier :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

DID YOU KNOW THAT:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:


so any network to charge for text should be shot at this stage in a bundle or out of bundle :mad::mad::mad:


now thats something for you all to think about ..........

What kind business model would allow free texts?

kippy

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

What kind business model would allow free texts?

Google kinda have a business model that provides for a tonne of "free" services. As do many "business' on the interweb.

(not agreeing with the topic per se)

MrStuffins

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It makes sense if there going to sell Meteor.

Ah!

And this is the case?

drunkmonkey

MrStuffins wrote: »

Ah!

And this is the case?

I dunno why would you sign an MVNO agreement with yourself and then start competing with yourself.
It's the only reason I can think of.

MrStuffins

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I dunno why would you sign an MVNO agreement with yourself and then start competing with yourself.
It's the only reason I can think of.

Exactly! Makes no sense to me.


Also, i just read that Meteor has 20% of the market with over 1m customers.

But....... there's less than 4.5 million people in the country............ i'm confused!

helimachoptor

MrStuffins wrote: »

Exactly! Makes no sense to me.


Also, i just read that Meteor has 20% of the market with over 1m customers.

But....... there's less than 4.5 million people in the country............ i'm confused!

Some people have a work and a personal phone, or a couple of personal phones, mobile penetration rates are over 100% in Ireland.

jordainius

i may be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that up until about 13 years ago text messages were free because they cost nothing to the network, back in the days of when Eircell were the only network, they were rarely used by customers, but once they started to grow in popularity Eircell decided to start charging for them.

helimachoptor

Yes they were but pretty sharpish people start using a whole load of them so they weren't free for long

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

globemaster1986

emobile was launched because the Meteor brand is mainly used by the teenybopper brigade and has not been successful at breaking into the billpay market and prepay market for more mature users.

To whoever mentioned google, they make a mint from advertising, mobile networks don't, very limited advertising opportunities available eg mobile internet homepage etc

MrStuffins

helimachoptor wrote: »

Some people have a work and a personal phone, or a couple of personal phones, mobile penetration rates are over 100% in Ireland.

Wow!

kippy

globemaster1986 wrote: »

To whoever mentioned google, they make a mint from advertising, mobile networks don't, very limited advertising opportunities available eg mobile internet homepage etc

That was me.
I mentioned google because they and other internet companies make money by providing free services (someone in a previous post had said no company could do this).

There is NO reason a mobile operator or otherwise couldnt change their business model to do likewise.
Not saying they would though. My main point is that it is possible to provide free services and still make money.

Patrickof

kippy wrote: »

My main point is that it is possible to provide free services and still make money.

But it's not really true. In googles case they have two main types of client, the searcher (you and me) and the searched (the websites).

They only provide the first service for free. Websites who want to have prominent placing in search results have to pay for it, in some cases this cost can be significant.

Comparing that to mobile phones, they do provide some services "free": its free to receive calls and texts (in country), you get "free" web texts, your bundles include "free" minutes/texts/data.

In summary, ity's not possible to rely solely on "free" services and make money - at some point someone has to pay to keep the system going. Twitter is an example of a company that is still relying on "free" services, and it's burning cash at a huge rate. But it will shortly charge for some sort of usage (advertising, per tweet, whatever it may be).

Ryanair regularly offer "free" flights, but when you pay the taxes and charges the cost to you is anything but "free". However, strictly speaking, the flight is free.

kippy

Patrickof wrote: »

But it's not really true. In googles case they have two main types of client, the searcher (you and me) and the searched (the websites).

They only provide the first service for free. Websites who want to have prominent placing in search results have to pay for it, in some cases this cost can be significant.

Comparing that to mobile phones, they do provide some services "free": its free to receive calls and texts (in country), you get "free" web texts, your bundles include "free" minutes/texts/data.

In summary, ity's not possible to rely solely on "free" services and make money - at some point someone has to pay to keep the system going. Twitter is an example of a company that is still relying on "free" services, and it's burning cash at a huge rate. But it will shortly charge for some sort of usage (advertising, per tweet, whatever it may be).

Ryanair regularly offer "free" flights, but when you pay the taxes and charges the cost to you is anything but "free". However, strictly speaking, the flight is free.

Of course someone has to pay - google to provide the service and the advertiser to advertise.
However the service I get (google documents, picassa, gmail, etc) are all free to me, ie I do not have to pay for them, ie free.
Google provide a free service to me by using a highly successful business model, the sucess of which is driven by the amount of people using their free services.

I dont see why you dont get my point.......

Someone said no business can provide a free service, I pointed out that many did and were extremely profittable as a result. I amn't advocating this is possible in the text messaging game.

evolving_doors

.

evolving_doors

kippy wrote: »

That was me.
I mentioned google because they and other internet companies make money by providing free services (someone in a previous post had said no company could do this).

There is NO reason a mobile operator or otherwise couldnt change their business model to do likewise.
Not saying they would though. My main point is that it is possible to provide free services and still make money.

Do you mean by advertising within a text message? It is possible alright but i'd be off to another phone company in a flash if that caper started..

kippy

Armelodie wrote: »

Do you mean by advertising within a text message? It is possible alright but i'd be off to another phone company in a flash if that caper started..

Read my last three/four posts on this thread.
My comments were in response to someone who said no business can offer a service for nothing or something to that effect.
My last post said I dont necessarily agree that this business model would would in the text messaging side of things.