This impetus for this interesting question comes from Chris Hellmann:
Why do mobile phone companies charge for incoming text messages? For instance, according to the Cingular website, you are charged $0.10 per text message whether you sent or received the message and whether the message was solicited or unsolicited.
Looking at this from the perspective of the mobile phone companies like Cingular or T-Mobile, why would they price text messaging like this? Would there be a difference if they charged $0.20 to the sender of the message and charged nothing for receiving? Why do they choose the first option?
Again, it is more useful to look at it from the perspective of the profit-maximizing cell phone company, not the consumer upset because you have to pay for unsolicited text messages.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I think the reason for this is that they (the evil cell phone companies) would be making the same amount if they charged the sender only if the amount of messages sent stays the same, which it wouldn't. People would be less likely to send a text message for $.20 than for $.10. However, when the bill for that message is split, the sender would be more likely to send it.
I agree with Gregory. I think that the reason why both parties are charged is because people would not send as many text messages if the price per message was doubled. I also think that it is a conspiracy that text message receivers have to pay to receive messages that they might not want. However, people cannot be too upset about this because they signed a cell phone contract in which they agreed to pay for both sent and received messages. So, people at least know about this charge from the beginning and it is not a surprise when they see their phone bill. I think that batman (who is that, by the way?) raises a good point that people should have the right to choose if they want to accept a text message or not. However, I don’t think that cell phone companies would ever agree to that because they would lose a lot of money.
- Jessica Monk
I disagree with Gregory about how people would less likely send a text message for $.20 than for $.10, because, doesn't the fact that you're charged for recieving a text message also lower your incentive to send a text message? The reason for sending a text message in the first place is asking a question or something which you obviously EXPECT an answer back. Therefore, you already figure in that you will be charged an additional $.10, therefore equaling a total of $.20. So, I don't think that charging people $.20 for sending messages and charging nothing for recieving them would necessarily decrease people's incentives to send a text message.
-Emily Freebairn
I agree with Gregory in the fact that when the price of sending a text message is raised from $.10 to $.20, people would send less messages even if there wasn't a charge for receiving a text message. It is true that if you send a text message and receive a text message in the first option, it would equal $.20, but people do not send the exact same amount of text messages received. Therefore, the phone companies would be profiting by charging received messages because if the price was raised to send messages, less messages would be sent.
Courtney Allen
Another reason for the charge on incoming messages is that people must pay the fee no matter what. People can choose to send fewer text messages in order to avoid the cost of outgoing messages, but they cannot choose to receive fewer messages to avoid the fee on incoming messages. It would be more logical for the company to charge 20 cents on incoming messages and none on outgoing ones because people would send more messages if there was no cost on outgoing messages, and the company would receive the same amount of money per message because of the increased cost of incoming messages. People would send more messages, so the company would make more money. I guess companies don't do this because people dislike the idea of being charged so much for incoming messages, so fewer people would use their service.
-Richard Murphey
Emily, people don't always expect a reply on messages. Only if you plan on having a conversation with a person would your logic apply, and it doesn't make sense to have a text message conversation with your cell phone as you would be more likely to just call that person.
Another point might be that if you are going to be charged to recieve text messages, it will push people towards getting a "text messaging plan"-that would include a set price for all incoming and outoging messages. If the cell phone companies could create set rates for more people they would make more money
- kelly gaetnao
Garrison
I agree with batman, you should be asked if you want to recieve the message, i must get at least 10 duplicates a day, thats an extra buck. As for what Hanison said, Europe is crazy about cell phone bills. They charge you per minute, and its some insane amount. they have plans where you get numbers that only cost you 3 cents a minute to talk to, and the rest are like 20. So just be happy that we arn't them
I think that the cell phone companies charge for both incoming and outgoing messages because they know someone is more likely to send one for ten cents than for twenty. But they know that almost always the sender will recieve an answer to their message. Plus with a ten cent sending fee conversatins are probably more likely to continue for more than one exchange.
-David Hale
I think that if I had a product that you did not want and I sell it to you anyway and demand you pay for it is the same as paying someone for protection like you see on TV when the protector comes in and just takes the money from you and then does you the favor of not trashing the place or maybe not breaking a few fingers..
If the cops catch that guy he goes to JAIL because it is illegal and just not right "Extortion anyone?"
even if you know about it or even signed some worthless contract...
Post a Comment