Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   To the distant, tearful strains of the world's smallest violin, we learn that Facebook is cutting into the hard-earned SMS profits of carriers   (news.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, SMS, Facebook, profits, BlackBerry Messenger, The Big Money, mobile network operator, flat rate  
•       •       •

1725 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 May 2012 at 10:07 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-05-14 06:46:38 PM  
SMS is free on reasonable carriers.

If your carrier charges, they are unreasonable. QED
 
2012-05-14 08:23:00 PM  
Much like the RIAA/MPAA the phone companies are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the market place of new technology.

The market is changing, stop complaining about it and adapt.

/not a fan of facebook.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-05-14 08:24:36 PM  
How much bandwidth does it cost to read a facebook update? Tens of kilobytes? At any reasonable page size a page load at a penny per megabyte is a better deal than a ten cent text.
 
2012-05-14 08:25:34 PM  

doglover: SMS is free on reasonable carriers.

If your carrier charges, they are unreasonable. QED


I have an old wireless plan that has been grandfathered in so it still has truly unlimited data. The only issue was that I had set it up with 100 texts a month (or something like that) and even though I went over a few times I wasn't going to change it since I didn't want to mess with the data side. A couple of months ago, though, Verizon switched me to unlimited texts at their own behest, so I guess they see the way the wind is blowing.
 
2012-05-14 10:15:27 PM  
SMS messages cost the carriers absolutely nothing. They're piggy-backed on regular signal packets cellular towers use to keep synchronized with cell phones. It's a services that literally costs the carriers nothing, and yet they make OODLES of money on.

fark 'em and fark rentier economic strategies.
 
2012-05-14 10:35:19 PM  
Don't know what SMS is, but could someone explain to me how it is not illegal for telecoms to charge me for incoming text messages? There's always some dippy broad I meet in a bar who sends me the following, instead of putting it into one message:

"hey whats up"
"goin 2 chil"
"u can come"
"johns taco on south"
...
5 minutes later:
":)"
 
2012-05-14 10:43:56 PM  

Lexx: SMS messages cost the carriers absolutely nothing. They're piggy-backed on regular signal packets cellular towers use to keep synchronized with cell phones. It's a services that literally costs the carriers nothing, and yet they make OODLES of money on.

fark 'em and fark rentier economic strategies.


On AT&T I pay for a monthly phone/data plan of $70 and it does not include SMS/MMS. Each text would cost me an additional 20 cents each message, an extra 30 cents for any video/pics I send out with the message.
 
2012-05-14 11:14:09 PM  

doglover: SMS is free on reasonable carriers.

If your carrier charges, they are unreasonable. QED


THIS.

I'm on Virgin Mobile prepaid and I still get unlimited texts in my Android plan.

/Unlimited text, data, and talk for $45 a month.
//For $35 I'd get the same, but with only 300 minutes talk per month.
///With a decent app, you can do VOIP and live with the $35 plan.
 
2012-05-14 11:14:44 PM  

skinink: Lexx: SMS messages cost the carriers absolutely nothing. They're piggy-backed on regular signal packets cellular towers use to keep synchronized with cell phones. It's a services that literally costs the carriers nothing, and yet they make OODLES of money on.

fark 'em and fark rentier economic strategies.

On AT&T I pay for a monthly phone/data plan of $70 and it does not include SMS/MMS. Each text would cost me an additional 20 cents each message, an extra 30 cents for any video/pics I send out with the message.


You're getting screwed. Hard.
 
2012-05-14 11:36:43 PM  
Stop charging separately for SMS, you assholes. If you want to jack up rates, be honest about it.
 
2012-05-14 11:48:56 PM  
There was an article linked here a few months ago that compared the bandwidth and rates for SMS and data and estimated the SMS markup at somewhere on the order of one hundred million percent.
 
2012-05-15 12:35:52 AM  

skinink: Lexx: SMS messages cost the carriers absolutely nothing. They're piggy-backed on regular signal packets cellular towers use to keep synchronized with cell phones. It's a services that literally costs the carriers nothing, and yet they make OODLES of money on.

fark 'em and fark rentier economic strategies.

On AT&T I pay for a monthly phone/data plan of $70 and it does not include SMS/MMS. Each text would cost me an additional 20 cents each message, an extra 30 cents for any video/pics I send out with the message.


Hahaha! that is even worse than the plans up here in Canada. And us Canadians get royally screwed with our service plans.
 
2012-05-15 04:47:43 AM  
If I could get weather alerts delivered to me via iMessage, I'd drop my texting plan completely. The only person I text regularly is my wife and that's through iMessage as well.
 
2012-05-15 05:31:00 AM  
Why facebook? I have trillian, whatsapp and irc (and I know someone with his own server on which we happily squat) on my phone. Why would I ever pay for texts if I can just use my internet connection to send messages? Hell, I can even send an e-mail which other people with smartphones will instantly receive and reply to in a manner of their choosing. It's not like I actually need the full GB for my day to day activities.

/Only pay 30 euro a month
//Internet on telephones is the dead of (paid) sms services
 
2012-05-15 06:20:52 AM  

Lexx: SMS messages cost the carriers absolutely nothing. They're piggy-backed on regular signal packets cellular towers use to keep synchronized with cell phones. It's a services that literally costs the carriers nothing, and yet they make OODLES of money on.

fark 'em and fark rentier economic strategies.


I agree with you in principle, but actually each SMS/MMS message has to be held for up to 2 weeks if the recipient isn't connected to the network. So it's not "effortless", some effort has to be continually expended in watching for the arrival of recipients and the delivery thereto.
 
2012-05-15 08:09:28 AM  

Lexx: SMS messages cost the carriers absolutely nothing. They're piggy-backed on regular signal packets cellular towers use to keep synchronized with cell phones. It's a services that literally costs the carriers nothing, and yet they make OODLES of money on.

fark 'em and fark rentier economic strategies.


And yet, they must make their money *somehow*, or they couldn't exist. All these companies, including F'book, have the same business plan: monetise your customers' activities, however you can. The telcos could stand to revise the details of that plan, and they'll probably have to. But it's not because they're dumber than F'book.

Subby and others seem to find this funny, ignoring the fact that *Facebook is not a carrier*. F'book depends entirely on frontline carriers to connect its users -- let's call them what they are, merchandise -- to its advertisers (actual buyers who pay for the whole operation). If F'book is indeed cutting into telcos' revenue streams, then telcos will have no choice but to make it up somehow, and that could well mean paying more to access F'book. Especially if F'book really is the cause of the SMS revenue slump: it's only fair, and quite logical, to shift the cost burden onto those causing your losses, if you can. And they can.

Users under.. probably 30 or so, I'll say, have little concept of the pay-to-play online world that immediately -- and very recently, in historical terms -- preceded the right-now period. They don't remember telco-style billing for online use, though it used to be that way for almost everybody. They don't remember when most content was delivered AOL-style by your ISP, which meant you were essentially paying for it.

The thing is, those native costs never went away, and aren't going to. It still costs money to provide content, and it always will. Facebook's staff doesn't work for free, and neither does your ISP's. If you want these things, someone must pay for them, and it's only logical and fair that users should and will. Current models are riding on a kind of market credit that's running out fast, based on decade-old assumptions that the online explosion would somehow pay for itself, which is not exactly panning out. All these models must be monetised top to bottom, or they must disappear. Unless Apple and Facebook can be persuaded to share their largesse to make their online toys accessible to you, you're definitely going to have to cover the cost, sooner or later. I think that's very unlikely. So enjoy it while you can, kids. Because tomorrow you're either paying to play, or not playing at all.
 
2012-05-15 08:18:56 AM  

Tommy Moo: Don't know what SMS is, but could someone explain to me how it is not illegal for telecoms to charge me for incoming text messages? There's always some dippy broad I meet in a bar who sends me the following, instead of putting it into one message:

"hey whats up"
"goin 2 chil"
"u can come"
"johns taco on south"
...
5 minutes later:
":)"


Golly, if only there was some readily available information resource to look up things like 'SMS'. If only.

SMS is text messaging, you twit. You could have looked it up yourself in the time it took you to confess your ignorance. But that would have been work, I guess.

As for why it's legal to charge for them, I can easily explain that, as long as you're not actually as stupid as your question suggests. The telco provides the pipe. If you're using the pipe for anything, no matter which way it's going, you pay for that usage. It costs them money no matter which way it's going, so why shouldn't it cost you? Your telephone service is not a public service. It's a kind of utility. If you have a landline phone, you pay just to have it connected, whether you use it or not. Do you feel that's also illegal? That private companies should give you things for free, at their own expense? That linemen and systems engineers should all work for free for you?

Yes, the telcos could set it up so that only senders pay. But that only means that they'll have to charge more per send, including for you. If you think that would be preferable, then by all means, suggest it to them as a replacement for current cost-sharing models that spread costs between senders and receivers. (After all, it's presumably the case that most people who receive texts wish to receive most of the ones they do.) Also understand that adding complexity to the billing scheme increases the overall cost of it, meaning that all costs must rise. But again, if you think that's an improvement, by all means suggest it.

You could also try stopping giving out your number to people as dumb as you.
 
2012-05-15 08:22:13 AM  

ZeroCorpse: skinink: Lexx: SMS messages cost the carriers absolutely nothing. They're piggy-backed on regular signal packets cellular towers use to keep synchronized with cell phones. It's a services that literally costs the carriers nothing, and yet they make OODLES of money on.

fark 'em and fark rentier economic strategies.

On AT&T I pay for a monthly phone/data plan of $70 and it does not include SMS/MMS. Each text would cost me an additional 20 cents each message, an extra 30 cents for any video/pics I send out with the message.

You're getting screwed. Hard.


I hate to say it, but yeah, it sounds to me like you're getting screwed, too. I pay $60 flat for all services unlimited, including Bluetooth (so I can do pass-through if I want to), and I don't consider my plan optimal, just convenient for my needs. I feel sure that if I put in the effort, I could find a better plan for my needs, but it seems to me like you'd be pressed to find one worse for you. I'd do some shopping around if I were you. And be wary of long-term contracts.
 
2012-05-15 08:25:34 AM  

moothemagiccow: Stop charging separately for SMS, you assholes. If you want to jack up rates, be honest about it.


I think you're making some unfounded assumptions here. Why do you assume, for example, that telcos are trying to conceal rate increases? Why do you assume that they enjoy unilateral control over rates, when in fact most of them are at least partially regulated? Why do you assume that their motives are inherently malicious? How do you know that they're not trying to hold down costs on little old ladies with landlines, while presuming that assholes with smartphones can afford to pay a few pennies more?

Seriously, give the Fight The Man refrain a rest. Not everyone making money is out to screw you.
 
2012-05-15 08:31:47 AM  

jimpoz: There was an article linked here a few months ago that compared the bandwidth and rates for SMS and data and estimated the SMS markup at somewhere on the order of one hundred million percent.


Yeah, and McDonald's gets about 3000% on sodas. Your point?

Unequal margin distribution is how business is done. It's been that way for thousands of years. No one will actually pay what a Big Mac is really worth. (There's no way the price you see represents the 500% markup that it has to have in order to support itself, unless they're paying an order of magnitude below market cost for everything that goes into making it, including labour and electricity.) Luxury commodities have always carried the cost burden for mainline products. As I said above, telcos charge based on certain very reasonable presumptions about their customers' ability and willingness to pay, and it's a fair presumption that people using SMS aren't living close to poverty and are willing to pay a bit more to have nice things. That unequal distribution is why your grandmother didn't have to turn her phone off yet.
 
2012-05-15 08:34:50 AM  

jimpoz: There was an article linked here a few months ago that compared the bandwidth and rates for SMS and data and estimated the SMS markup at somewhere on the order of one hundred million percent.


I forgot to note also, bandwidth usage is only a portion of the cost of providing SMS, and it's naive and unfair to 'rate' it based only on that.
 
2012-05-15 11:03:47 AM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Tommy Moo: Don't know what SMS is, but could someone explain to me how it is not illegal for telecoms to charge me for incoming text messages? There's always some dippy broad I meet in a bar who sends me the following, instead of putting it into one message:

"hey whats up"
"goin 2 chil"
"u can come"
"johns taco on south"
...
5 minutes later:
":)"

Golly, if only there was some readily available information resource to look up things like 'SMS'. If only.

SMS is text messaging, you twit. You could have looked it up yourself in the time it took you to confess your ignorance. But that would have been work, I guess.

As for why it's legal to charge for them, I can easily explain that, as long as you're not actually as stupid as your question suggests. The telco provides the pipe. If you're using the pipe for anything, no matter which way it's going, you pay for that usage. It costs them money no matter which way it's going, so why shouldn't it cost you? Your telephone service is not a public service. It's a kind of utility. If you have a landline phone, you pay just to have it connected, whether you use it or not. Do you feel that's also illegal? That private companies should give you things for free, at their own expense? That linemen and systems engineers should all work for free for you?

Yes, the telcos could set it up so that only senders pay. But that only means that they'll have to charge more per send, including for you. If you think that would be preferable, then by all means, suggest it to them as a replacement for current cost-sharing models that spread costs between senders and receivers. (After all, it's presumably the case that most people who receive texts wish to receive most of the ones they do.) Also understand that adding complexity to the billing scheme increases the overall cost of it, meaning that all costs must rise. But again, if you think that's an improvement, by all means suggest it.

You could also try stopping giving out your number to peop ...


What is your problem? I don't care what SMS is, and I didn't ask. You could call me lazy if I had asked, but I didn't.

And yes, it makes perfect sense for the telecoms to charge only the sender. You use the fact that a phone line costs money to hook up regardless of whether you make outgoing calls from it, but that's because you are using the telecom's electricity to keep it powered. You don't have to pay to receive incoming calls. A better analogy would be if the post office could send you a bill in the mail for every piece of junk mail that gets stuffed in your mailbox. No, only senders pay postage, and only senders should pay for texts.

You, by the way, are a complete threadshiatting asshole. This wasn't a flamewar. Do you work for Verizon or something?
 
2012-05-15 11:35:08 AM  
I don`t really use my `phone` anymore, I use my droid to browse the web, send emails, check google earth to see where I am, check fark etc etc etc.

Sometimes I am surprised when it rings.
 
2012-05-15 01:49:27 PM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Lexx: SMS messages cost the carriers absolutely nothing. They're piggy-backed on regular signal packets cellular towers use to keep synchronized with cell phones. It's a services that literally costs the carriers nothing, and yet they make OODLES of money on.

fark 'em and fark rentier economic strategies.

And yet, they must make their money *somehow*, or they couldn't exist. All these companies, including F'book, have the same business plan: monetise your customers' activities, however you can. The telcos could stand to revise the details of that plan, and they'll probably have to. But it's not because they're dumber than F'book.

Subby and others seem to find this funny, ignoring the fact that *Facebook is not a carrier*. F'book depends entirely on frontline carriers to connect its users -- let's call them what they are, merchandise -- to its advertisers (actual buyers who pay for the whole operation). If F'book is indeed cutting into telcos' revenue streams, then telcos will have no choice but to make it up somehow, and that could well mean paying more to access F'book. Especially if F'book really is the cause of the SMS revenue slump: it's only fair, and quite logical, to shift the cost burden onto those causing your losses, if you can. And they can.

Users under.. probably 30 or so, I'll say, have little concept of the pay-to-play online world that immediately -- and very recently, in historical terms -- preceded the right-now period. They don't remember telco-style billing for online use, though it used to be that way for almost everybody. They don't remember when most content was delivered AOL-style by your ISP, which meant you were essentially paying for it.

The thing is, those native costs never went away, and aren't going to. It still costs money to provide content, and it always will. Facebook's staff doesn't work for free, and neither does your ISP's. If you want these things, someone must pay for them, and it's only logical and fair that users should ...


I'm willing to pay enough money for an efficient, well-run ISP to make 8-10% profit from my subscriber fee. All they do is provide a farking link from my home to the greater internet trunk. Data services are very, VERY similar to other utilities, like power, sewer, gas, etc, and honestly I don't believe they have any right to a higher monetization than that. They're farking utility providers.

Even if you had usage-based billing, the 10-20 cents per text message charge is something like a million percent markup.

Companies have no "right" to a revenue stream, and carriers have no "right" to anything beyond selling bits per second.
 
2012-05-15 02:44:36 PM  

Tommy Moo: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Tommy Moo: Don't know what SMS is, but could someone explain to me how it is not illegal for telecoms to charge me for incoming text messages? There's always some dippy broad I meet in a bar who sends me the following, instead of putting it into one message:

"hey whats up"
"goin 2 chil"
"u can come"
"johns taco on south"
...
5 minutes later:
":)"

Golly, if only there was some readily available information resource to look up things like 'SMS'. If only.

SMS is text messaging, you twit. You could have looked it up yourself in the time it took you to confess your ignorance. But that would have been work, I guess.

As for why it's legal to charge for them, I can easily explain that, as long as you're not actually as stupid as your question suggests. The telco provides the pipe. If you're using the pipe for anything, no matter which way it's going, you pay for that usage. It costs them money no matter which way it's going, so why shouldn't it cost you? Your telephone service is not a public service. It's a kind of utility. If you have a landline phone, you pay just to have it connected, whether you use it or not. Do you feel that's also illegal? That private companies should give you things for free, at their own expense? That linemen and systems engineers should all work for free for you?

Yes, the telcos could set it up so that only senders pay. But that only means that they'll have to charge more per send, including for you. If you think that would be preferable, then by all means, suggest it to them as a replacement for current cost-sharing models that spread costs between senders and receivers. (After all, it's presumably the case that most people who receive texts wish to receive most of the ones they do.) Also understand that adding complexity to the billing scheme increases the overall cost of it, meaning that all costs must rise. But again, if you think that's an improvement, by all means suggest it.

You could also try stopping giving ou ...


I used to work for a phone company, a long time ago, but that's not actually relevant. I've been around long enough, and done enough business management, to understand how a lot of things work. You have not, and clearly do not. You make claims that are barely true, such as how the phone company bills people right now. What you say is true only for certain customers, not for all of them. Most business customers, for example, pay for use any time the phone is off the hook, no matter what the reason; but you take your ignorance of that fact for some kind of special knowledge and from that form some kind of deep comprehension -- or so you think, when you're actually just plain wrong.

Like a lot of young, willfully ignorant people, you see everything only from your own perspective. You perceive inconveniences as wrongs, rather than aspects of the tradeoffs and compromises that the world really runs on. You look for justifications for your ignorance-based opinions in worthless rationalisations based on the slimmest analogies. (Phone and post? Really? But of course, you're also unaware that it was once common for mail *receivers* to pay. Not that that's any surprise.)

What kills me is that you and your equally self-righteous moran friends probably vote. That makes a lot more needless work for the rest of us.
 
2012-05-15 03:47:32 PM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I used to work for a phone company, a long time ago, but that's not actually relevant. I've been around long enough, and done enough business management, to understand how a lot of things work. You have not, and clearly do not. You make claims that are barely true, such as how the phone company bills people right now. What you say is true only for certain customers, not for all of them. Most business customers, for example, pay for use any time the phone is off the hook, no matter what the reason; but you take your ignorance of that fact for some kind of special knowledge and from that form some kind of deep comprehension -- or so you think, when you're actually just plain wrong.

Like a lot of young, willfully ignorant people, you see everything only from your own perspective. You perceive inconveniences as wrongs, rather than aspects of the tradeoffs and compromises that the world really runs on. You look for justifications for your ignorance-based opinions in worthless rationalisations based on the slimmest analogies. (Phone and post? Really? But of course, you're also unaware that it was once common for mail *receivers* to pay. Not that that's any surprise.)

What kills me is that you and your equally self-righteous moran friends probably vote. That makes a lot more needless work for the rest of us.


Welcome to my block list, you cock. Doesn't it just burn you that you have utterly failed to ruin my day, and as soon as I hit "Add Comment" I'm going to go sip some lemonade and completely forget that you exist?
 
2012-05-15 04:11:25 PM  

Tommy Moo: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I used to work for a phone company, a long time ago, but that's not actually relevant. I've been around long enough, and done enough business management, to understand how a lot of things work. You have not, and clearly do not. You make claims that are barely true, such as how the phone company bills people right now. What you say is true only for certain customers, not for all of them. Most business customers, for example, pay for use any time the phone is off the hook, no matter what the reason; but you take your ignorance of that fact for some kind of special knowledge and from that form some kind of deep comprehension -- or so you think, when you're actually just plain wrong.

Like a lot of young, willfully ignorant people, you see everything only from your own perspective. You perceive inconveniences as wrongs, rather than aspects of the tradeoffs and compromises that the world really runs on. You look for justifications for your ignorance-based opinions in worthless rationalisations based on the slimmest analogies. (Phone and post? Really? But of course, you're also unaware that it was once common for mail *receivers* to pay. Not that that's any surprise.)

What kills me is that you and your equally self-righteous moran friends probably vote. That makes a lot more needless work for the rest of us.

Welcome to my block list, you cock. Doesn't it just burn you that you have utterly failed to ruin my day, and as soon as I hit "Add Comment" I'm going to go sip some lemonade and completely forget that you exist?


Boo hoo
 
2012-05-16 12:12:37 PM  
i259.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-16 05:16:56 PM  

Lexx: SMS messages cost the carriers absolutely nothing. They're piggy-backed on regular signal packets cellular towers use to keep synchronized with cell phones. It's a services that literally costs the carriers nothing, and yet they make OODLES of money on.

fark 'em and fark rentier economic strategies.


THIS
 
2012-05-17 07:32:13 AM  

Reverend Monkeypants: Lexx: SMS messages cost the carriers absolutely nothing. They're piggy-backed on regular signal packets cellular towers use to keep synchronized with cell phones. It's a services that literally costs the carriers nothing, and yet they make OODLES of money on.

fark 'em and fark rentier economic strategies.

THIS


The problem, as I see it, isn't even that there are so many morans running around, but that while freethinkers tend to move independently, morans tend to run in packs, so they do more damage wherever they are than a similar number of smarter people (who are already outnumbered).

You and Lexx both think that SMS "literally costs the carriers nothing." That is factually untrue. I've suggested that your assumptions are invalid, or at least distorted, and that carrier pricing models aren't necessarily predatory just because your clearly misguided gut tells you so. Everything costs money, and carrier services are very expensive to provide, even basic ones. How carriers distribute and cover those costs is a complex matter: It's not like running a lemonade stand. I'm not saying that there's *not* chicanery or some other kind of corruption going on: certainly, a few major telcos have provided ample evidence in recent years of their less than spotless ethics. But this particular argument is childish, and proves nothing at all: SMS is not cost-free, and may not be as cheap to provide as you seem to assume it is. They may or may not be overcharging for it; or may or may not be making prudent cost-shifting choices that benefit someone else, maybe even you, somewhere else. But by all means, keep fighting the Man, so that the rest of us will have to clean up after you when you're done ruining our phone service.
 
2012-05-17 08:42:23 AM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Reverend Monkeypants: Lexx: SMS messages cost the carriers absolutely nothing. They're piggy-backed on regular signal packets cellular towers use to keep synchronized with cell phones. It's a services that literally costs the carriers nothing, and yet they make OODLES of money on.

fark 'em and fark rentier economic strategies.

THIS

The problem, as I see it, isn't even that there are so many morans running around, but that while freethinkers tend to move independently, morans tend to run in packs, so they do more damage wherever they are than a similar number of smarter people (who are already outnumbered).

You and Lexx both think that SMS "literally costs the carriers nothing." That is factually untrue. I've suggested that your assumptions are invalid, or at least distorted, and that carrier pricing models aren't necessarily predatory just because your clearly misguided gut tells you so. Everything costs money, and carrier services are very expensive to provide, even basic ones. How carriers distribute and cover those costs is a complex matter: It's not like running a lemonade stand. I'm not saying that there's *not* chicanery or some other kind of corruption going on: certainly, a few major telcos have provided ample evidence in recent years of their less than spotless ethics. But this particular argument is childish, and proves nothing at all: SMS is not cost-free, and may not be as cheap to provide as you seem to assume it is. They may or may not be overcharging for it; or may or may not be making prudent cost-shifting choices that benefit someone else, maybe even you, somewhere else. But by all means, keep fighting the Man, so that the rest of us will have to clean up after you when you're done ruining our phone service.


OK fine. SMS cost the carriers nothing EXTRA. 10 ot 3000 messages cost them virtually the same. 3000 txt messages is less bandwidth than a 15 second voice call. (bandwidth guessed)
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report