Is there any reason, beyond corporate greed, for SMS messages to cost so much?

If I get it right, an SMS message is just a short string of data, no different from a message we send in a messenger. If so, then what makes them so expensive? If we’d take Internet plans and consider how much data an SMS takes, we should pay tiny fraction of a cent for each message; why doesn’t that happen?

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    172
    ·
    7 months ago

    its crazier than you think… the original sms messaging was sent over an already existent, in process data path… they didnt really have to add much to the system to accommodate it, yet charged an obscene amount per message

    the answer is simple; because they can

    • AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      75
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Messages went from $.05, to $.10, to $.20 to send and receive. That was in the span of three years. All of the companies said it wasn’t collision. They just happened to arrive upon massive increases separately.

      If I recall, one of the CEOs said “We’re raising the prices to save customers money. This way they’ll be an unlimited plan”

      The telcos should have been broken up then. Instead we’ve seen even more mergers.

      • Edit: forgot to include the years. This was in the U.S. circa 2005-2008. Telcos have moved onto other sleezy practices now.*
        • skulblaka@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          You could ignore them and not recieve. But then you’ve got a billion pending messages that you don’t know the content of.

          • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            The messages weren’t pushed to you? You got a notification and then had to request the actual message? That would be even more stupid, as it’s using twice the bandwidth.

            • skulblaka@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              That’s how it worked on my old phone, you got a message notification but it cost you to actually read it. No clue if they sent the message content before the paywall or if it pulled it down afterward.

              But it also meant you could use your phone basically as a beeper without paying for texts. Just see who sent you a message, ignore the actual message and call them.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Probably trying to get the last juice to squeeze as more and more traffic moves to web based messaging

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      It still does.

      SMS is sent within unassigned space within management frames.

      Cell works kind of like ATM - Asynchronous Transfer Mode, which unlike packet-switched networks, continually transmits frames (even empty ones), as a means of ensuring stable, performant delivery.

      Like ATM, cell kind of does the same thing (that is, when it makes a connection).

      Within those frames are segments which are allocated for different purposes, someone got the great idea to transmit bits within a segment that wasn’t yet assigned to anything by the standard.

      Those segments can hold… 160 characters (IIRC), and for technical reasons, this became 140 characters (again, IIRC).

      So whenever your phone pings a tower, those frames get sent. From a bare transmission perspective, there’s no additional cost. The cost is on the backend hardware that extracts the SMS and the routing of it. So there’s some cost, but at 10 cents per message, there’s got to be 9.9 cents of gross profit (just guessing).