🚀 go-pugleaf

At 10 Jul 2009 10:56:00 -0700 Bill Z. wrote:

> >> Not necessarily.  What I was clearly objecting to was industry-wide
> >> unfair pricing.
> >
> > And many of us have explained that other competitors offer much lower
> > pricing.  How is that not an example of the marketplace at work?
> 
> They don't,

Apparently you won't be happy until someone offers a la carte texting for
$0.004- or are you holding out for $0.0035?  Many cheaper alternatives to
$0.20 texts exist,rgardless of hether or not you choose to acknowledge
them.

> and most of us have a very limited choice of carriers
> anyway.


You're in the Bay Area.  Exactly how are your choices "limited"?  You
have access to all four major carriers, a regional flatrate carier
(MetroPCS) and _countless_ MVNOs.

"Most of us"- over 90% of the population- are served by multiple carriers.


> >> Yes, there is a difference. M2Z may have made the request to the FCC,
> >> which could have then had a research group perform it.
> >
> > They may have, but you don't know.  My theory is at least as valid
> > as yours- probably more so since the FCC so far seems uninterested
> > in M2Z's petition.
> 
> Your "theory" was an ad hominem argument with no basis in fact, at
> least not in any fact you provided.  You assumed that a researcher
> lied because you did not like the results.

I didn't suggest they "lied", I suggested the survey was cherry-picked. 
In either case, neither of us knows if it was even applicable, since it
was published BEFORE recent spectrum auctions employing different rules.
 
> >> Since "Businesses are not altruistic", that is a good reason to
> >> regulate them when a handful control a market.
> >
> > Not really, unless you can demonstrate the regulation would be
> > beneficial. As explained tirelessly, consumers can opt for lower
> > messaging rates by switching carriers or buying bundles.
> 
> You can "explain tirelessly" all you want and it won't change the
> fact that you are showing all the characteristics of a shill.

Or just a satisfied customer, and a business person who is against
_unnecessary_ regulation.  I've sold plenty of goods and services with
gigantic markups, and plenty of items at or below their costs.  Market
conditions have both allowed the former and caused the latter with no
government oversight or interference required.  

I fully agree with part of your premise- a la carte texting is overpriced
by ANY reasonable standard.  So are airline baggage fees, and for the
same reason- to increase revnue in a competitive market.  It just means
consumers must consider the total costs of the goods and services they
consume.  Carriers are trying to supplement declining voice revenue with
ancillary services, and you can't argue with its success as a strategy.

That alone explains why no carrier has undercut each other's a la carte
pricing, and it has nothing do with price fixing or collusion.  The
"obvious" competitive force of driving prices towards wholesale costs you
continually alude to, works in a vaccum, but not a multi-faceted group of
interconnected services, like, as I continually repeat, automobile options,
movie popcorn, restaurant drink prices, etc.

A different retail pricing strategy doesn't "prove" collusion or price
fixing.

> > Besides, you still haven't made any suggestions as to HOW the carriers
> > should be regulated.  You've ignored any questions as to what a "fair"
> > price would be, and how carriers would compensate for any lost revenue
> > the "fair" pricing might sacrifice.
> 
> As I pointed out, the cost of the service is about 0.3 cents per
> message.  Draw the obvious conclusion.

Here's a conclusion: without a vast markup, there's no point selling it a
la carte at all.  Take rice.  There's very little incentive for retailers
to sell it by the kernal, so they sell it in 1-lb. bags.  The same could
be said of texting.  Something with such small individual cost makes more
sense to sell in "bags" of several hundred mesages.  And, lo and behold,
they do.  You can bet if a retailer ageed to ell individual grains of
rice it would be vastly overpriced comparitively as well. 
 
> >>> MVNOs don't provide their own messaging infrastructure, but purchase
> >>> texting wholesale from their infrastructure-carrier.  My PagePlus
> >>> prepaid phone, for example, has a Verizon address for email-to-SMS
> >>> delivery, not a "PagePlus" address.
> >>
> >> Again you are trying a non sequitur.
> >
> > And you're trying FUD.  
> 
> ROTFLMAO. Pointing out that your non sequitur is just that is not
> "FUD".

That wasn't the FUD- the FUD was insinuating that the major carriers
would attempt to block competitors by raising fees to terminte messages
on their network.  (They don't - the mobile message termination fee is a
fraction of a cent.)  You have no reason other than your own anti-
corporate prejudices to believe that would be a strategy.  I simply
pointed out MVNOs don't have their own messaging infrastructure, so a
message sent to/from an MVNO customer IS a message sent to/from a major
carrier, so mobile MT fees don't apply to them, except, perhaps, as a
slight adjustment to costs reflected in their wholesale fees.


> <rest of rant snipped and ignored>
 

(Sounds like a good policy on both sides.)

In essence, your entire argument comes down to "carriers all choose to
greatly markup a la carte texts, so they're obviously in cahoots, and
Something Should Be Done About It(tm)!"  That's it, period.  No
explanation they or any one else gives to rationalize the high charges
can satisfy you, and you offer no suggestion as to just what should be
done. This is like debating religion.  Not believing in angels prevents
me from rationally arguing with you just how many can comfortably dance
on the head of a pin.

Good luck with your crusade.  Look at the voice vs. data ARPU charts on
page 15 of the .pdf at <http://www.cheatnsharma.com/blog/2009/05/11/us-
wireless-data-market-update-q1-2009>- as voice revenue has dipped over
the past 5 years, text/data has compensated almost dollar for dollar.  
It stands to reason that lowering texting rates, either voluntarily or
involuntarily, would likely lead to higher monthly voice and/or non-
messaging data service charges to compensate for the industry to stay
where it is financially.

So, as they say, be careful what you wish for- you might surely get it...