🚀 go-pugleaf

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> writes:

> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:87bpnvjiez.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:15:12 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>>> wrote in <87skh7dacf.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>:
>>>
>>>>Todd Allcock <elecconnec@aNOoSPAMl.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>> There are four national providers of wireless service.  We have more
>>>>> choice and selection in wireless than we do in breakfast cereals, and
>>>>> soft drinks.  When 12-packs of Coke and Pepsi sell for exactly the same
>>>>> $3.50 at the local grocer, that's the benefit of competition.
>>>>> When four
>>>>> wireless providers sell texts for the exact same $0.20 it's collusion?
>>>>
>>>>Explain why it is *exactly* $.20 when the cost is less than a penny.
>>>>...
>>>
>>> Proof?  Be sure to include *all* costs; i.e., the fully loaded cost of
>>> providing the service.  My guess is that the fully loaded cost is more
>>> like 5¢ per message.  There's also nothing wrong with having different
>>> margins on different (optional) services, with higher margins on text
>>> messaging service offsetting tight margins on basic voice service.
>>
>> I covered that earlier - aside from the radio link, it is no different
>> than email, which costs well under a penny per message unless the
>> message length is truly exorbitant.
>
> Why do you think it's "no different" than email?  I could argue that
> personally hand-delivering a letter to a friend 3000 miles away is "no
> different" than dropping it into a mailbox.  For me personally, who
> now doesn't have to fly, drive, or walk 3000 miles, it's much
> different, cheaper, and easier, to let the postal service handle it.

It is "no different" technically (we are excluding the use of the
radio link) because it is a store-and-foward system for moving
relatively short messages between computers.

I was referring to what it takes to implement such a system, not the
functionality or convenience it provides to users.

> Having said that, I'm certainly on the same page as you with respect
> to the costs involved.  Processing an SMS is much, much less than
> $0.20.  I'd actually argue that it's cheaper than cellular data
> (email, web browsing) because it uses a radio control channel to send
> messages that couldn't be used for voice anyway, whereas data usage
> competes with voice for "airspace."
>
> Unlike you, however, I don't believe any vendor has any obligation to
> tie "costs" to pricing.  It's a free market issue.  

The cell phone companies are getting exclusive use to a public resource
and for the public to grant them that, the agreement should be something
in the public's interest.

It is simply not a free market.


-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB